Brad Guth's Credentials

Brad Guth wrote:
Eric Chomko;
Eyes have seen? You're no scientist, because eyes alone simply don't have
it! You've read a few sci-fi books and probably took too much acid in your
youth and believe the bull**** that you imagine.

But your eyes are entirely blocked by all of the crapolla that's upon
your mainstream status quo nose, thus obviously you only see, smell and
taste whatever's sufficiently brown, and pro-Jewish brown at that. Is
being genetically a born again bigot what qualifies yourself as a
scientist? or is merely associating one's self with other born again
bigots sufficient?


A real person clueless about astronomy.

What does "clueless about astronomy" have to do with deductive
observationology?
What does "clueless about astronomy" have to do with deductively
connecting the dots and/or pixels?
What does "clueless about astronomy" have to do with being a
subjectively honest human, especially as to those of us being
brown-nose deficient?


What is a comet made of?

Thus you still haven't a freaking clue as to the hard-science of raw
ice in space, meaning of what could have and should have been fully
tested and thereby proven as of 4+ decades ago is still every bit as
taboo/nondisclosure matter of disinformation facts that really doesn't
count. Since comets are extensively proven as not pre say being made
of ice, many have hardly any ice upon or within, and of many having
essentially no raw h2o ice or even salty ice whatsoever, and since
dry-ice doesn't count, therefore what's your pathetic point?

Do you have or know of an icy comet sample? or how about that of an
icy meteorite as a sample?

Temple-1 offered almost no surface ice (therefore said ice must have
been hidden deep within a geode pocket that's sealed tight).


Explain "terribly reactive moon" is other than your vague terms.

Other than being nicely surrounded by a slight but hardly insignificant
atmosphere of sodium that reaches out more than 14,000 km, with a much
closer surround of argon and that of Radon near the deck, it seems that
our moon is representing itself as a significant pile of mass, of which
cosmic and solar influx has pretty much a free run at creating those
secondary/recoil photons, many of which have been clearly identified as
the hard-X-ray class of photons, thus the term "REACTIVE" means
REACTIVE!, as in double extra duh REACTIVE, of the very same secondary
reactive factors that's TBI(total body irradiating) folks onboard ISS,
or as in nuclear energy of you name it reactive. How's that?

Good grief folks, our own USAF uses the moon as a calibration source of
their radiation detection instruments, some of which are specifically
designed to give the crew a fighting chance in a thermal nuclear tit
for tat, while others are for locating terrestrial hot-spots of nuclear
weapons that haven't been officially deployed. Do the reverse math and
you tell me how downright reactively hard-X-ray hot and nasty our solar
illuminated moon actually is.

BTW Sir brown-nosed fool on the hill; Radon gas is also a highly
reactive element all by itself.

There's also the secondary/recoil of relatively harmless but otherwise
extremely extra toasty IR that's reflected upon whatever or whomever is
situated upon the solar illuminated deck. Therefore, in addition to
the direct 1.4 kw/m2 of solar influx, there's perhaps a 33% IR albedo
worth of secondary/recoil worth of those extra IR photons to deal with,
except that it's no longer a distant point-source of IR dosage but that
which is made available for all that your sorry moonsuit body can see,
as coming from all directions off the extremely dark and nasty lunar
surface (that's certainly a lot of reactive/secondary IR to contend
with).

: Got anything as good as or better than the extremely old (aka
outdated
: and somewhat inert massive) 60:1 (rocket/payload) method of getting
: tonnes upon tonnes of stuff past LL-1 and into orbiting our terribly
: reactive moon within 3 days?

Why did you extract/focus upon the "reactive" part and not as to the
more important 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload portion?
-
Brad Guth


Bradley,

I've read your messages, responded, and watched you cherry pick their
said responses. I've asked you to prove your assertions, and you've
failed each time.

Therefore, I name thee LOON...

I shall ignore your scribblings from here on in...

and do something useful, like teaching squirrels to read and write.

respond however you like, I won't be reading it.

consider yourself plonked.

Bob