The Moon Landing Is A Hoax !

[Fritz Wuehler]

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

Let us look at the political environment at the time of the moon landing:
- The Soviets had beat the Americans 12 years earlier by launching a satellite
before the Americans could. This Soviet satellite was 5 times heavier than
the first American one. And by the time the Americans were off the ground the
Soviets had already launched a "live" payload into orbit.
- This was followed by many other firsts for the Soviets first man in space,
first space walk, first transfer of crews in space, etc.
- By 1969 the Americans were looking like a bunch of fools that should have
been classified as anything but a superpower.
- The Cold War was going strong and fierce at this time.
- CIA involvment in the Bay Of Pigs.
- The Cuban Missile Crisis almost blew everyone off the planet.
- Loss of faith in U.S. troops in Vietnam.
- The Americans had announced to the world that they would have a man on the
moon before the end of the decade.

There is some evidence that indicates that the
CIA drained hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA in order to support
their secret war in Laos and Cambodia. The fake moon landing movie was a
good cheap public cover-up for the missing funds. The fact is that the CIA
are known, and documented, for doing VERY bizarre operations.

--
Alan Esrkine
alanesrkine(at)optsunet.com.au
The Moon Landing Is A Hoax that Australia help to perpetrate!
Where are the moonrocks Mr. Bush?

[Jay Windley]

"Fritz Wuehler" > wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
|
| Let us look at the political environment at the time of the
| moon landing:

Why don't you look at the scientific and technical environment too?

| The Soviets had beat the Americans 12 years earlier by
| launching a satellite before the Americans could.

The key to that is "12 years earlier". Is it not possible for both the
political and technical landscapes to have changed dramatically in 12 years?

And let's be clear about what you mean by "before the Americans could." The
Americans' first satellite was launched by a rocket which existed in a fully
functional form when Sputnik was launched. It had the misfortune of having
been designed by a German, and an ex-Nazi at that. So for political reasons
it wasn't really a good choice. But the technology *did* exist in the U.S.
at the time.

And then there was Eisenhower, who wasn't really all that interested in
space. So you can argue that the Americans weren't really racing until
*after* Sputnik was launched. By drawing this contrast you presume that the
Americans and the Soviets were applying equal effort *before* Sputnik.

| - This was followed by many other firsts for the Soviets

Yes, let's examine them.

| first man in space

Agreed, but did this really constitute a technological advance? The Soviets
beat the U.S. in manned space flight by only the slimmest of margins.

I'm sure you've heard that the Russians admitted that Gagarin ejected from
his capsule, rather than land with it. They only recently admitted this
because if they had announced it at the time then they would have not been
awarded the record. The FAI rules under which both the U.S. and Soviets
agreed to set aerospace records specifically state that the pilot must
remain with the vehicle until it lands.

The Soviets cheated.

Now it certainly isn't my business to say that Gagarin wasn't brave, and
that the Soviets didn't fulfill the spirit of the law if not the letter. I
believe his record should stand, and so far so do most other people on
either side of the political issue.

But you have to consider *why* Gagarin ejected. Simply put, his spacecraft
wasn't capable of landing safely. They hadn't quite figured out how to do
that reliably. But a few weeks later, up went the U.S. Mercury capsule.
Sure, it was smaller and lighter, and didn't go up very far compared to
Gagarin. But it had the ability to land its occupant safely. Further, the
Mercury pilot was a true pilot. He could actually affect the trajectory of
his spacecraft. The Vostok cosmonaut was essentially human ballast.

And so if you want to argue that the Soviets' ability to orbit a man first
constitute a major technological advance, then you have to answer why their
technology was so crappy compared to the U.S. spacecraft of approximately
the same era.

| first space walk

Again, full marks to Leonov who beat Ed White. But consider again what
happened.

The Soviet capsule was too small for two men to both wear space suits. That
means the spacewalker couldn't egress the capsule in the standard safe way
of venting the cabin and going out the door. The Soviets had to cobble
together a makeshift airlock so that Leonov could go outside in his space
suit while his copilot -- sans space suit -- remained inside the pressurized
cabin.

That worked fine until Leonov tried to get back in. The thrown-together
airlock was too small for Leonov's inflated space suit. He managed to
squeeze inside the airlock only by deflating his suit so much he almost lost
consciousness.

A short time later Ed White did his spacewalk from the Gemini capsule -- a
capsule *designed* to hold two men safely wearing space suits. So even
though the Soviet technology got there first, the American technology was
better. Again, full marks to the Soviets for bravery and boldness, but they
didn't have better technical proficiency; they were just willing to accept a
much greater risk.

| first transfer of crews in space

No, not really. The ability to move someone from one spacecraft to another
is pretty easy. The ability to get those spacecraft together in the first
place is what's important. If you launch two spacecraft separately, the
ability of each of them to alter their orbits such that they can rendezvous
is the important skill to learn. That's what enables you to lift off from
the moon and hook up again with your mother ship.

Again, the Soviets tried to make people think they had done that. By
launching one Vostok capsule into an orbit, and then carefully timing the
launch of a second Vostok, they were able to arrange for the craft to pass
within about a mile of each other. This was announced to the world as the
first rendezvous in space. But of course neither Vostok had the ability to
change its trajectory and to actually complete the rendezvous by performing
close-order manuevers.

That was done (albeit a bit later) by Gemini 6/7. Unlike the Soviet
spacecraft, the Gemini spacecraft could be manuevered, and the two Gemini
craft manuevered -- from essentially random orbits -- to within a few feet
of each other and flew in formation. The only thing that prevented them
from docking is the lack of appropriate docking hardware; the mission had in
fact been improvised.

| etc.,

Yes, let's talk about the "etc." Other Soviet "firsts" included the first
space fatality, the first fatal booster explosion, the first re-entry
failure, and a host of very ignominious and coffin-equipped "firsts".

The fact is the Soviet space program was conducted in secrecy so that
failures could be covered up. And it was no great secret among Soviet space
scientists that they were only trying to break records to satisfy Moscow's
demands for political ammunition. They weren't trying to evolve any useful
or meaningful space technology. That's why they rushed half-finished
spacecraft into orbit, and denied Leonov's copilot a space suit, and crammed
three men into a two-man capsule without space suits or emergency equipment.

| - By 1969 the Americans were looking like a bunch of fools that
| should have been classified as anything but a superpower.
| [CIA ramblings snipped]

Good that you concentrate on political speculation here instead of
technological issues. By the middle of the 1960s the Americans and a 3-to-1
superiority over the Soviets in hours in space, plus a number of important
duration and capability records. Conspiracists love talking about the
supposed Soviet supremacy in space, but they stop talking about the evidence
right around 1966 or 1967. That's obviously because that's when the
evidence starts completely contradicting their claims.

| There is some evidence that indicates that the CIA drained
| hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA in order to support
| their secret war in Laos and Cambodia.

May we see that evidence? Or is this more of that same CIA evidence that
somehow only conspiracy theorists can see?

| The fake moon landing movie was a good cheap public cover-up
| for the missing funds.

"The" movie? There are dozens of hours of film and video and 20,000
photographs, as well as surviving examples of the spacecraft and equipment
and a fairly rich set of technical specifications for them that are still
used to train today's space engineers. Plus, this was all done under the
public's gaze, including some pretty impressive rocket launches.

Doesn't sound very "cheap" to me. Plus, the funds given to NASA were in
turn given to publicly-owned contractors who duly reported the income on
their tax returns. And they have assets to show for it, in the form of
hundreds of thousands of workers and some pretty impressive technology. If
the money didn't go to the contractors, where did the contractors get all
those cool toys?

You want me to "follow the money," and I have. I can see exactly where it
went, and evidence that it arrived where it was supposed to go. What is
your evidence that it went elsewhere?

| The fact is that the CIA are known, and documented, for doing
| VERY bizarre operations.

That may be, but are they documented for doing *this particular* bizarre
thing?

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

[Sam Seiber]

Ohh, Jay, looks like you fell for the troll!
The "From:" line & the sig don't match.
I can understand you wanting to explain things, but
this was a clear cut troll post from the get go.

Sam

[Jay Windley]

"Sam Seiber" > wrote in message
...
| Ohh, Jay, looks like you fell for the troll!
| The "From:" line & the sig don't match.

Noticed that, as well as the .sig being from the oft-impersonated Alan
Erskine.

| I can understand you wanting to explain things ...

Then you know why I answered. The supposed technical prowess of the Soviets
compared to the Americans is something a lot of reasonable people get wrong.

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

[Brad Guth]

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 and
of measurably TBI dosage applied to those otherwise radiation proof
astronauts.

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. The following updated page is 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 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.

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

There's been another metric tonne worth of new information 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 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.

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

[Jay Windley]

> wrote in message
m...
| "Jay Windley" > wrote in message
>...
| > >
| > And then there was Eisenhower, who wasn't really all that interested in
| > space. So you can argue that the Americans weren't really racing until
| > *after* Sputnik was launched. By drawing this contrast you presume that
the
| > Americans and the Soviets were applying equal effort *before* Sputnik.
| >
| not true! the seeds of the manned space program were planted by
| the Eisenhower administration.

It is more accurate to say that Eisenhower allowed others in his
administration to plant the seed on his behalf. He went along with it
primarily because he had no real means for squelching it, and he thought it
might eventually be useful in reconnaissance. In the words of Murray and
Cox, the U.S. was going to have a space program with or without him.

It wasn't until the political pressure of having been upstaged by Sputnik
that Eisenhower showed any sort of enthusiasm for space. But he still
wouldn't allow von Braun's Jupiter rocket to be used for a satellite launch.

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad Eisenhower did what he did, and I like Ike a
lot. But if he had been excited about space instead of merely tolerant, we
wouldn't have started the space race from a weak position.

| john glenn knew he was
| going to be picked for the program in 1957......

The "program" (by which I mean the Space Task Group whose goal was to put a
man in space) didn't exist until late 1958. Which program are you talking
about?

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

[Ami A. Silberman]

Harald Kucharek wrote:
>
> "Jay Windley" > wrote in message >...
> > It wasn't until the political pressure of having been upstaged by Sputnik
> > that Eisenhower showed any sort of enthusiasm for space. But he still
> > wouldn't allow von Braun's Jupiter rocket to be used for a satellite launch.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong: I'm glad Eisenhower did what he did, and I like Ike a
> > lot. But if he had been excited about space instead of merely tolerant, we
> > wouldn't have started the space race from a weak position.
> >
> > | john glenn knew he was
> > | going to be picked for the program in 1957......
> >
> > The "program" (by which I mean the Space Task Group whose goal was to put a
> > man in space) didn't exist until late 1958. Which program are you talking
> > about?
>
> Do you think there would have been a space race if the US would have
> had launched the first satellite?

Probably not. Judging from what I've read, it is unlikely that
Eisenhower would have viewed an American satellite as a big propaganda
mechanism, certainly not on the magnitude that it was used by the
Soviets (although they underestimated its value at first.) I also feel
that the reaction of the world media would have been less for an
American first satellite -- the world was used to seeing the US as the
technical leaders, and this would just confirm it. On the other hand, it
is likely that the space race would have worked in the other direction,
with the Soviets pushing ahead (with unmanned satellite capacity) to
compete with the US in the military/espionage realm, not the PR. I also
think that, if the Soviets had the same sort of meeting to figure out
where they could catch up with us, it would be with (unmanned) lunar
probes, since they had the big boosters early on.

[Jay Windley]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message
...
| Harald Kucharek wrote:
| >
| > Do you think there would have been a space race if the US would have
| > had launched the first satellite?
|
| Probably not. Judging from what I've read, it is unlikely that
| Eisenhower would have viewed an American satellite as a big propaganda
| mechanism

Very unlikely. Krushchev is the loose cannon, though. He might have
ensured that there was a space race. But I think it would have unfolded
dramatically differently had the U.S. launched the first satellite. The
Soviets were adept at redefining victory. So while we defined victory as
landing on the moon, and the Soviets, as long terms in earth orbit, it might
have been different in an alternate timeline. The Soviets might have been
first to the moon.

But that's thinking inside the box. Krushchev may have defined victory as
nothing having to do with space. Raising tulips, or something.

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

[Ami A. Silberman]

Jay Windley wrote:
> But that's thinking inside the box. Krushchev may have defined victory as
> nothing having to do with space. Raising tulips, or something.
Space tulips, grown by personality filled monkeys, and sold to Venusian
Firewomen in exchange for Pterodactyls for the glorious socialist
strategic forces.

Gosh, I sure miss Pat.

[Jay Windley]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message
...
|
| Space tulips, grown by personality filled monkeys ...

Ooh, sounds like a good episode.

I'm glad Joe asked that question, and I'm really having a hard time
imagining how the technological landscape would have differed had we beat
the Russians to orbit.

I know one question that would have been stickier: airspace. Prior to
Sputnik there was some debate about whether orbiting a satellite over
someone's territory would violate their airspace. We were concerned that
the Soviets would consider a U.S. satellite some sort of hostile presence.
The Soviets answered that question by orbiting Sputnik over the U.S. If
they could do it to us, we were justified in doing it to them.

In many ways I'm sorry that the space race ended up being a push for
firstmanship. The advances in the 1960s were nothing short of awesome. But
in making such a bold stab by landing on the moon, we set ourselves up for
disappointment over a pace we could not keep. The Soviets pooped out in
about 1967, and the U.S. in the early 1970s. And now it seems we're risking
our lives to see if ants can be taught to sort tiny screws in space, with a
wide range of applications from watch-making to watch repair.

John Aaron probably said it best in the first pages of Murray and Cox. The
space program of the 1960s was a unique confluence of political will,
technological ability, and national unity. I just don't see that happening
today.

I hate to say it, but collaboration with the Russians doesn't seem as
exiciting as competing with them. Not that I have anything against the
Russians, of course. But we worked harder and better when we were afraid of
them.

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

[Gordon Davie]

Jay Windley wrote:

> But you have to consider *why* Gagarin ejected. Simply put, his
> spacecraft wasn't capable of landing safely. They hadn't quite
> figured out how to do that reliably. But a few weeks later, up went
> the U.S. Mercury capsule. Sure, it was smaller and lighter, and
> didn't go up very far compared to Gagarin. But it had the ability to
> land its occupant safely.

Could Gagarin have landed safely inside Vostok if it had come down in the
ocean?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"

[Commentator Non Grata]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:49:45 -0700, The Commentator
> wrote:

>Join OM, the Maxon gang and Scott Grissom in killfile hell.

....Considering how little you contribute around here, you pedantic
misanthrope, I could care less whether I'm in your killfile hell or
not. After all, I sent you into mine over a year ago.

Or was it two? Mox nix, as you go back in again...

<PLONK>

Guys like this put the "dip" in "dip****"...


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

[OM]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:49:34 GMT, David Higgins
> wrote:

>Commentator Non Grata wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:49:45 -0700, The Masturbator
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Join OM, the Maxon gang and Scott Grissom in killfile hell.
>>
>> ...Considering how little you contribute around here, you pedantic
>> misanthrope, I could care less [...]
>
> If "I could care less", why the reply? You protest too
> much, OM. :-)

....No, I don't. The dip**** changed his faux e-mail address, which is
how he got out of *my* killfile hell. On the other hand, you fail to
see that when one does in fact care less, it does *not* automatically
negate the need for a reinforcing taunt.

Bottom line: based on his lack of contributions to this group, and
considering what he *has* blathered in the past, he can quite simply
go **** himself. And if he doesn't know how, I'm sure someone can
forward him a copy of Maxson's bound volume of used toilet paper as a
guide...

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

[JGDeRuvo]

You know, it just hit me ... notice how all these lunatics claim
America faked the moon landing, but no one ... NO ONE accusses the
Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ... or Titov's space walk ... or
any other Soviet space triumph!

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:49:34 GMT, David Higgins
> > wrote:
>
> >Commentator Non Grata wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:49:45 -0700, The Masturbator
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Join OM, the Maxon gang and Scott Grissom in killfile hell.
> >>
> >> ...Considering how little you contribute around here, you pedantic
> >> misanthrope, I could care less [...]
> >
> > If "I could care less", why the reply? You protest too
> > much, OM. :-)
>
> ...No, I don't. The dip**** changed his faux e-mail address, which is
> how he got out of *my* killfile hell. On the other hand, you fail to
> see that when one does in fact care less, it does *not* automatically
> negate the need for a reinforcing taunt.
>
> Bottom line: based on his lack of contributions to this group, and
> considering what he *has* blathered in the past, he can quite simply
> go **** himself. And if he doesn't know how, I'm sure someone can
> forward him a copy of Maxson's bound volume of used toilet paper as a
> guide...
>
> OM

[Jay Windley]

"JGDeRuvo" > wrote in message
om...
| NO ONE accusses the Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ...

.... which they did, but only in one rather minor detail.

The conspiracists argue that the U.S. wasn't up to the challenge
technically. But they can't speak in expert terms about that, not knowing
much if anything about science or engineering. So they have to speak
comparatively. The Russians couldn't get there. And the Russians were the
world leaders in space travel at the time (or so it is claimed). So how
would the "inferior" American space program be able to do it?

That's how the argument goes. And you can see how it would be compromised
if you argued that the Soviets were faking it too. You'd lose your
yardstick.

But that doesn't stop David Percy and a few others from bringing up the
perennial possibility that Gagarin wasn't the first man to attempt an
orbital flight. Then, having concluded that those rumors must undoubtedly
be true, they point out just how "easy" it is to fool an entire country
about space achievements.

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

[[email protected]]

The Commentator > wrote in message >...
> Brad Guth wrote:
> >
> >... as far as this village idiot can figure...
> >
>
> I don't care to have my time wasted by the village idiot.
>
> Join OM, the Maxon gang and Scott Grissom in killfile hell.
>
> Birds of a feather and all that.
>
> *Plonk*

ESADFM"R and have a nice day.

[The Commentator]

Commentator Non Grata wrote:
>


< Whining dingbattery deleted >

Oh poor little OM got his feelers hurt.

Live with it.

[Brad Guth]

Hi Scott,

Glad to see that you're still with us. This following post is a wee
bit long and mostly of returning the favor onto those deserving, but
at least it's also another update that's worth taking a look-see.

Perhaps I really should proof read these pages, but that might take
all the fun out of it, because I usually add more words and/or
actually start to make sense.


Government lies and apocalyptic arrogance with lots of spin and damage
control opposing GUTH Venus, opposing truth.

Talk about those collective Borg like minds working their knuckles to
the bone, as in perfect cold-war harmony in order to evade the truth,
to circumvent reality and to forge ahead irregardless of the
consequences. In fair response, this page is respectfully returning
the favor, along with returning their warm and fuzzy flak by
addressing those seemingly opposing life itself, or though it seems,
unless of course it's their precious life.

Unlike so many objecting to just about anything and everything under
the sun, such as especially if it wasn't their idea in the first
place, whereas instead, I'd simply prefer discussing relevant
technology, using as few words as possible that pertain to the "what
ifs" and of whatever else that "can be for certain accomplished" in
the way of humanly obtainable goals, or learning of what simply can't
possibly be accomplished is equally invaluable, though most often
those stipulating of what can't possibly be done with the moon or
Venus seem to have little if any trouble with anything Mars or even
Earthly space elevators.

Although, much of what I'm hearing and/or receiving as flak is more
like crying over spilt milk, or of their whining over my poor syntax
or of insufficient scientific notations and, otherwise I'm hearing
just their sanctimonious justifications for sustaining the current
levels of orchestrated "spin" and "damage control". As for my
addressing such flak (returning the warm and fuzzy favor), I'll need
to regress a wee bit into their deeply physic wonderland of those
seemingly opposed to reality, which is not of any profound statement
suggesting that I'm always right about everything, as I'll gladly take
being 10% right. Since I know for a fact that I've made mistakes and,
that I'll most likely make a tonne more, that's quite different from
the perspective of those living a lie and, then further lying about
that lie (sort of like asking the Pope to discuss Cathars and, he'll
reply by saying something profound like; what Cathars?).

Here I've been offering more worthwhile topics than all of what's been
posted to date, of doable agendas that are entirely de-cloaked, as in
above-board and of all things within our expertise, as well as within
our existing technology, not to mention being relatively if not
literally moon dirt cheap, of discoveries and subsequent ideas that I
believe are worthy of further consideration. Although, all that I've
seen and heard from those opposing, yet claiming as being "all
knowing", is essentially their absolute immoral arrogance towards all
of humanity, or of at least their opposing anyone that's tainting the
likes of their cost+ go-for-broke Mars microbes, or of their similar
cost+ Earth Space Elevator quest or bust campaigns.

I have no problem whatsoever with folks believing that our NASA walked
on the moon, as I know of nice folks that still believe in the tooth
fairy and, I don't hold that against them. Unless of course, if they
were to be telling me that their tooth fairy resolved all of their
dental requirements and, that I too should rely solely upon their
tooth fairy for whatever, as then I'm going to start taking exception.
It's been only when I realized that I'm being either intentionally or
naively lied to, do I get myself sufficiently wound up in order to
return the favor. If folks honestly wanted to believe our manned space
travel outside of the Van Allen zone of death can be easily
accommodated behind 5 g/cm2, at or below 10 mrem/day, that's
absolutely super terrific, as all of our advanced long range space
travel expeditions are hereby resolved.

However, the unexpectedly vigorous opposition as to all others
accomplishing anything lunar, and of especially anything Venus, is
truly pathetic. As these Borgs are continually reaffirming their
allegiance to pagan Gods, such as Hubble hugging or even the likes
those most common of SETI types and, now there's Earth space elevator
huggers that are all seemingly acting oblivious to Earthly human
needs, as otherwise sucking up to their pagan NASA religion. It's as
though the carnage of our cold-war tit for tats and of the resulting
likes of the 9/11 impact never happened, or even if any of it did
happen, then absolutely none of it was our fault, nor was there even
the slightest provocation nor has there been distortions upon the
facts and, I suppose that analogy will have to include justifying
those invisible WMDs as qualifying the extermination of another
10,000+ souls, as simply another example that's within their realm of
acceptable moral standards, flaming astronauts and all.

I'll even suggest, that it's somehow covertly possible that by lying
to yourself about the unemployment, lying about the economy, of
further lying about their not creating a legacy of multi-trillion
dollar debts as a result of government policy that includes pursuing
humanly unobtainable space exploration, or the likes of investing into
Hubble, ISS and of going after potentially lethal Mars microbes and of
now plunging deeply into trillion dollar plus space elevators for all
of the world's great grand children of the future to have to pay for,
is perfectly OK by someone others standards, while equally choking the
rest of us down with all the excessive CO2 and of subsequently the
entire world suffering from serious global warming is somehow going to
become just the ticket these pro-NASA fools are suggesting is needed.
Perhaps the sooner our global resources are squandered, the sooner
their already rich partners in crime (like those already wealthy
cotton growers that warlord Bush is about to insure that they receive
another 18 billion dollar per year subsidy) will inherit the Earth, or
of whatever is left of it.

OOPS, I suppose now I've hurt your feelings. OOPS again, I forgot, as
a Borg collective you probably don't have any actual feelings, as
you're merely being another collective opponent against absolutely
anything or anyone that's being the least bit anti-NASA, all the while
you certainly don't seem to be offering humanity any justifiable
morality for the sorts of agendas that'll risk such trillions and
subsequently accomplishing their intended task of unnecessary
terminating lives on Earth. It's not possible to blow a trillion bucks
on space toys without being guilty of excluding those same trillions
that should have been invested on the reality of improving human lives
and, don't give me all that "spin off" crap about how spending
trillions on extreme space adventures is somehow going to benefit the
lower 90% of Earth's population.

You'll have to notice that I'm not entirely Mr. Negative, as I haven't
even suggested anything against actual Earth space sciences, nor have
I stipulated that we can't possibly do the Earth based Space Elevator,
though I have noted that it's going to be extremely expensive (at
minimum 10 fold more costly than is being specified, a bit technology
testy to say the least, plus decades of inflation that'll push the
investment package towards 100 fold), where just the return on
investment alone should push the cost per pound delivered to more than
$50,000 + operating cost factors, while still remaining somewhat
astronaut risky and perhaps decades if not another half plus century
down the road and, even if nothing goes terribly wrong, it'll still
not provide the necessary CO2 relief for delivering those necessary
tonnes of radiation shielding into GSO and beyond.

Those pushing this Earth Space Elevator agenda seem to use Arthur
Andersen for their accounting, siting only the bare operating cost
(based upon absolutely nothing whatsoever going terribly wrong), as
reason why this sort of spendy technology should be developed and then
implemented. This is much like those Mars or bust teams, suggesting
that their agenda is equally obtainable and cost worthy, not to worry
about any lethal Mars microbes, of which this might even be true
because, of those spending any amount of time going to/from Mars and
of whatever days on the surface will most likely be TBI to death, long
before they ever get their chance to return home with any potentially
contaminating microbes, rather taking up lunar residence or burial is
far more likely.

Over the past three years, I've discovered that this internet is
overloaded with forums, within such are NASA moderated folks or Borgs,
as well as countless individuals of at least ten for one on behalf of
sanctioning and/or justifying our past, present and future, while at
best there's one out of ten that are actually trying to make a
difference, actually trying to avoid another 9/11, attempting to avoid
the likes of another COLUMBIA, flight-800, USS LIBERTY fiasco and of
countless cold-war tit for tats, many of which have created a cycle of
revenge and/or compensation that's here to stay.

What can I or anyone possibly say except; For those opposing the
truth, you need to get over it:

Our government, as well as many others, are chuck full of lies. They
lie on a regular basis and spend whatever it takes to implement spin
and damage control. Large and complex national agencies like NASA are
not immune, especially when they're forced into cloaking on behalf of
NSA/DoD cold-war agendas. Even when honest mistakes are made, these
are most often rolled into some hidden agenda and/or justified by
pointing their slimy finger at anyone other, somewhat like how the
Pope avoids Cathar issues is much the same as government avoids
telling the truth about the likes of the USS LIBERTY fiasco because,
the truth hurts almost as much as it did for those which were
exterminated and/or slowly dying off due to the blatant corruption and
utter incompetence of those charged with keeping such dastardly things
from happening in the first place.

The sorts of opposition towards my ongoing discovery of other life on
Venus, obviously that's NOT as we know it, that I believe is most
likely surviving in spite of our absolute arrogance and utter
stupidity and, of the opposition to my attempting to honestly
incorporate anything whatsoever with regard to properly utilizing our
moon for humanitarian goals, is "proof positive" that I'm a whole lot
more right than not. If you still can't see that for what it is, then
there's absolutely nothing I or anyone can possibly accomplish on your
behalf.

My only advise is, never let the Pope know that you're Cathar, or in
the case of avoiding the wrath of warlord Bush, never admit to hiding
those invisible WMDs, though it's perfectly OK to being a wealthy
surplus cotton farmer because, for that there's another round of 18
billion dollar per year subsidy that'll keep your fleet of Lambergini
topped off with all the $5/gallon gas you can possibly burn.

If perchance you're less interested in all the spendy doom and gloom
aspects, but otherwise concerned about what's actually possible, as in
humanly obtainable from the existing talents and resources of today,
then this lunar space elevator page should be of some interest,
containing of what's been most recently updated and uploaded from the
feedback I've received and of whatever I've managed to learn:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

As for the cost+ Space Elevator alternative that being funded by NASA:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm

This following link is featuring the lunar based SAR receiving module
page that could always use another update, as in incorporating some of
your expertise: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

If your interested in what I've learned about space radiation, of the
true environment of which manned space travel must survive or pay the
consequences, then this page is another ongoing build that's worth
another look-see: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

Unfortunately, there's a great deal more to say, of which I simply
can't seem to say enough, or perhaps I've said way too much already.
For those claiming that I'm the "all knowing" culprit, or the village
idiot from hell, that's hardly the case. As more than likely I'm
somewhat like one of those an addaptive correction to those funny
mirrors at the carnival that you've been paying good money to be
looking at for decades, only seeing a highly distorted view of
reality. Now that I'm offering a relatively flat (non-distorting)
mirror of what's possible and of what's humanly obtainable, God
forbid, perhaps you should actually do something constructive or
meaningful for others.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| I'd simply prefer discussing relevant technology ...

You don't understand technology. You don't care to be taught about it. You
don't care to do any original research that you fear may contradict your
preconceptions, even when names and addresses of the participants of the
events you mischaracterize are laid at your feet. You listen to people when
they appear to support your position, but when those same people oppose you
then you turn a deaf ear to them.

| ...using as few words as possible

Economy of verbage is not one of your characteristics.

| Since I know for a fact that I've made mistakes...

Except that you never admit to any *specific* mistakes, regardless of the
mounts of evidence against you.

| I have no problem whatsoever with folks believing that our
| NASA walked on the moon, as I know of nice folks that still
| believe in the tooth fairy and, I don't hold that against them.

So you don't hold it against people if they believe in the Tooth Fairy, but
if one happens to believe that NASA landed on the moon -- a conclusion with
a colossal degree of scientific proof in favor of it -- then you most
certainly *do* hold it against them, calling them "Borg" or worse.

And in order to create the illusion of support for your criticism, you
effortlessly put words and numbers in the mouths of people who disagree with
you and endeavor to . Clearly you live in a "reality" vastly different from
the rest of us.

| It's been only when I realized that I'm being either intentionally
| or naively lied to, do I get myself sufficiently wound up in order
| to return the favor.

No. You simply don't understand the facts with which you're being
presented. And rather than attempt to reconcile the facts with your stilted
preconceptions, you take much greater pleasure (and I use the word
cautiously) in whining. You *want* to be lied to, or at least you want to
believe you're being lied to. That way your blatant incompetence -- which
must surely keep you from holding jobs with any more intellectual content
than that of a garbage collector -- can conveniently be someone else's fault
and not yours.

| Over the past three years, I've discovered that this internet
| is overloaded with forums, within such are NASA moderated folks
| or Borgs...

Rather, these are forums moderated and contributed to by reasonable,
scientifically-minded individuals who see you as the whining malcontent you
are, and soon tire of trying to correct your errors. And when they realize
that you simply post the same pompous rhetoric over and over again, and that
you habitually rewrite what people say in order to make it favor your ideas,
then they spew you out as they should have done in the first place.

And since you are "obviously" right, the "only" reason these people would
have for shunning you is that they've been brainwashed. It never once
occurs to you that all these learned people are in fact right, and that
you -- bereft of any training or expertise -- just might possibly be wrong.
Oh, sure, you admit it in the abstract, but when it finally comes down to
admitting you might be wrong on a *specific* point, you retreat into
vainglory and name-calling.

| If your interested in what I've learned about space radiation, of the
| true environment of which manned space travel must survive or pay the
| consequences, then this page is another ongoing build that's worth
| another look-see: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

REMOVE MY NAME AND WEB SITE ADDRESS AT ONCE FROM YOUR PAGE. I HAVE NOT
EXPRESSED THE IDEAS NOR MADE THE STATEMENTS YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME.

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

[Brad Guth]

Dan C > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:57:12 -0700, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Glad to see that you're still with us. This following post is a wee
> > bit long and mostly of returning the favor onto those deserving, but
> > at least it's also another update that's worth taking a look-see.
>
> < large amount of absolute drivel deleted >
>
> You are a seriously deluded individual. Get some help, quickly.

Once again folks; there's no specifics, just the usual null of
"nondisclosure", or "spin" and "damage control", or perhaps lack
thereof control. If you've got anything on behalf of Club NASA or of
their cold-war boss NSA/DoD, that'll hold up in court, that's great.
Otherwise sit back and enjoy the ride out of town, as that's where
you're headed.

BTW; As far as I can tell, our equipment indeed landed on the moon,
just no astronaut walked on nor returned from said moon. Getting stuff
onto the moon is doable, even for those late 60's fly-by-wire days of
our perpetrated cold-war.

If the moon is mostly of basalt, as it perhaps should be, then of
whatever bulk is required for sustaining humans in space, whether
that's of simply mass for spacecraft shielding (abating radiation as
well as improving impact resistance) or of EMPD propulsion fuel
considerations, I believe this substance is in fact available from the
moon, and of affordably accommodating such within the LSE-CM/ISS is
perhaps just the ticket, as in right here and now, not of some
horrifically spendy day decades from now and solely dependent upon
those CNT fibers taking the heat as well as the radiation as well as
whatever other solar flak, not to forget about the year after year of
dodging a few hundred thousand other not so insignificant objects in
it's path (add up the total ESE tether surface exposure and do the
math).

We can get ourselves to/from the moon rather quickly these days, thus
a timeline of potentially lethal exposure to the mostly solar
radiation has become somewhat limited, and thereby survivable within
minimal shielding, as in terms of hours to perhaps a few days worth,
unless of course you've got 341 g/cm of something surrounding your
butt, as then you can tolerate some extended mission related travel
time without having all of your DNA/RNA chopped into bits by various
TBI worthy radiation issues, that's not even to mention significant
erosion if not through-holes as a result of your impacting with a
grain of sand, of which without sufficient shielding density is
exactly where life as we know it becomes downright difficult, and/or
subsequently where your own immune system proceeds to further
irradicate yourself from within, whereas I believe there are known
limits to what having banked bone marrow can achieve.

I've learned that sending technology efficient robotic missions off
into a lunar orbit is apparently a whole lot easier if not more energy
efficient than establishing most any Earth GSO, of wich I suppose that
includes the likes of Earth L2 or L1, as those positions being more
complicated and more energy consuming to establish, whereas as sending
robotics off to visit a LSE-CM/ISS is not only efficiently doable but
highly beneficial, especially once docked and/or snagged by the
LSE-CM/ISS robotics and/or crew, as this is obviously where the final
mission configuration outfitting could take place, as well as applied
shielding of mostly moon dirt and/or basalt rock, and whatever refuel.

What we can't seem to afford to deliver directly into space from
Earth, at least not without creating great amounts of global warming
CO2 for Earth, is that of any sufficient mass of radiation shielding,
and/or of just offering sufficient physical shield density for
surviving micro impacts that are more than a wee bit testy issues for
human space flights, along with there being anything leftover for the
likes of spare fuel, beer and pizza. Eventually, decades from now,
after spending perhaps trillions, the ESE(s) will most likely become
capable of accommodating those deliveries of such mass. Though most
any ESE should be more efficient than rockets, the overall process
still offers a significant CO2 impact for Earth, not to mention an
ongoing maintenance, defense of and logistics fiasco along with a list
of "what if's" that should keep all of us on our toes.

This latest ESE/LSE report/argument needs a whole lot of work, as well
as it could use your input plus lots more expertise, as well as
medications on my behalf. Within this delivery, I'm discussing or at
least attempting to convey upon the pro/con issues of the ESE/LSE,
though obviously I'm thoroughly confused and disorientated as usual,
as I can actually foresee others and even myself being snookered
again, just like those grand old Apollo cold-war days, along with all
the dog wagging on steroids, plus all of that being so nicely packaged
into the sorts of top notch NASA/NOVA produced and/or moderated
infomercials that'll knock your socks off.

Since I'm no good at telling my stories, I may have to get myself back
into this one, polish it up and otherwise continue to share in
whatever I've learned, as well as sharing whatever warm and fuzzy
favor returning that I can think of, as I'm certain of those opposing
or silently playing along, or perhaps they're pretending at their
playing "hide and seek" because, in reality these folks may actually
be dumber than dumb (that's merely arrogance without being smart
enough for realizing it), but obviously those folks would otherwise
expect nothing less from my perspective. So, I'll keep trying to
oblige.

I've accomplished this effort as yet another of my poor deliveries on
the PRO/CON issues of the ESE/LSE. Have yourself a look-see, a few
laughs at the expense of humanity, then give me some of that "all
knowing" feedback and even flak if that's all you've got. Of course,
what's mostly in need are specific numbers, of doable "what ifs" and
of whatever inventions you can devise upon, applicable for either the
ESE or LSE. Actually the ESE needs a whole lot more help and of
trillions more of your hard earned money than my LSE, but I'll
certainly take whatever you've got, even if it's just ESE leftovers.
PRO/CON ESE/LSE: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-ese-lse.htm


Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / the discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Besides way too many other topics, here's other ongoing LSE UPDATES:
Basalt tether update: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-gpa.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-se-flywheels.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-elevator.htm

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Brad Guth
> writes
>
>Since I'm no good at telling my stories,

'Nuff said!

I thought I had you kill filed but I see you've got a new address.
Goodbye!

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
(Brad Guth) wrote:

>
(Snipped much usual drivel)

You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
well? Please consult your physician regarding these delusions of yours.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

[Jay Windley]

"Herb Schaltegger" > wrote in message
...
|
| You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
| well?

Like most conspiracy theorists, he ignores questions and lays low for a
while so that his opponents become disinterested and go elsewhere. Then he
comes back with the same old drivel that was shredded previously, hoping for
a new crop of rubes.

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

[Brad Guth]

Herb Schaltegger > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Brad Guth) wrote:
>
> >
> (Snipped much usual drivel)
>
> You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
> well? Please consult your physician regarding these delusions of yours.

Not gone, just busy doing stuff.

BTW; where's some of that basalt lunar rock?

You know, all that dark lunar rock and subsequently clumping sand/soil
that photographed with nearly a 50% reflective index, in comparison to
those 85% reflective moon suits.

A little off topic, but still related to our moon; More often than
not, I've taken more than my fair share of warm and fuzzy flak, only
to discover long standing ulterior motives getting involved. Like all
the flak I've recently taken over the lunar space elevator
(LSE-CM/ISS): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Regards, Brad Guth IEIS~GASA / discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com phone: 1-253-8576061

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| You know, all that dark lunar rock and subsequently clumping sand/soil
| that photographed with nearly a 50% reflective index

I have asked you repeatedly to provided a discussion of where you arrived at
this value. Please provide it.

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

[Rick DeNatale]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:07:31 -0700, JGDeRuvo wrote:

> NO ONE accusses the
> Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ... or Titov's space walk

Well as far as I know they never claimed Gregarin flew, Gagarin yes, but
not Gregarin.

And Titov never made a space walk, he flew Vostok II and stayed in the
capsule until it was time to eject after reentry. The first spacewalker
was Leonov in Voskhod II.

[Brad Guth]

Rick DeNatale > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:07:31 -0700, JGDeRuvo wrote:
>
> > NO ONE accusses the
> > Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ... or Titov's space walk
>
> Well as far as I know they never claimed Gregarin flew, Gagarin yes, but
> not Gregarin.
>
> And Titov never made a space walk, he flew Vostok II and stayed in the
> capsule until it was time to eject after reentry. The first spacewalker
> was Leonov in Voskhod II.

As far as I can discover, the USSR did whatever it honestly took,
though snookering wasn't their strong suit as it was ours.

Of course this time around our NASA is going to be starting off from
near scratch, as so far there's absolutely nothing documented from our
past nor of what's in current inventory that has ever worked, or has
potential for getting man to/from any ET surface, much less of the
nastier lunar surface. Christ almighty, half the time we still can't
even get our miniature probes down onto another surface as planned.

I've got just a couple hundred thousand words about our resident
warlord taking us back to the moon, I feel somewhat most strongly like
following in his educational "high standards and accountability"
that's only being recently superseded by his "so what's the
difference" policy.

For starters, it's about time, whereas actually for the first time
we'd be actually doing humanity a terrific sort of favor, especially
if we can get our fearless leader to ride in one of those Apollo
landers and strut about for 36 hours in one of those Apollo moon
suits, as that way we'd stand our best chance ever of getting rid of
the *******, once and for all.

Otherwise I'm all for investing into whatever it takes in establishing
ourselves on the moon before others take possession of all that nifty
He3.

I believe the moon well return a profit within the first year;

Some good readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

[Brad Guth]

"Moon Dirt isn't just Moon Dirt, it's absolutely Everything Dirt"

I have absolutely no doubts that once upon a time Mars had a
sufficient atmosphere, thereby a warmer and radiation protected
environment, possibly even long enough to have sustained either
natural evolution and/or of some well intended terraforming on behalf
of establishing some life similar to human.

Unfortunately, there are certain limits to which life and of it's
DNA/RNA as we know it can coexist within the confines of what Mars has
had to offer for the past few thousand years, and certainly things are
not getting any better. Whereas Venus still offers a survivable
atmospheric buffer zone that's also loaded with all sorts of natural
energy opportunities.

The more the likes of the Mars core cools itself off, the worse
becomes any opportunity for that planet to revive itself, short of
receiving a massive infusion of artificial energy, such as what 1000
terawatts per year as derived from our lunar He3 might have to offer.

Some good readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm

The latest insults to this Mars/Moon injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Some other recent updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm

[Guth/IEIS~GASA]

Here's another of my positive contributions as for doing our moon
first, instead of Mars or even Europa, though I'll certainly favor any
honest thoughts upon the likes of Venus, of just interplanetary
communications.

"Moon, Mars, Venus, Sirius and Earth (so what's the difference?)"

Our Apollo moon only stinks to high heaven, while Mars sucks away at
critical expertise as well as limited resources, and otherwise
extracting billions away from intellectually as well as physically
starving folks. I wonder which is worse off, being a Cathar or another
NASA hugger that's intent upon skewing morality as well as physics
into the nearest space toilet.

I don't mean to be such a total pest about our unique moon but, even
those moons of Mars rotate as unsynchronized about their home world,
as do all other recorded moons, except for the one orbiting Earth.
Now, I wouldn't be having to do this if folks weren't so absolutely
opposing the notions of there being other life besides what's existing
on this Earth. I mean, give me a break, are these folks actually that
pathetic and anti-life or what?

Phobos mean radius: 21 km (13 mi)
Distance from Mars: 9,380 km (5,830 mi)
Period of Rotation: 0.3188 days

Deimos mean radius: 12 km (8 mi)
Distance from Mars: 23,460 km (14,580 mi)
Period of rotation: 1.2625 days

BTW; the mean density of Mars is: 3.95 grams/cm³
which in itself seems is a whole lot more like the composition of our
moon than Earth.

Jupiter's rotation Period: 9.92 hours
Of the 5 primary and 12 or so other moons of Jupiter, even though
there should have been if not concurrently tidal forces at play, yet
there seems to be none of these moons in synchronization with their
home world. Thus once again our unique moon seems somewhat out of step
with the trend of such things.

Another nagging consideration upon those meteorites and shards strewn
about the surface of Mars, considering the entire lack of any
atmospheric buffer zone associated with our moon, surely the lunar
surface environment must be considerably more intensified with the
same sorts of debris, as clearly similar if not worse to what was
imaged by the Mars pathfinder mission, and only recently being
confirmed by what's being imaged as we speak.

As I've stipulated on other pages, the odds of yourself being impacted
by at least a dust-bunny or a gram worth of micro meteorite of
something that's obviously unimpaired from colliding with the moon is
actually quit good, whereas I've averaged those sorts of impacts at 10
km/s, as you must realize that our moon is traveling through space at
roughly 30 km/s (+/- lunar velocity with respect to Earth) thereby
colliding with numerous debris in addition to that which is simply
targeting the moon and being accelerated at the 1.6 m/s/s as captured
by lunar gravity.

So, according to those Apollo images, that are of potentially far
better resolution than even the most recent Mars images, especially if
those quality negatives and/or transparencies were to be scanned at
9600 dpi or even 19,200 dpi, even though somehow these terrific frames
recorded such damn few meteorites and shards, but mostly that of a
desert like surface reflecting average illumination quite nicely at
roughly 55%, without any perceptible mineral colors at that. So, the
question is, which of these two sources of images (Mars/moon) is true
to life, as surely one of them is skewed.

Mars images: http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/80894_fu.jpg

Moon images:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/moon/apollo17_schmitt_boulder.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/a11_h_40_5886.html
http://home.arcor.de/yoiks/mondbilder/as16-107-17446.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-107-17446.jpg

There are certainly far better and worse Apollo lunar photo examples
(depending upon what you're looking for), though you'll still need to
consistantly disregard the total lack of any blast crater, as well as
for those illumination hot spot issues, never minding that for some
unexplained reasons not even the star Sirius could have been imaged,
though apparently careful attention was always given to exclude upon
such horrifically bright stars, not to mention avoiding Venus like the
plague (Venus must have always been on the other side of the sun), and
especially avoiding any of those frames from including Earth along
with a lunar landscape with an astronaut were taboo.

Notice how the final redo issued by NASA on the as16-107-17446.jpg is
rather significantly lesser image quality than of their original, of
which the original includes that infamous "C" rock among a few other
tidbits, but also notice how the background terrain is suddenly so
entirely devoid of meteorite debris, and so nicely illuminating at
that, without ever a single dark basalt rock anywhere within the image
to be seen, much less of any hint of even a vibrant star that still
should have been recorded as a relatively dim point of illumination
(most stars being highly UV worthy and there being no atmosphere to
block/filter such intense UV photons).

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/
Notice how much reflective brightness the lunar surface continually
offers in respect to those 80% reflective moon suits, then notice how
the majority of rocks are actually brighter than their suroundings. I
could certainly go on and on but, what's the point, or perhaps this is
also where we should apply our "high standards and accountability" and
"so what's the difference" factor.

Apparently the fact that there were so few, and otherwise relatively
minimal meteorites and shards strewn about isn't supposed to suggest
anything either. Although, if you'd care to go through any number of
other Apollo images, of which we've all see more than our fair share,
please do offer your notions as to why there's so damn few of those
meteorites and shards, especially when the overall lunar surface had
been so much more so mega impact pulverised and has remained entirely
vulnerable than even Mars. The fact that the lunar surface as
portrayed by those Apollo images seemed to be so darn reflective is
yet another skewed avenue of something that's never been resolved
because, if there were the expected average of 11% reflective index
involved (darkish basalt and meteorite strewn and all), as then the
imaging of those absolutely vibrant stars would have been a rather
simple task, and even somewhat difficult to have avoided and/or pass
up, unless you were an absolute village idiot moron on drugs.

Of course, there's always been a few dozen other pesky issues, as well
as far better qualified folks having their say, where all of which
must be disregarded about their opposing those infamous Apollo
missions on more grounds than I ever imagined. So, all you'll need to
do is skew those laws of physics and to apply whatever conditional
parameters whenever necessary, and lo and behold, as in right out of
that space toilet, in spite of the total lack of whatever rational
sciences, much less independent or even technical expertise support
for those missions, somehow they all happened exactly like our NASA
stipulated, and the last time I'd checked under my pillow, the tooth
fairy left me a million bucks, plus another million of those Halburton
stock options.

Besides all of this pathetically stupid Apollo "yes we did", "no they
didn't" crap, why don't we just cut to the chase by utilizing our
resident warlord's "so what's the difference" WMD policy, and call it
good.

Latest Sirius entry, along with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004):
****** http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm
* http://guthvenus.tripod.com/synchronized-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-earth-venus.htm

Calling Venus;
If you're perchance the least bit interested in the truly hot prospect
of achieving interplanetary communications, as for that quest I've
added lots into this following page;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm

David Sereda (loads of his honest ideas and notions upon UV energy),
for best impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

[Guth/IEIS~GASA]

This part is not a Hoax!, as I believe we can place probes in working
order onto if not into the surface of the moon, and that's a fact.

"Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the cheap"

As just an example;
I'm thinking that of a modern day probe with a suitable battery and
compact PV cell array that's either tightly integral and/or
subsequently deploy able upon impact, that perhaps this form of micro
instrument and of it's data/transponder could be comprised of as
little as 1 kg. Of course, of your vastly superior "all-knowing" probe
can become whatever, 10 kg < 1 t.

As for my initial delivery scheme, I'm thinking of involving hydrogen
or whatever gas filled balloons, actually quite a good number of
balloons within one another, and obviously not the least bit for their
buoyancy, but as for spreading out the impact to a rather sizable zone
of perhaps as much as 10 m2, as opposed to the instrument probe impact
zone representing as little as a mere 0.001 m2 (25 mm upper body with
a tapered 25 mm > 5 mm spike end), and of what this relatively small
instrument/probe may be looking somewhat like a miniture spear or half
javelin.

1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

In other words, I'm suggesting that the initial impact of this small
probe can be spread conservatively by at least 1000:1, therefore if
the raw velocity at impact were to become 5 km/s, thus a 1 kg/probe
that was surrounded by another kg worth of balloons and sub/micro
balloons that would impact at an overall worth of 25,000 tonnes,
though this energy is subsequently being spread over the 10 m2, thus
the actual javelin probe body of 0.001 m2 should become merely 2.5
tonnes, though applying another 10X fudge factor makes for 25 t.

Any way you'd care to slice it, 25 tonnes worth of probe impact is
still one hell of an impact, though I tend to believe this could be
survivable, especially since the notion of delivering any decent probe
will ideally need to be firmly implanted into lunar soil and rock, the
deeper the better, as long as the upper protion remains exposed for
receiving and transmitting data.

Obviously, if this turned out being the 25 tonnes worth of impact
survival, as representing too much to ask for, then enlarging the
balloon and of increasing the numbers of the smaller balloons within
should further spread this impact, thus decelerating and taking the
brunt of the probe delivery impact. Another avenue is to lengthen upon
the spike end, at the risk of increasing the mass, as the compression
of this semi-hallow javelin will also absorb energy. Obviously the
deployment and desired free-fall vertical positioning will need to be
gyroscopic, though the probe itself could be initially set spinning at
100,000 rpm, adding somewhat a friction drilling attribute to the
probe impact.

The lunar soil (supposedly 11% reflective index and of clumping moon
dirt) should account for another degree of impact deceleration, then
of the penetrated rock and I'll assume some degree of compression of
the javelin probe tip itself should absorb whatever remains. At least
if all fails, the value per micro-probe isn't going to bust the world
bank, nor stress the technology expertise to any breaking point, as if
need be a dozen of every required instrument function can be deployed,
so that if only one survives the delivery, we've accomplished the
task.

Unlike those Apollo landers, every facet of these probe deployments
can be fully tested and confirmed on Earth prior to accomplishing the
real thing.

Of course, having a fully fly-by-wire robotic lander certainly would
be nice, though a wee bit spendy, and I'll suppose that of some day
our crack NASA teams will actually obtain that degree of purely rocket
powered controlled flight capability, as otherwise the next best
technology is obviously what the recent Mars probes utilized in order
to decelerate their impact. Since there's so little difference between
the thin Mars atmosphere and that of the moon, where actually the
lesser gravity of the moon should almost offset this disadvantage, so
that such a well proven method of essentially dropping objects safely
onto such a foreign surface seems almost like way-overkill for the
task of delivering such small (1 kg) probes onto and preferably as
partially impaled into the moon, though dozens of such probes might be
safely deployed by one such velocity breaking maneuver, such as
bringing everything to a vertical velocity of zero at the elevation of
1 km would certainly do wonders for alleviating the horrific impact
that's otherwise faced with the 1.6 m/s/s influence of lunar gravity.

A raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as dropped from 1 km, should impact at
roughly 0.8 t (800 kg), well within survival specifications of even
toys-R-us, which might not even represent sufficient impact for
implanting these lightweight probes.

Keeping in mind that shape and/or size is not a velocity factor, other
than spreading the impact energy over a greater or lesser zone,
whereas the Hindenburg of 242 metric tons and of representing more
than 210,000 m3 will obtain the exact same impact velocity as a
bowling ball or that of a dust-bunny, identical velocity as long as
each were introduced from the same altitude.

Of course, this is all purely "one-way", and never given a second
thought of our retrieving anything but measured data, nor of having to
sustain human or other life by shielding them from the truly horrific
elements of various lunar exposures.

I believe such small/compact probes can be engineered to survive these
sorts of deployment impacts, as well as sufficiently immune to such
horrific radiation, and of their avoiding meteorite impact, as their
odds are greatly improved upon by the sheer fact that these compact
probes represent such a small target, though eventually they'll each
be pulverised by something.

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

[Guth/IEIS~GASA]

Correction to: "Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the
cheap"

False!
A raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as dropped from 1 km, should impact at
roughly 0.8 t (800 kg), well within survival specifications of even
toys-R-us, which might not even represent sufficient impact for
implanting these lightweight probes.

Oops: if I'd only correctly utilized the formula of V squared.
1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivalent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

From 1 km obviously = 1,600 m/s, squared = 2.56e6

True!
1 kg dropped from 1 km = .5*1e3*2.56e6 = 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes
impact)

Thus a raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as dropped from 1 km, should impact
at roughly 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes), which might not survive
specifications of even the most robust toys-R-us, though obviously
accommodating more than sufficient impact capability as for implanting
these lightweight probes.

The part about the 2 kg package consisting of balloons within
balloons, surrounding the 1 kg probe, all of which impacting at 5 km/s
is still amounting to 25,000 t. At least this portion is still
correct, and I tend to believe the 1000:1 reduction in impact for the
probe within this format is also within reason, even though I haven't
researched a darn thing as to such impact absorbing packaging.
Obviously this delivery method remains way more complicated than the
simple "all stop" raw free-for-all drop from 1 km.

What caught my attention about this error was in my recalling previous
references I'd made to the sorts of damage small and even
micro-meteorites can impose upon any lunar EVA, as such open exposure
to whatever is incoming is downright pesky if not lethal.

As usual, I'll make such mistakes in the future, and even some of my
best effort corrections are going to be in error, though at any time
others can provide their more correctness and I'll certainly give all
the credits possible, which by the way, seems to be far more than our
NASA has ever done for you.

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA