Re: Moon hoax as American as apple pie

From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:00:52 +0000 (UTC)

I really don't know for absolute certainty if my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon that's oddly
missing or at least incomplete is any different than of my highly
subjective interpretations upon images obtained by the Magellan mission
persay the one and only last word. Deductive reasoning has generally
functioned just fine and dandy getting myself this far in life without
getting in too much trouble, or of getting someone other killed, whereas
I'm not at all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations
and of those supporting such actions can say the same.

I realize that I've been pushing several of these 'do not push' buttons,
along with my lose cannon method of getting folks thinking along the
lines of what's most important about the likes of Venus, and/or even as
per considering upon the prospects of our getting a TRACE-II established
at VL2. If my focus wasn't being so continually bashed from the very
start of five years ago and counting, and/or continually ignored by all
of those nice folks claiming as being so all-knowing, then perhaps I'd
never have bothered with whatever our moon has or has not to offer.

Since most of the 'sci.skeptic', 'sci.history' and of multiple other
such 'sci.all-knowing' forums that summarily suck as badly as
'badastronomy' and even by your 'apollohoax' having usually focused upon
sucking up to whatever's NASA/Apollo or bust, whereas it seems these
folks are not persay really contributing as honest 'skeptics',
'science', 'physics', or even wizards about squat, in fact they're
mostly reacting as mainstream borgs of dog-wagging spinners of the
necessary disinformation hype and damage-control, performing exactly as
the sorts of 'Skull and Bones" moles functioning on behalf of
contributing whatever suits their pagan God(NASA/Apollo). I've noticed
how they seem to have all the right words and usually better math, while
they've otherwise buckled under specific questioning, by way of their
usually seaking out something to bash about or merely by way of going
off-topic, and/or by simply not answering specific questions, other than
continually quoting from their scripted and thereby pre-approved
NASA/Apollo bible.

Such as; I'll re-offer the following, that I've never had problems with
images of our moon obtained from orbit, not from anything Apollo while
in orbit, via Hubble or even the likes of KECK, as they each depict a
mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as 3%(coal
like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only an extremely few
maximum lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions as
to the surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics as
recorded by the unfiltered Kodak eye.

Why did there seem to be so much terrain that was 55+% reflective once
upon the lunar surface?

How is it that selective portions of their lunar terrain were
retro-reflective?

Why was there's never darker substances of raw basalt exposed under
and/or all about those undocumented landers, as depicted from images
obtained from orbit that clearly indicated 5% or less reflective index
wherever NASA/Apollo pointed out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of radiated energy
as IR coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase in near-UV
and UV/a energy?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Where was good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus have been photo recorded as nearly as bright as per
those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never once a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even 3
km/s?

Why is there still nothing of interactive scientific instrumentation
deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment?

What's the secondary TBI difference between the fully illuminated side
of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or earthshine
environment, or didn't our command modules (on 7+ Apollo occasions) and
numerous other robotic missions before and after ever once bother as to
recording squat as to such raw surface emissions of thermal and
radiation levels that should have been rather easily obtained data of
the sorts of differentials from such a relatively low (100+km) orbit?

In a little further research retrospective; exactly how long does it
require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
behalf of seriously accomplishing nothing but good and honorable things
with ISS, I also have managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to
folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational booster
shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't
even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even
better physics and science logic and numerous other values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

As I get the chance, I'll search for and extract your name and even your
'apollohoax' as being of no further value to what I have to offer. As I
learn of what's what, and if that's supportive of what you've published
that I've previously disagreed with, I'll gladly deliver an honest
retraction, making certain that others realize that I've actually made
another mistake, which is entirely unlike a certain resident warlord
that you admire which apparently never makes a mistake.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Quantcast