Re: ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions

[Brad Guth]

Jim Davis > wrote in message >...
> Jay Windley wrote:
>
> >| and of technical documentation of the 1/6th gravity
> >| scaled lander
> >
> > I have heard many assertions to the effect that "the blueprints"
> > for the lunar module, the Saturn V, the LRV, and other important
> > Apollo hardware was destroyed.
>
> Perhaps some explanation is in order here, Jay. Brad has gotten the
> notion into his head that there were such things as "1/6th gravity
> scaled landers". This is *probably* (but who can tell with Brad?) a
> confused description of the LLTVs and LLRVs. Brad has seen videos of
> the various crashes of these vehicles, but has never seen a video of
> a successful flight. Brad has asked that he be provided with such
> videos. Since no one has bothered to do his leg work for him and
> provide these videos, Brad has concluded that no successful flights
> were made by the "1/6th gravity scaled landers" and therefore no
> successful lunar landings were made.
>
> Brad's term for people that refuse to do his research for him is
> "NASA moles".
>
> Jim Davis

That's not at all the case. I'll accept your flak and/or a
disagreement as long as you've given some form of reference for
supporting that stance. It seems I'm not the bad guy here, I'm just
not as smart as you, as such I'll need to be taken by the hand and
shown at least where to look, as others (thousands) have apparently
been trying to get this same information for decades, so that makes me
a rather late bloomer because, up until roughly three years ago, I'd
swear we'd been there and done that lunar thing, nearly without a
hitch.

BTW, there certainly was a prototype 1/6th gravity scaled lander (I
saw it), to be pilotted and test flown for all the right and logical
reasons. Only problem being is that it bought the farm.

All that I've ever asked of those opposing the idea that I've
discovered something of interest on Venus, of those insisting there's
absolutely nothing whatsoever existing on Venus other than hot rock
are oddly the very same folks insisting that we somehow went to and
walked on the moon, even though oddly there's a black hole of the
documentation for making that happen, that's in spite of the fact that
Walter Cronkite and myself were right there, whatever uncle Walter saw
and heard I too did, yet looking back and trying to put two and two
together simply isn't working anymore, as there was way too much
radiation and thermal stress involved with that film to have been so
unaffected, none of which matters if the 1/6th scaled prototype lander
never functioned other than for crash testing, as that part it
accomplished quite nicely.

The actual lunar lander was dealing with a relatively high center of
gravity, a variable center of gravity at that and, I don't recall ever
seeing any (X/Y) mass stabilisation gyros within the description, nor
was there any demonstration of the lander having to function in a
speedy down-range gravity situation.

Good grief, we still can't hardly keep those V22 Ospreys in the air.

Offer a specific document number and/or a URL page and I'll not only
read it but I'll post that sort of data (full context) from a link on
my index page.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

[Brad Guth]

wrote in message >...
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote in message >...
> > > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > OM
> > >>
> > >> is that the only way you get a stiffy, ob?
> > >
> > >Scott , why do you waste your time with these assholes ? They don't
> > >want to see the truth.
> >
> > ...Gee, another Maxson sock puppet. Go **** yourself, John.
> >
> >
> > OM
>
> toilet. turd. bm. (bob mosley) have a nice day!

Don't mind Mr. OM, it's a genetic problem.

BTW; I've gotten some headway on truthful space-travel radiation and
upon a few other facts that I've learned. Seems those opposing
absolutely anything and everything pertaining to Venus are, lo and
behold, these are the very same folks giving you and myself difficulty
on Apollo issues.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

[Brad Guth]

As provided by: Jay Windley | webmaster @ clavius.org
www.spacecraftfilms.com
http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html

I looked, I read some and, I'll certainly post these two links which
you so kindly offered as your best "proof positive".

The technical information on the theory of modern rocket stability
(perfected late 70s, though modulated is still in R&D) is certainly
good as gold, as long as absolutely every modulated thruster functions
exactly according to spec and there's no other variables, same goes
for those V22 Ospreys (no room for error, as there's nothing surplus
to go around).

However, if in fact those test flights were supposedly so darn
terrific, even if they were problematic, I'd still like to see a film
documentary on a typical test flight, wherein having the craft doing a
speedy approach decent, then continuing down-range, alluding bad
terrain by controlling it's flight and landing safely. Seems like if
they did so many test flights, there should be hours worth of combined
flight time recorded on film (198 X 3 minutes each = 594 minutes),
from several cameras (on the ground as well as from onboard, at least
that's what I would have expected), so where exactly is the stash of
film or even a substantially reduced movie preview of even the good
parts.

Seems that every national and international news program and certainly
of aviation publications of any worth would have paid serious big
bucks for having access to such film, as we were banking and/or
betting the entire cold-war farm on those craft becoming 6 times
greater in mass and functioning without a hitch on the moon, not only
landing in one piece but subsequently a portion thereof lifting off
and the crew coming home, in spite of all the radiation and in spite
of all the +/- 250 degrees (F) worth of thermal stress (that's not
only a neat trick for plastic film but, also a darn good one for the
thin aluminum (nearly foil) construction of the lander itself (half
smoking hot at +250 degrees while the other half being seriously
frozen at a subarctic -250 degrees), of flat panels no less, showing
no distorts or buckling (certainly can't do that one on Earth).

On those pages, I saw terrific graphics and simply superb page of HTML
code, though oddly, I saw no such film posted nor even a preview of
any prototype lander footage that's showing what so many others and
I'm after. Perhaps that why you're so smart an I'm not, as I simply
can't seem to identify one iota of film sequence that supports the
necessary requirements, whereas you can but simply can't seem to point
it out to anyone other.

BTW; I didn't realize there were 4 symmetrically located fuel tanks,
not just the two (port/stbd) depicted in your graphic, as otherwise
your yardstick analogy wouldn't work so terrific in the fore/aft axis.
Then also there's something to being said for the fuel burn-off, as
representing a great deal of mass that's all the sudden become
extremely variable and, in a very big way. Though fly-by-wire sensors
and computers of today can manage such variables, I see nothing of a
modulated thrust control that would have been discreet enough to have
managed from late 60s rocket technology. Once again, I'm the one
that's not smart enough to see what's obviously well documented, out
there somewhere.

Perhaps I'll need to look further, since so many others like yourself
can't be more specific, as I'm sure that you're not intentionally
alluding this quest, as that would place you into the pro-NASA
Borg/mole category and, I believe you've stated that's not the case.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| The actual lunar lander was dealing with a relatively
| high center of gravity

No. This is simply what the most popular conspiracy theorists say. Ask
them to show you their mass properties analysis that shows the LM had a high
center of gravity and they'll either run and hide, or look at you like
you've just spoken to them in Chinese.

As a matter of fact the LM had a very LOW center of gravity compared to its
center of thrust. The LM is an inherently stable design.

| a variable center of gravity at that ...

As have all rockets. Guidance for variable-mass, variable-c.g. vehicles was
solved in the 1930s and 1940s.

| I don't recall ever
| seeing any (X/Y) mass stabilisation gyros within the description

Straw man. "One of several potential means of stabilization wasn't
provided, therefore there wasn't any means of stabilization." Please
discuss the stabilization techniques that WERE used.

| nor was there any demonstration of the lander having to
| function in a speedy down-range gravity situation.

What on earth (or on the moon, for that matter) are you taking about?

| Good grief, we still can't hardly keep those V22 Ospreys
| in the air.

Different set of problems; vague and superficial similarities.

| Offer a specific document number and/or a URL page and I'll
| not only read it but I'll post that sort of data (full context)
| from a link on my index page.

I gave you the name, address, and telephone number of the professional
historian charged with maintaining the records of those test flights, as
well as the name, address, and telephone number of one of the pilots of
those vehicles. Why haven't you used that? Are you really so foolish as to
believe it doesn't exist unless it has a URL?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| I looked, I read some and, I'll certainly post these two
| links which you so kindly offered as your best "proof positive".

I'm not sure I would characterize them as the "best" proof. What I find
most interesting about this information is how easy it was to obtain, and
how silent the conspiracy theorists are about it. They clearly did little
or no research on their claims regarding the LLTV. In fact, I'm hard
pressed to find anything on which they've done a significant amount of
research. They mostly just quote each other as "authorities" while making
it up as they go.

| The technical information on the theory of modern rocket stability
| (perfected late 70s, though modulated is still in R&D) ...

You're obviously completely unfamiliar with the work of Robert Goddard.

| as long as absolutely every modulated thruster functions
| exactly according to spec ...

Keep your straw men out of the picture. The astronauts trained to deal with
failed thrusters and stuck-open thrusters, especially after Armstrong's
Gemini flight. RCS-based flight stabilization is not as volatile as you
seem to believe.

| However, if in fact those test flights were supposedly so darn
| terrific, even if they were problematic, I'd still like to see
| a film documentary on a typical test flight ...

As I already said, obtain the Apollo 11 DVD set from SpacecraftFilms.com.
Go to Disc 3, select "Bonus Materials" and then "Lunar Landing Training
Vehicle Flights". You'll see the vehice manage several abrupt attitude
changes, hundreds of feet of altitude, and considerable forward and lateral
velocity. There are several minutes worth of flight film.

It's clear by your implication that the LLTVs were hard to fly or inherently
problematic, that you've never seen anything except the six-second clip of
Armstrong's crash that the conspiracists show you. They got that clip from
the same source that Mark Gray consulted for the lengthier, more
representative clips that he provides on the DVDs. But the conspiracists,
for some reason, found it unnecessary to use it.

| there should be hours worth of combined flight time recorded on
| film (198 X 3 minutes each = 594 minutes), from several cameras
| (on the ground as well as from onboard, at least that's what I would
| have expected)

Every flight was filmed from the ground. There was no onboard camera.
However, not all the films from all the flights were retained. If you need
to diagnose a crash or point out something specific to the pilot, you keep
the film. After 30 years, 200 films of essentially the same thing are of
limited historical value and so only a few representative samples are
retained.

I suggest you focus your efforts on finding and intelligently commenting on
five minutes of representative film footage, rather than make blanket and
distractionary requests for hours of additional film. You have no business
asking others to labor to hand you on a silver platter large volumes of
additional evidence until you can demonstrate some degree of competence with
what's already available. You're stalling.

| Seems that every national and international news program and
| certainly of aviation publications of any worth would have paid
| serious big bucks for having access to such film ...

They were shown on the evening news. Not every flight, of course, since
most flights were not newsworthy. But the LLTV received a great deal of
coverage. I'm sorry you missed it. The Discovery Wings television network
even uses LLTV flight clips in its colophons.

| we were banking and/or betting the entire cold-war farm on
| those craft becoming 6 times greater in mass and functioning
| without a hitch on the moon ...

No. You completely misunderstand the purpose of the LLTVs. They were not
LM prototypes. The development of the LM and its flight tests in earth
orbit and lunar orbit had nothing to do with the LLTVs and how they were
designed and built. The LLTVs were built to train the *pilots*, not to
develop LM technology. This is a fundamental conspiracist mistake.

The LLTV was intended to duplicate the "feel" of the LM, as anticipated, by
any means possible -- *not* necessarily by the same means that the actual LM
would be designed and built. The "by any means" requirement dictated the
rather silly appearance of the LLTV. The LLTVs were not technology
testbeds. They were literally thrown together. Five were built (in two
variants) precisely because their hasty design and construction all but
assured that they would eventually crash and be destroyed. That's why they
were fitted with ejection seats. They were not considered safe or reliable
vehicles, nor were they intended to be.

If you want to discuss the feasibility of the lunar module, looking at the
LLTV is not a good way to go about it. Characterizing the LLTV as an LM
prototype is very wrong.

| ... in spite of all the radiation

What radiation? Give me dates, sources, and skin dosages. I have those
numbers. Do you?

| ... and in spite of all the +/- 250 degrees (F) worth of
| thermal stress

Why does the temperature of the lunar rocks and dust over a four-week cycle
have anything to do with the lunar module?

| ... that's not only a neat trick for plastic film

The photographic film used the Estar polyester base, and it was never in
contact with the lunar surface material.

| but, also a darn good one for the thin aluminum (nearly foil)
| construction of the lander itself (half smoking hot at +250
| degrees while the other half being seriously frozen at a subarctic
| -250 degrees)

Huh? Do you realize that aluminum and lunar material have radically
different optical properties, and therefore radically different responses to
radiant heat transfer? Do you actually know anything about radiant heat
transfer, or any form of heat transfer? Why are you quoting temperatures
for the lunar surface material at its extremes and implying that they apply
in any way to the lunar module materials?

Please discuss the 200-node computational radiant heat transfer model that
was formulated for the lunar module in the 1960s. Are you aware of it? If
not, why are you drawing these conclusions?

| ... as I simply can't seem to identify one iota of film sequence
| that supports the necessary requirements

Why do you seem to believe that it's not evidence until it appears on the
other end of a URL? Real experts don't sit on their butts and point and
click their way through life. They spend a considerable amount of time in
classrooms, libraries, factories, and archives getting all the information
they need. I suggest, before you argue that there is "no evidence," you do
something besides waiting for others to hand it to you on a silver platter.
Do your homework or shut up.

If you're not a real expert, and have no desire to become one, why then
would your ignorant ramblings be worth anything? Why would they be
considered to "prove" anything?

| Then also there's something to being said for the fuel burn-off,
| as representing a great deal of mass that's all the sudden become
| extremely variable and, in a very big way.

Compute the moments that demonstrate this. The location of the fuel tanks
was determined by the mass flow rates of the individual propellant
components. Normal fuel depletion would not shift the c.g. outside the
envelope controllable in the gross scope by DPS gimballing. Slosh-induced
moments would be well within RCS error rate limits.

| Though fly-by-wire sensors and computers of today can manage
| such variables

What evidence can you provide that the FBW sensors and computers in the
lunar module could *not* manage those variables?

| I see nothing of a modulated thrust control that would have
| been discreet enough to have managed from late 60s rocket
| technology.

I'm not very interested in what you say you can't find. You don't seem to
be looking very hard for anything, so I'm not surprised you come up
empty-handed.

The LM RCS could be operated in pulse mode, which provides exactly the
variable thrust required to provide stabilization as the LM's moment of
inertia decreases.

| Once again, I'm the one that's not smart enough to see what's
| obviously well documented, out there somewhere.

Yes, that's absolutely true. I have several printed sources, both modern
and from the 1960s, that describe in very great detail the LM's guidance
system, from abstract theory down to wiring diagrams. I've been able to
talk to some of the people who designed and built it, and to a few of the
people who used it in operational lunar landing flights. It took some
effort to locate, but it is out there and available. The MIT Draper lab can
provide you with much of it, right down to the Luminary source code for the
computer.

| Perhaps I'll need to look further, since so many others
| like yourself can't be more specific

Specificity is not the issue. Your unwillingness to do sufficient research
and your implicit reliance on limited and highly questionable sources is the
issue. I have, as I said, given you contact information for named
individuals who have provided me with information. What have you done to
contact them and have your concerns addressed?

| ... that would place you into the pro-NASA Borg/mole category
| and, I believe you've stated that's not the case.

This isn't a matter of politics, ideology, or loyalty. This is a matter of
facts. Your conclusions aren't based on any, and you seem reluctant to do
what's necessary to obtain them. There is more involved with researching a
subject than just Googling around.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[OM]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:02:43 -0600, "Jay Windley"
> wrote:

>"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
>in message ...
>|
>| Please, Jay, Enough is enough.
>
>Will you *please* stop trying to tell me what to do? Killfile me if you do
>not wish to read what I write.

....No to either. You're going as overboard with this as Alan is about
his impostors, and everyone here is sick of it. You've got a lot to
contribute to the group, but wasting our ****ing bandwidth on nutters
like Guth and Maxson is not the way to do it. I've tossed both of them
into Killfile Hell where they belong, you need to quit trying to act
so goddamn "holier than thou" and do the same.

Again, enough is enough.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Jay Windley]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
|
| ...No to either. You're going as overboard with this as
| Alan is about his impostors, and everyone here is sick of it.

You don't speak for everyone.

| You've got a lot to contribute to the group, but wasting our
| ****ing bandwidth ...

Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless
self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and I've
never seen Usenet run out of it. Further, it's been my experience that
those who whine the most are frequently the worst offenders. You whine
about me responding on-topic to Scott Grissom, yet when *you* respond to
him, it's nothing but the same puerile insults he dishes out. You, worse
than most, egg him on.

I, at least, am *trying* to have on-topic productive conversations with
people.

| ... on nutters like Guth and Maxson is not the way to do it.

I'll contribute to Usenet as I see fit. If you don't like what I
contribute, then you have the means to avoid reading what I write.

| I've tossed both of them into Killfile Hell where they belong ...

Good for you. Put me there if you don't like what I write. Killfiles were
invented for eliminating parts of the discussion which you don't wish to
read. This is preferable to "wasting bandwidth" trying to moderate an
unmoderated newsgroup by intimidation.

| Again, enough is enough.

You're right. <Plonk>.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[OM]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:54:10 -0600, "Jay Windley"
> wrote:

[Pompous bull**** deleted]

>| Again, enough is enough.
>
>You're right. <Plonk>.

....Fine, You're no better than scott or Brad Guth with an attitude
like that, and deserve to sleep with them in Killfile Hell.

Hope you *do* bend over for the soap while you're down there, too.

<PLONK>

....The nerve of some idiots.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Kevin Willoughby]

Jay Windley said:
> Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless
> self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and I've
> never seen Usenet run out of it.

Look harder. Several ISPs have dropped Usenet because of the expense of
supporting it. The length of time required for posts to propagate and
the short retention times of posts on news servers is a continuing
discussion topic on my ISP's support newsgroups.

Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.


> You whine
> about me responding on-topic to Scott Grissom, yet when *you* respond to
> him, it's nothing but the same puerile insults he dishes out. You, worse
> than most, egg him on.

Good point.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Kevin Willoughby > wrote:

> Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
> The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.

You could get better newsreading software that downloads headers only,
filters as directed, then downloads only articles you actually want to
read. Just a suggestion . . .

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Jay Windley]

"Kevin Willoughby" > wrote in message
...
| Jay Windley said:
| > Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless
| > self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and
I've
| > never seen Usenet run out of it.
|
| Look harder. Several ISPs have dropped Usenet because of the expense of
| supporting it.

That argument too has been around for 15 years, back when 2 gigabyte disks
cost as much as a car and the issues were even more acute. The expense is
chiefly centered around the binary newsgroups where vast amounts of
multimedia data are exchanged. That's what most commerical ISP customers
want, and that's what most ISPs find most difficult to support. The entire
sci.* hierarchy is a drop in the bucket compared to that. So if you want to
complain about bandwidth usage, go yell at the folks over in
alt.sex.sounds.gilbert-gottfried.

Or go yell at "regulars" who use various newsgroups as their own personal
chat rooms.

| Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
| The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.

NNTP has provided XOVER protocols for more than five years, and every
newsreader I've used recently supports it. The killfill works on the XOVER
data (selected headers) and so if you killfile someone you only have to
download 120 bytes or so of the article headers to know you don't want any
more of that article. XOVER was invented precisely to enable efficient
killfiling for low-bandwidth users.

I'm really not trying to be "holier than thou" or to fill up a newsgroup
with what others might consider useless crap. Maybe it's my advancing age,
but I just don't have as much patience as I used to for self-appointed
moderators with control issues. If you don't like what I have to say, put
me in your killfile. Honestly, it doesn't offend me.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Kevin Willoughby]

Herb Schaltegger said:
> In article >,
> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
>
> > Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
> > The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.
> You could get better newsreading software that downloads headers only,
> filters as directed, then downloads only articles you actually want to
> read. Just a suggestion . . .

I've actually done a fair deal of research on newsreaders before
settling on the one I now use. One of my requirements is based on the
way I read usenet, from my laptop, disconnected from the net. There is
a very limited amount of filtering that can be done just from the
headers. (Killfiles based on sender or number of cross-postings can
work from the headers, but content-based filtering doesn't work without
content.)
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Kevin Willoughby]

Herb Schaltegger said:
> In article >,
> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
> > I've actually done a fair deal of research on newsreaders before
> > settling on the one I now use.
> Ahh, well . . . as I noted, it WAS just a suggestion.

And I appreciate it. Suggestions like that are one way I learn new
things.


> Actually, from
> your headers I noted that you were using Gravity; I actually tried that
> when I was predominately using Windows for usenet access. I liked it
> pretty well but I had purchased a full license for Agent so I stuck with
> it.

There is a lot of subjectivity in choosing a news reader. I tried Agent
and found its UI to be cartoonish. (I've done some UI work
professionally and that makes me *very* picky. While there is much to
dislike about Outlook Express, its interface is clean and clear.
Gravity's UI is nearly as good, without the risks of OE.) In some ways,
I miss Agent's filtering capabilities. Free Agent was too limited for
me, but the payware agent did every kind of filtering I care about. It
is also one of the few newsreaders that work well on an occasionally
networked laptop computer.


> All my killfiles are based on headers, either thread titles, posters'
> names or some Path statements. They work wonders all by themselves but
> I can understand why you might want content filters as well.

My most important content filter: any post that has my name in it is
highlighted in red. Not just personal ego, but also if someone asks me
a question, I should read the post.

I also have a fair number of content filters that color threads ugly
brown. Any thread that includes "Brad Guth", "John Maxson", et. al.
Gravity can't just kill such a thread (iirc, pay-Agent can), but ugly
brown is close enough for me.

At the moment, I'm seriously considering Beady's recommendation of
'nfilter'. It looks like a nice addition to Gravity's content
filtering.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Jay Windley]

"Kevin Willoughby" > wrote in message
...
|
| Consider them complementary rather than conflicting.

Makes sense from your point of view.

We're answering slightly different questions. The solution is complemenary
but the problem of protocol design under those constraints would be
conflicting. If someone says, "Design a protocol that allows content-based
filtration, but doesn't require you to download all the content," then NNTP
is not that protocol. One solution is to upload the filtration criteria and
make the server do the filtering. (ISPs would love that one.)

| The content based filtering can deal with
| the posts that survive the header-based filtering.

Of course. That's the other solution. If you're using both methods then
you're making the appropriate compromise between picky filtration and low
bandwidth. Using the headers as a hint to the contents is what NNTP
designers expected to happen.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Brad Guth]

"they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
landing.

The moon landings are not any hoax, they just weren't manned, because
if they were there'd be a whole lot more radiation fogging of film
(especially of Kodak film) and of measurably but survivable TBI dosage
applied to those otherwise radiation proof astronauts and, there'd
also have been a lunar SAR/VLA aperture receiving station (robotic) up
and running as of decades ago;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

All you have to do Jim Davis, is provide your own superior numbers
and/or a web page that I can post a link into (NASA moderated pictures
of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting at nearly 50% isn't
going to cut it, neither are those terrific still photos of any frail
test flight that's not likely as stable nor as reliable as the V-22
Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got quality stills of it
hovering before any crash and even a few movie minutes before it
crached while killing everyone onboard, even the latest strike force
vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's after throwing every
possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology that operating from a
bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't miss a single bit out
of millions of bits worth of instruction code that we've got invested
in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have back then) so, offer
whatever it is that others and myself can compare of whatever it is
that you have to stipulate as opposed to my uneducated arguments. In
the mean time, I'll continue to read of what others have to say and,
I'll even do my best to understand it, even though you seem to have
far more ulterior motives at risk than you or I can shake a flaming
stick at.

In spite of others such as yourself contributing squat worth of
specifics, certainly nothing but infomercials on behalf of Club NASA,
I believe I'm getting somewhat closer to understanding the harsh
environment of Earth L4 or L5, thereby I'm slowly gaining ground upon
what Venus L2 may have to offer, so that the following updated page is
becoming both "good news" and "bad news".

Here's my latest update and, as far as this village idiot can figure,
it's become somewhat worse off than I thought, at least the Van Allen
zone as representing any significant radiation buffer for Earth simply
isn't what the pro-Apollo cults have to say, even though it's a fairly
nasty place to spend any amount of time in a craft as ****-poorly
shielded as what the Apollo missions had to work with and, don't even
mention anything of TRW Space Data, as that's 27 times worse off.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

There's been another metric tonne worth of new information that I've
learned about the radiation environment at Earth L4/L5, not to mention
the greater risk imposed from secondary (X-Ray) dosage that's
attributed to solar minimum cosmic radiation interacting with the
likes of any shield and/or the lunar surface.

This is where the opposition (perhaps that's you) offers somewhat
intentional disinformation, as being tossed out like so much warm and
fuzzy flak at my position, where actually that's what's been giving me
insight and further motivation into learning what's more likely the
case than not, like what our atmosphere and of the void or space in
between Earth's atmosphere and 590 km has to offer, a factor of
roughly 274,000:1 in reducing radiation exposure as opposed to the Van
Allen zone attributing another mere 200:1 influx buffer.

For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
our survival, responsible for creating the bulk of Earth's shield,
achieving our current level of exposure and, if in fact the Van Allen
imposes a mere 200:1 benefit, that's certainly worth the effort, as
I'll take 1 mrem/day as opposed to 200 mrem/day any day of the week,
month or year, not to mention a lifetime that wouldn't be all that
long if we couldn't adapt/evolve into managing with such dosage.
Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
itself.

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
| "they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
| of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
| down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
| landing.

More ad hoc revisionism. At first there isn't any record. Then when the
records are clearly shown, you say there's no film. Then when several
minutes' worth of film are shoved under your nose, you say there's no film
of it doing some certain thing. Pretty soon you'll be claiming, "There's no
film record of a gold-foiled test lander piloted by Neil Armstrong kicking
up a little dust and landing on a brightly lit terrain under a black sky."

Give it up, Brad. Your opponents have shown that they're much more adept
and motivated than you are at doing primary research. You haven't even
called the number I gave you, have you? You haven't looked at the
Spacecraftfilms.com film, have you? You sit there idly demanding more and
more evidence, when it's obvious that you're less and less interested in
seeing it.

| All you have to do [insert name], is provide your own superior
| numbers and/or a web page

Yawn. Broken record.

| For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
| allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
| camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
| our survival

They are.

| if in fact the Van Allen imposes a mere 200:1 benefit

Why do you insist on trying to boil down the numbers before you understand
the basic qualitative concepts?

| Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
| zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
| then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
| itself.

No. You simply don't understand what you read. You're still trying to
compare two very dissimilar things. And instead of looking to you faulty
comparison for the answer, you simply assume your ignorance isn't a problem
and that someone "must" be lying.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Brad Guth]

"Jay Windley" > wrote in message >...
> "Brad Guth" > wrote in message
> om...
> | "they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
> | of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
> | down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
> | landing.
>
> More ad hoc revisionism. At first there isn't any record. Then when the
> records are clearly shown, you say there's no film. Then when several
> minutes' worth of film are shoved under your nose, you say there's no film
> of it doing some certain thing. Pretty soon you'll be claiming, "There's no
> film record of a gold-foiled test lander piloted by Neil Armstrong kicking
> up a little dust and landing on a brightly lit terrain under a black sky."
>
> Give it up, Brad. Your opponents have shown that they're much more adept
> and motivated than you are at doing primary research. You haven't even
> called the number I gave you, have you? You haven't looked at the
> Spacecraftfilms.com film, have you? You sit there idly demanding more and
> more evidence, when it's obvious that you're less and less interested in
> seeing it.
>
> | All you have to do [insert name], is provide your own superior
> | numbers and/or a web page
>
> Yawn. Broken record.
>
> | For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
> | allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
> | camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
> | our survival
>
> They are.
>
> | if in fact the Van Allen imposes a mere 200:1 benefit
>
> Why do you insist on trying to boil down the numbers before you understand
> the basic qualitative concepts?
>
> | Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
> | zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
> | then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
> | itself.
>
> No. You simply don't understand what you read. You're still trying to
> compare two very dissimilar things. And instead of looking to you faulty
> comparison for the answer, you simply assume your ignorance isn't a problem
> and that someone "must" be lying.

How very true, I don't seem to understand how the late 60s space
travel inside an aluminum craft that had a significant portion of it's
shield density at 5 g/cm2, yet only received 10 mrem/day while between
our Van Allen zone and of going to/from the moon, then somehow
entirely skipping the bulk of the Van Allen zone of death at that and
of otherwise being near raw exposed while spending some 36 hours on
the lunar surface during a somewhat solar maximum phase. All of that's
got to be a fairly neat trick, as the science and laws of physics
simply aren't there, just the likes of yourself.

BTW; just for your entertainment, I've got lots more poor grammar and
**** poor syntax, plus loads of just plain old mistakes if you'll
checkout my latest edit: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/deposit.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| How very true, I don't seem to understand how the late 60s space
| travel

Sidestepping. This thread is about your unwillingness to research the
LLTV/LLRV vehicles, despite having made assertions about them. You keep
asking for more and more evidence without revising your arguments to account
for the evidence that is periodically provided.

Either defend your LLTV/LLRV statements or withdraw them. Do not merely
sidestep the counterarguments.

| All of that's got to be a fairly neat trick, as the science and
| laws of physics simply aren't there, just the likes of yourself.

I've read your statements on that issue, and I see in them no appreciable
understanding of the applicable laws of physics. In fact, I see gross
ignorance. You are completely unaware of how radiation behaves in space. I
have provided suitable analogies and facts. You have not responded to them.
You have merely continued to pursue your same ignorant line of questioning.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org