Terraforming the moon underground:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...olcanism_5.pdf

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:
It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior....

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

Those surface gamma spectrometer details obtained from orbit, giving
us a very good geology mineral map of the most easily accessible rare
elements, and a whole lot better understanding of those mascon issues,
suggesting that internal activity as well as via asteroid impacts have
created a highly complex and valuable cache of surface items for us to
mine, whereas with dozens of mostly robotic TBMs put hard at work, and
thereby safely operating deep into creating those underground secured
habitats by excavating and processing their spoils, is what represents
all sorts of mining and processing opportunities within easy reach,
not to mention the enormous value of simply utilizing its L1 and the
easily tethered dipole element that can reach from the lunar surface
and reaching out safely to within 6r of Earth.

Our NASA and DARPA simply didn't have to fake everything about our
moon, because they only had to fudge a little on those most risky
parts of their Apollo missions that we couldn't safely perform 40+
years ago (as supposedly having so much better capability and
reliability than we can accomplish nowadays), of which the best of
modern fly-by-rocket lander capability offers us a kind of zilch worth
of any viable fly-by-rocket lander that could be deployed and honestly
trusted to perform without a hitch. Perhaps by this time next year
we’ll have that failsafe fly-by-rocket lander in production.

"Just because the government lies, doesn't mean that everyone else is
telling the truth.” / Bast

However, accomplishing one-way soft or semi-hard landings and
obviously obtaining science via methods of impacting have been
technically doable, as have a limited degree of robotic accomplished
deployments on behalf of performing assorted science that's
unfortunately offered us extremely limited access to our public funded
science, especially since practically nothing of those instruments has
ever been established as fully interactive and as such having never
been allowed to be independently accessed and utilized for the greater
good by those of us outside of NASA, DARPA or even by anything
Russian, as for privately obtaining their very own direct and raw
science about the physically dark and naked surface of our
paramagnetic moon, which still remains as strictly closed-door or
simply nondisclosure/taboo rated. What little we think we know about
our moon is 100% derived from the victors of our mutually perpetrated
cold-war era, in that each side having numerous motives, means and
opportunity to snooker and dumbfound us into accepting and obviously
paying for everything.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 18, 11:17*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:









It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

Those surface gamma spectrometer details obtained from orbit, giving
us a very good geology mineral map of the most easily accessible rare
elements, and a whole lot better understanding of those mascon issues,
suggesting that internal activity as well as via asteroid impacts have
created a highly complex and valuable cache of surface items for us to
mine, whereas with dozens of mostly robotic TBMs put hard at work, and
thereby safely operating deep into creating those underground secured
habitats by excavating and processing their spoils, is what represents
all sorts of mining and processing opportunities within easy reach,
not to mention the enormous value of simply utilizing its L1 and the
easily tethered dipole element that can reach from the lunar surface
and reaching out safely to within 6r of Earth.

Our NASA and DARPA simply didn't have to fake everything about our
moon, because they only had to fudge a little on those most risky
parts of their Apollo missions that we couldn't safely perform 40+
years ago (as supposedly having so much better capability and
reliability than we can accomplish nowadays), of which the best of
modern fly-by-rocket lander capability offers us a kind of zilch worth
of any viable fly-by-rocket lander that could be deployed and honestly
trusted to perform without a hitch. *Perhaps by this time next year
we’ll have that failsafe fly-by-rocket lander in production.

"Just because the government lies, doesn't mean that everyone else is
telling the truth.” / Bast

However, accomplishing one-way soft or semi-hard landings and
obviously obtaining science via methods of impacting have been
technically doable, as have a limited degree of robotic accomplished
deployments on behalf of performing assorted science that's
unfortunately offered us extremely limited access to our public funded
science, especially since practically nothing of those instruments has
ever been established as fully interactive and as such having never
been allowed to be independently accessed and utilized for the greater
good by those of us outside of NASA, DARPA or even by anything
Russian, as for privately obtaining their very own direct and raw
science about the physically dark and naked surface of our
paramagnetic moon, which still remains as strictly closed-door or
simply nondisclosure/taboo rated. *What little we think we know about
our moon is 100% derived from the victors of our mutually perpetrated
cold-war era, in that each side having numerous motives, means and
opportunity to snooker and dumbfound us into accepting and obviously
paying for everything.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Incoming asteroids: “This isn't over“, and nowadays it’s becoming a
matter of how often those 1+ tonne rocks arrive. Fortunately most
haven’t been of any sufficient metallicity density, as otherwise we’d
be having to deal with those pesky craters from their impacts in
addition to their supersonic entry of explosive shockwaves.

The arriving Sirius Oort cloud should offer at least a million times
as many items as our Oort cloud has to offer, and perhaps on average
offering a thousand times greater individual mass than items of our
own Oort cloud has to offer. Most of us have no idea as to how
massive those Sirius stars were to begin with, and we apparently don’t
want to even contemplate as to the vast extent and massive nature of
what its 8 light year radius Oort cloud has to offer as it encounters
our Oort cloud.

This latest episode of asteroid encounters is becoming more than once
a day that a 10+ tonne rock is directed at us or otherwise encountered
by Earth. Is this going to be considered as too often or about right?

Obviously our planet encounters thousands of those kg or less massive
items most every day (for the most part vaporizing well before surface
contact), although lucky us because, apparently not much of anything
encountered Earth or that of our naked moon throughout all of the
Apollo era (even the sun remained passive, w/o UV or X-rays according
to all of their Kodak film, not to mention local gamma and hard-X-rays
were never an issue, as well as any contrast or dynamic range
limitations of their Kodak film).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite
According to many others that extensively research into this influx,
whereas roughly 3650 thousand tonnes of stuff gets encountered by our
planet every year (10,000 tonnes/day), and fortunately the vast
majority (99.9%) being of items less than a kg that for the most part
never reach the surface, although some meteorite remainders plus loads
of the really small and low density stuff does manage to filter
through. That’s getting those bigger than kg items down to the dull
roar of perhaps 3650 tonnes per year or 10 tonnes/day that we’ll get
to duck and take cover from, with perhaps only a small percentage
(less than 25%) of that mass surviving its atmospheric entry enough to
impact or land on the surface. Of course those of bigger than 10
tonne items stand a somewhat better chance of getting through and
landing on the surface, especially if comprised of fused basalt or
carbonado along with a sufficient percentage of heavy metals that make
them diamagnetic or even paramagnetic.

There’s actually several teratonnes of paramagnetic basalt from
encountering and capturing our physically dark moon, that’s easily
accessible right on or near the surface and otherwise mostly hidden
under oceans of water. Now that’s what a real nasty asteroid
encounter can deliver in addition to its ice and considerable
lithobraking trauma, is another ocean basin and a little extra
seasonal tilt in addition to depositing teratonnes of new material
that’ll stick mostly with Earth, rather than cling to any captured
asteroids or moon. At least according to our NASA/Apollo era of their
supposedly objectively exploring the naked surface of our moon,
whereas something cleaned off the vast majority of its lose material.

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:
It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior....

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

It’s always amazing how topics associated with the investigative
exploitation of our moon, Venus or even that of utilizing their L1 or
L2, has been so systematically policy taboo/nondisclosure controlled
by those of our mainstream status-quo facade of authority, in that
any honest attempt of a given topic to expose is automatically
forbidden (other than being topic/author stalked and trashed for all
those at risk of façade exposure can muster).

As soon as any topic or its author is the least bit suggestive that
our government is capable of not having told us the whole truth about
anything, a gauntlet of all sorts of topic/author stalking hell breaks
loose on behalf of mainstream damage-control.

Of course we also do not see any K-12s anywhere within public Usenet/
newsgroups for a darn good reason, because freedom of speech is
actually managed as something entirely conditional as to the audience
at hand. This is also why most institutionalized prisoners are never
given internet access as to any public forums or mainstream media that
might offer an audience that isn’t being controlled or manipulated,
and most Americans as well as other Nations of oligarch controlled
intellect seem to like it that way.

Social media forums like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ are
equally managed on a client by client basis, of receiving context as
well as for transmitting information to any other given client or
group/circle of friends, making it really quite downright handy for
our NSA/CIA and you name it agency or special-interest group of
pretentious or self-righteous authority to monitor as well as to step
right in and covertly control opr dominate any given situation,
because public publishing of too much truth isn’t actually tolerated.
Nowadays, mainstream internet and especially intranet servers are
capable of managing each individual client, as to whatever they get to
see, because most Americans are simply not smart enough to get past
the mainstream façade.

“Façade is an artificial intelligence-based art/research experiment in
electronic narrative – an attempt to move beyond traditional branching
or hyper-linked ...”

Façade/facade: “An artificial or deceptive front: ideological slogans
that were a façade for geopolitical power struggles.”

Most proxy wars are essentially façades for reasons that the general
public isn’t allowed to discover, and the ongoing ruse and usually FUD
involved within our mainstream façade, is quite real, as is the faith-
based façade that’s continually indoctrinated into us from birth to
grave.

On the other positive/constructive hand; where’s the down side to off-
world exploitations?

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software,
as to viewing this one small but rather interesting area of Venus,
using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or magnify
this mountainous area of Venus that I’ve focused upon, shouldn’t be
asking too much. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic
software variations tend to accomplish this enlargement process
automatically (including iPhone and Safari), although some extra
filtering and dynamic range compensations can further improve on the
end result (no direct pixel modifications are ever necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”, GuthVenus

How many recall my LSE-CM/ISS, of efficiently getting stuff to/from
our moon.

On Feb 18, 11:54*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:17*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

Those surface gamma spectrometer details obtained from orbit, giving
us a very good geology mineral map of the most easily accessible rare
elements, and a whole lot better understanding of those mascon issues,
suggesting that internal activity as well as via asteroid impacts have
created a highly complex and valuable cache of surface items for us to
mine, whereas with dozens of mostly robotic TBMs put hard at work, and
thereby safely operating deep into creating those underground secured
habitats by excavating and processing their spoils, is what represents
all sorts of mining and processing opportunities within easy reach,
not to mention the enormous value of simply utilizing its L1 and the
easily tethered dipole element that can reach from the lunar surface
and reaching out safely to within 6r of Earth.

Our NASA and DARPA simply didn't have to fake everything about our
moon, because they only had to fudge a little on those most risky
parts of their Apollo missions that we couldn't safely perform 40+
years ago (as supposedly having so much better capability and
reliability than we can accomplish nowadays), of which the best of
modern fly-by-rocket lander capability offers us a kind of zilch worth
of any viable fly-by-rocket lander that could be deployed and honestly
trusted to perform without a hitch. *Perhaps by this time next year
we’ll have that failsafe fly-by-rocket lander in production.

"Just because the government lies, doesn't mean that everyone else is
telling the truth.” / Bast

However, accomplishing one-way soft or semi-hard landings and
obviously obtaining science via methods of impacting have been
technically doable, as have a limited degree of robotic accomplished
deployments on behalf of performing assorted science that's
unfortunately offered us extremely limited access to our public funded
science, especially since practically nothing of those instruments has
ever been established as fully interactive and as such having never
been allowed to be independently accessed and utilized for the greater
good by those of us outside of NASA, DARPA or even by anything
Russian, as for privately obtaining their very own direct and raw
science about the physically dark and naked surface of our
paramagnetic moon, which still remains as strictly closed-door or
simply nondisclosure/taboo rated. *What little we think we know about
our moon is 100% derived from the victors of our mutually perpetrated
cold-war era, in that each side having numerous motives, means and
opportunity to snooker and dumbfound us into accepting and obviously
paying for everything.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Incoming asteroids: “This isn't over“, and nowadays it’s becoming a
matter of how often those 1+ tonne rocks arrive. *Fortunately most
haven’t been of any sufficient metallicity density, as otherwise we’d
be having to deal with those pesky craters from their impacts in
addition to their supersonic entry of explosive shockwaves.

The arriving Sirius Oort cloud should offer at least a million times
as many items as our Oort cloud has to offer, and perhaps on average
offering a thousand times greater individual mass than items of our
own Oort cloud has to offer. *Most of us have no idea as to how
massive those Sirius stars were to begin with, and we apparently don’t
want to even contemplate as to the vast extent and massive nature of
what its 8 light year radius Oort cloud has to offer as it encounters
our Oort cloud.

This latest episode *of asteroid encounters is becoming more than once
a day that a 10+ tonne rock is directed at us or otherwise encountered
by Earth. *Is this going to be considered as too often or about right?

Obviously our planet encounters thousands of those kg or less massive
items most every day (for the most part vaporizing well before surface
contact), although lucky us because, apparently not much of anything
encountered Earth or that of our naked moon throughout all of the
Apollo era (even the sun remained passive, w/o UV or X-rays according
to all of their Kodak film, not to mention local gamma and hard-X-rays
were never an issue, as well as any contrast or dynamic range
limitations of their Kodak film).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite
*According to many others that extensively research into this influx,
whereas roughly 3650 thousand tonnes of stuff gets encountered by our
planet every year (10,000 tonnes/day), and fortunately the vast
majority (99.9%) being of items less than a kg that for the most part
never reach the surface, although some meteorite remainders plus loads
of the really small and low density stuff does manage to filter
through. *That’s getting those bigger than kg items down to the dull
roar of perhaps 3650 tonnes per year or 10 tonnes/day that we’ll get
to duck and take cover from, with perhaps only a small percentage
(less than 25%) of that mass surviving its atmospheric entry enough to
impact or land on the surface. *Of course those of bigger than 10
tonne items stand a somewhat better chance of getting through and
landing on the surface, especially if comprised of fused basalt or
carbonado along with a sufficient percentage of heavy metals that make
them diamagnetic or even paramagnetic.

There’s actually several teratonnes of paramagnetic basalt from
encountering and capturing our physically dark moon, that’s easily
accessible right on or near the surface and otherwise mostly hidden
under oceans of water. *Now that’s what a real nasty asteroid
encounter can deliver in addition to its ice and considerable
lithobraking trauma, is another ocean basin and a little extra
seasonal tilt in addition to depositing teratonnes of new material
that’ll stick mostly with Earth, rather than cling to any captured
asteroids or moon. *At least according to our NASA/Apollo era of their
supposedly objectively exploring the naked surface of our moon,
whereas something cleaned off the vast majority of its lose material.

Off-world terraforming shouldn't be restricted as for accommodating
Goldilocks, because that would be really stupid as to exclude the
other 99.9% of planets and moons suitable for robotic exploitation and
technical habitats for science and whatever human expertise needed in
addition to the robotics.


On Feb 26, 4:28*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

It’s always amazing how topics associated with the investigative
exploitation of our moon, Venus or even that of utilizing their L1 or
L2, has been so systematically policy taboo/nondisclosure controlled
by those of our mainstream status-quo facade of *authority, in that
any honest attempt of a given topic to expose is automatically
forbidden (other than being topic/author stalked and trashed for all
those at risk of façade exposure can muster).

As soon as any topic or its author is the least bit suggestive that
our government is capable of not having told us the whole truth about
anything, a gauntlet of all sorts of topic/author stalking hell breaks
loose on behalf of mainstream damage-control.

Of course we also do not see any K-12s anywhere within public Usenet/
newsgroups for a darn good reason, because freedom of speech is
actually managed as something entirely conditional as to the audience
at hand. *This is also why most institutionalized prisoners are never
given internet access as to any public forums or mainstream media that
might offer an audience that isn’t being controlled or manipulated,
and most Americans as well as other Nations of oligarch controlled
intellect seem to like it that way.

Social media forums like Facebook, Twitter *and even Google+ are
equally managed on a client by client basis, of receiving context as
well as for transmitting information to any other given client or
group/circle of friends, making it really quite downright handy for
our NSA/CIA and you name it agency or special-interest group of
pretentious or self-righteous authority to monitor as well as to step
right in and covertly control opr dominate any given situation,
because public publishing of too much truth isn’t actually tolerated.
Nowadays, mainstream internet and especially intranet servers are
capable of managing each individual client, as to whatever they get to
see, because most Americans are simply not smart enough to get past
the mainstream façade.

“Façade is an artificial intelligence-based art/research experiment in
electronic narrative – an attempt to move beyond traditional branching
or hyper-linked ...”

Façade/facade: “An artificial or deceptive front: ideological slogans
that were a façade for geopolitical power struggles.”

Most proxy wars are essentially façades for reasons that the general
public isn’t allowed to discover, and the ongoing ruse and usually FUD
involved within our mainstream façade, is quite real, as is the faith-
based façade that’s continually indoctrinated into us from birth to
grave.

On the other positive/constructive hand; *where’s the down side to off-
world exploitations?

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software,
as to viewing this one small but rather interesting area of Venus,
using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or magnify
this mountainous area of Venus that I’ve focused upon, shouldn’t be
asking too much. *Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic
software variations tend to accomplish this enlargement process
automatically (including iPhone and Safari), although some extra
filtering and dynamic range compensations can further improve on the
end result (no direct pixel modifications are ever necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow....

*http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”, GuthVenus

On Feb 27, 12:02*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
Off-world terraforming shouldn't be restricted as for accommodating
Goldilocks, because that would be really stupid as to exclude the
other 99.9% of planets and moons suitable for robotic exploitation and
technical habitats for science and whatever human expertise needed in
addition to the robotics.

On Feb 26, 4:28*am, Brad Guth wrote:







On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

It’s always amazing how topics associated with the investigative
exploitation of our moon, Venus or even that of utilizing their L1 or
L2, has been so systematically policy taboo/nondisclosure controlled
by those of our mainstream status-quo facade of *authority, in that
any honest attempt of a given topic to expose is automatically
forbidden (other than being topic/author stalked and trashed for all
those at risk of façade exposure can muster).

As soon as any topic or its author is the least bit suggestive that
our government is capable of not having told us the whole truth about
anything, a gauntlet of all sorts of topic/author stalking hell breaks
loose on behalf of mainstream damage-control.

Of course we also do not see any K-12s anywhere within public Usenet/
newsgroups for a darn good reason, because freedom of speech is
actually managed as something entirely conditional as to the audience
at hand. *This is also why most institutionalized prisoners are never
given internet access as to any public forums or mainstream media that
might offer an audience that isn’t being controlled or manipulated,
and most Americans as well as other Nations of oligarch controlled
intellect seem to like it that way.

Social media forums like Facebook, Twitter *and even Google+ are
equally managed on a client by client basis, of receiving context as
well as for transmitting information to any other given client or
group/circle of friends, making it really quite downright handy for
our NSA/CIA and you name it agency or special-interest group of
pretentious or self-righteous authority to monitor as well as to step
right in and covertly control opr dominate any given situation,
because public publishing of too much truth isn’t actually tolerated.
Nowadays, mainstream internet and especially intranet servers are
capable of managing each individual client, as to whatever they get to
see, because most Americans are simply not smart enough to get past
the mainstream façade.

“Façade is an artificial intelligence-based art/research experiment in
electronic narrative – an attempt to move beyond traditional branching
or hyper-linked ...”

Façade/facade: “An artificial or deceptive front: ideological slogans
that were a façade for geopolitical power struggles.”

Most proxy wars are essentially façades for reasons that the general
public isn’t allowed to discover, and the ongoing ruse and usually FUD
involved within our mainstream façade, is quite real, as is the faith-
based façade that’s continually

...

read more »

Requiring more needless technology just because you're afraid that
kind of technology won't be used on earth (for other than drone
technology), is no excuse for giving up Goldilocks R&D, especially if
the nasty eugenicist, globalist science of technocracy is gaining
steam worldwide, and 'drone kills' are actually becoming a sign of
nationalistic pride (like Nazi) when Americans turn on themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEL2C6oCg8

Homeland Security sending out drones to check on private gun sales,
casting gun owners as criminals. Where are Americans as "patriots"
with drone strikes on U.S. soil??? Yet our own G. Groups is where/when
this kind of technocracy runs amok:

http://groups.google.com/group/drones-discuss
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...8ff88f10399334

IMO this sets a bad example for validating anything THIS country might
be trying to achieve off-world. But if it's some kind of twisted pop
culture that's driving the glorification of these pseudo-gamers or
remote operators worldwide, then what the hell is in it for the rest
of us???

On Feb 27, 10:15*am, nartrof seven wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:02*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Off-world terraforming shouldn't be restricted as for accommodating
Goldilocks, because that would be really stupid as to exclude the
other 99.9% of planets and moons suitable for robotic exploitation and
technical habitats for science and whatever human expertise needed in
addition to the robotics.

On Feb 26, 4:28*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

Off-world terraforming shouldn't be restricted as only for
accommodating Goldilocks, because that would be really pathetic or
just plain stupid, as to exclude or banish the other 99.9% of planets
and moons suitable for robotic exploitation and even special logistic
habitats for accommodating engineering, science and whatever human
technical expertise needed in addition to their robotics.

The nearly 50 km or 30 mile wide comet/asteroid that has a high
probability of encountering Mars late in 2014 could go either way, as
very badly or conceivably contribute to whatever Mars already has to
offer. Even a near-miss should cause a partial breakup of this comet
and cause considerable seismic trauma if it passed within 1.1r (339 km
above the surface).

“comet C/2013 A1 will buzz Mars on Oct. 19, 2014”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1

There’s even a slim possibility of a glancing blow that’ll lithobrake
and enable Mars to capture most of the icy and solid remainders of
this one, leaving Mars with a seriously big dent, a greater seasonal
tilt and/or possibly some measurable orbital shift, as well as a
percentage of the secondary shards coming our way. If the body and
core of this one is mostly ice, means that the average density isn’t
going to be much greater than 1 g/cm3. However, it could host a 25 km
solid core of nickel-iron, and that’s going to be capable of
delivering a lethal blow that could mess up the atmosphere of Mars for
several years.

Meanwhile, our physically dark and naked moon with its mostly
paramagnetic basalt crust that’s way tougher than the crust of Earth,
as well as the extremely nearby planet Venus have lots to offer as is.


On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:
It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior....

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

On Feb 27, 1:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:15*am, nartrof seven wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:02*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Off-world terraforming shouldn't be restricted as for accommodating
Goldilocks, because that would be really stupid as to exclude the
other 99.9% of planets and moons suitable for robotic exploitation and
technical habitats for science and whatever human expertise needed in
addition to the robotics.

On Feb 26, 4:28*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon..
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

It’s always amazing how topics associated with the investigative
exploitation of our moon, Venus or even that of utilizing their L1 or
L2, has been so systematically policy taboo/nondisclosure controlled
by those of our mainstream status-quo facade of *authority, in that
any honest attempt of a given topic to expose is automatically
forbidden (other than being topic/author stalked and trashed for all
those at risk of façade exposure can muster).

As soon as any topic or its author is the least bit suggestive that
our government is capable of not having told us the whole truth about
anything, a gauntlet of all sorts of topic/author stalking hell breaks
loose on behalf of mainstream damage-control.

Of course we also do not see any K-12s anywhere within public Usenet/
newsgroups for a darn good reason, because freedom of speech is
actually managed as something entirely conditional as to the audience
at hand. *This is also why most institutionalized prisoners are never
given internet access as to any public forums or mainstream media that
might offer an audience that isn’t being controlled or manipulated,
and most Americans as well as other Nations of oligarch controlled
intellect seem to like it that way.

Social media forums like Facebook, Twitter *and even Google+ are
equally managed on a client by client basis, of receiving context as
well as for transmitting information to any other given client or
group/circle of friends, making it really quite downright handy for
our NSA/CIA and you name it agency or special-interest group of
pretentious or self-righteous authority to monitor as well as to step
right in and covertly control opr dominate any given situation,
because public publishing of too much truth isn’t actually tolerated.
Nowadays, mainstream internet and especially intranet servers are
capable of managing each individual client, as to whatever they get to
see, because most Americans are simply not smart enough to get past
the mainstream façade.

“Façade is an artificial intelligence-based art/research experiment in
electronic narrative – an attempt to move beyond traditional branching
or hyper-linked ...”

Façade/facade: “An artificial or deceptive front: ideological slogans
that were a façade for geopolitical power struggles.”

Most proxy wars are essentially façades for reasons that the general
public isn’t allowed to discover, and the ongoing ruse and usually FUD
involved within our mainstream façade, is quite real, as is the faith-
based façade that’s continually

...

read more »

Requiring more needless technology just because you're afraid that
kind of technology won't be used on earth (for other than drone
technology), is no excuse for giving up Goldilocks R&D, especially if
the nasty eugenicist, globalist science of technocracy is gaining
steam worldwide, and 'drone kills' are actually becoming a sign of
nationalistic pride (like Nazi) when Americans turn on themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEL2C6oCg8

Homeland Security sending out drones to check on private gun sales,
casting gun owners as criminals. Where are Americans as "patriots"
with drone strikes on U.S. soil??? Yet our own G. Groups is where/when
this kind of technocracy runs amok:

http://groups.google.com/group/drone...ups.google.com...

IMO this sets a bad example for validating anything THIS country might
be trying to achieve off-world. But if it's some kind of twisted pop
culture that's driving the glorification of these pseudo-gamers or
remote operators worldwide, then what the hell is in it for the rest
of us???

Indeed, we have more than our fair share of terrestrial and domestic
issues that we need to contend with, but not each and every soul on
Earth has to devote their personal resources and talents into
resolving those issues, even though they should.

I would love seeing most of the oligarch orchestrated FUD and their
cloak and dagger skulduggery terminated, but since I'm not an upper
caste oligarch is perhaps why anything you or I do isn't going to make
a significant difference, if anything at all better for the world.

Do you have a plan for avoiding the next proxy war and otherwise
salvaging our frail environment?

WHY WOULD an Air Force of the "In God We Trust" states of the supposed
United States, be interested only in terrestrial strikes, when there
are at least 1/3 of fallen angels to contend with, who have possessed
humanity, and are clandestinely operating as Luciferians world-wide?
Is it because our leaders forgot that we were involved in a spiritual
battle, and not exactly a "gun sales" one? Or is it that gun ownership
is just some youthful extension of executing the situational ethic of
final judgement more, than the mature effort of a social science, that
goes into building drones?

IMO we're looking at our population curve in slow-motion BACKWARDS,
and should now be letting the older, wiser technology lead the way -
but since the way that money has been made throughout most all of
recent history, only popular culture seems to be getting most of the
attention - which is probably why the drones are getting so much
attention. But it strictly doesn't have to be a military thing, as
much as 'para-military'. That's probably where the 'rubber meets the
road' for pushing the adaptive-technology envelope, but I'm not all
that sure that most of the legalizing airspace non-taxpaying
authorities would agree.

That is where the battle line needs to be drawn - in the airspace.

The rising of military pride and/or nationalism happens, when more
Americans believe that drones are useful "killing machines", rather
than "remote observation posts". There is an ENEMY WITHIN that refuses
or cannot expand territorily beyond earth orbit, as long as any
observer of these "distractions" can bring CREDIBILITY to the markets
endorsing them as being more "regionally conflicting" than "newly
colonial and revolutionary".

Patriotism (or love of country) should not be confused with
nationalism, or a desire to "out" the other. One of the
characteristics of an advanced society is the ability of that society
to take care of those who are less fortunate, or prosperous, than
those who are despots.

The other, less known characteristic of an advanced society, is that
it will always be willing to reinvent itself, and get rid of the
useless red tape, that weighs it down in achieving the most
environmentally friendly geography, airspace, or even solar system.

Anti-Drone Weaponry for Interstellar Propulsion System Adaptation
Adherents

The understanding of closed circuit electrons, moving around in
completely manipulated systems of inprisoning components, ignores open
circuit interactions that can be used as collection systems of
aetheristic radiant energy. Motor-in-the-magnet energy can become
reduced to electromagnetic or ion fields of the engineer's own 'non-
closed system' of electronic design.

For example, instantaneous transmission of gravitational virtual
quanta can enable virtual remote control of saucer-shaped, anti-drone
disks, which can travel at extremely high velocity: ~25 mi/sec, within
a 1,000 mile radius of operation. Miniature cold fusion power systems
installed at the base of each ionically charged disc, supplies an
unlimited supply of energy for each anti-drone and each anti-drone's
weaponized hi-powered Star-Wars laser system:

http://www.politomatic.com/news/lase...tar-wars-plan/

Real time terrain imaging is navigated by coordinating with landmarks
and/or monitoring of remote GPS-location, while the propulsion system
acquires the gravimetric for negative ion propulsion. Each gravimetric
can be resolved to within + or - 2% according to the time of day:

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9448/gravimap.jpg

Once the target has been identified using motion-sensitive hi-speed
SAR, coordinates of the enemy drone are locked into the anti-drone's
remote tracking system. Within seconds upon arrival into an affected
area, proximity-located drones can be eliminated within seconds, as
new targets are acquired, again retreating the anti-drone into a
stationary observation point, and refreshing the SAR screen of the
remote operator.