Re: Apollo's Laser Reflecting 'Corner Cubes'

Note to denizens of sci.skeptic:

This guy is a crackpot.

Note to Guth:

I see that you took the time to do a Google search on me. Unfortunately, you apparently didn't think to Google for me on the web itself. Try it.

http://www.resonancepub.com/interview3.htm

Note to all, including self: Never call people "local village idiots"
and like terms, until you know who you're dealing with. You could end
up eating your shoes, without ketchup.

Jack

Brad Guth wrote:
:The likes of "tj Frazir" and myself have been sufficiently right from
:our very beginnings,

I wouldn't know about that. I don't have the context you do.

Jack Crenshaw,
But you otherwise claim to know of damn near all there is to know, or
at least you've more than suggested that you only associate with those
that do. You also seem to have umlimited "context" to share if it's at
all related to supporting whatever it is that your mainstream status
quo has to say.


Ah, so now we get to it. A NASA-hater, Bush hater, eh?

There's nothing to "get to it", as I don't hate our NASA, I just
thoroughly despise those at the top of their all-knowing heap of
infomercial and perpetrated cold-war crapolla food-chain, as having
continually sucked and blown big-time, though obviously not nearly as
sucking and blowing worthy as badly as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush).


Reactive moon? I don't even know what that means. Did you possibly
mean to say "radioactive"?

If you elect to pretend that you don't understand the meaning of
"reactive moon", in which case you're local village idiot that's worse
off than I'd thought possible.

Our moon is both, sufficiently radioactive and otherwise rather nicely
reactive, as in being fully secondary/recoil reactive, thus having been
giving birth to gamma and hard-X-rays.


If no one's ever been there, how do you know it's salty? Where's your
evidence?

There's a well established and easily replicated science of having
recorded the 14,000 km worth of sodium atmosphere, plus the 900,000 km
comet like trail of sodium that's continually excavated by way of the
solar wind. Only the mindset of a truly intellectual bigot would not
have known about this, much less having excluded such science from the
pool of evidence. Secondly, the density of the moon itself is
suggesting there's more available salt than heavier elements.


Again, did you mean "radioactive"? Are you saying that the moon
_RADIATES_ gamma and x-rays? Where's your evidence? If we never went
there, how do you know the dose rate?

Obviously you don't read much unless it's out of context, and you don't
even believe your own eyes as to whatever has been published via your
NASA, and/or of whatever having been given the NASA stamp of approval.
Why is that?

You don't have to go to the moon in order to prove that you'll soon be
quite dead. This is where remote-science is good enough, although
having a few direct hard-science readings as taken from the surface
would certainly be nice.

Yes, in fact our moon radiates a great deal of gamma plus good amount
of hard-X-rays (more than our DNA can survive but for a few seconds, or
perhaps minutes at best unless earthshine is the only source of local
illumination), as in double duh!


Huh? What life? Where's your evidence?

Huh! right back at you. Sorry, I obviously didn't realize that you're
biologically blind as well as being summarily dumbfounded.


I can't speak to the number of photons in the universe. There are indeed
lots and lots of them, as anyone can see by looking up on a clear night.
I'd like very much, though, to see an FTL photon. Where's your evidence?

But you seem to have no problems whatsoever in speaking the mainstream
status quo.

My FTL proof is 100% within the regular laws of physics. Where's
your's?

Can you otherwise suggest as to how fast a continuous graviton-photon
wave(CGW) is, or isn't?


I can't speak to the reaction you mention; I know that while the energy
per atom of radium decay is enormous, I also know that we can calculate,

from its half-life, how many decays are likely in a gram of Ra, and how

joules per second are generated. See, that's the fundamental problem.
You make a lot of claims, but they are claims that aren't backed up by
hard numbers. You talk about hard science, but you aren't doing any.

The high energy status of the use-it or lose-it Rn atom-->ion isn't the
least bit hocus-pocus. It's perfectly real and it's offering a
perfectly usable alternative to those Xe ions that are extremely wossy.
To advance/accelerate an ion worth of Rn shouldn't take but a
millionth the applied energy of accomplishing the same reaction as with
Xe ions, therefore, the greater potential of Rn-->ion thrust has to be
there to behold.

Replacing Xe-->ion thrusters with an onboard breeder reactor of
Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion isn't the least bit insurmountable.
BTW; besides what's existing right here on mother Earth, there's lots
of good old Ra and subsequent Rn on our moon (LRn by night).

:What's so "outrageous" about there being intelligent design by way of
:our own kind or from the expertise and talents of certain ETs.

Sorry, I'm skeptical of ET's, including Venusians.

That's perfectly OK by me, as I'm skeptical as hell that our resident
warlord is actually that of an ET cloning reject, all because his
mutated DNA cloning process simply didn't cut the mustard.

Why don't you otherwise favor a strong belief in the process of
intelligent design?

Isn't our very own intelligent design of exactly what modern biology
and the advancement of our medical science is all about?


Um ... because Sirius is way too far away?

But every 105,000 some odd years (more frequent cycles in the past)
it's not nearly too far away, or don't you believe in the hard-science
of ice cores or that of stellar motions, and/or of the matter of fact
that essentially everything is essentially orbiting something, unless
it has already impacted and thus combined with whatever else is
orbiting something. I even believe the regular laws of physics proves
that our universe is in orbit with yet another universe or perhaps just
involved with one absolute motherload of a black (AKA antimatter) hole
that's rather nicely surrounded by all of those vast numbers of nearly
resting photons (1e100 photons/atom [excluding gravitons] is currently
about as good of swag as I've got to work with).


That's one part in 300,000,000,000. Why is it I have trouble believing
that this will melt glaciers?

Move us to within 0.0857 LY of that nasty sucker(Sirius-a,b,c), and do
that calculation once again. I believe that it'll represent 10,000
fold more energy as being contributed, and that's for several hundreds
of years at a time before we're sufficiently backing ourselves away
from the Sirius star system. BTW; the Sirius star system is not only
3.5 times as massive, but the energy output of the Sirius star system
is considerably greater than of our sun, and it's otherwise offering
the nearly ideal energy spectrum as to benefit the likes of diatoms.

You do realize that without diatoms, life as we know is couldn't
possibly have existed upon Earth, much less are we ever going to
survive without the benefit of those nifty little photon eating and
CO2-->CO/O2 converting microbugs. Isn't it a good thing that local
evolution has somehow excluded and/or avoided the evolutionary process
upon diatoms?

What would happen if diatoms had evolved into something other?


The question implies that you have evidence that many of those "known"
facts are known to be wrong.
Where's your evidence?

I'm using the published science and whatever's of their uncovered
evidence as offered by so many others, as well as applied deductive
reasoning as based upon my having to utilize those pesky regular laws
of physics. How about yourself?

As you've damn well known for years, I've posted my evidence. Go fish.
If you still can manage to catch any fish, I might prove that I'm a
really nice guy by way of my returning with such a fish that I'll have
to place directly on your hook.

BTW; as to the notion that ""many of those "known" facts are known to
be wrong"" is simply an ongoing observation and process of
infomercial-science illimitation(s), of what's been recently proven as
having been dead wrong (especially dead if you're Muslim). The last
time I'd checked, most humans (including a few Jews) were still into
making mistakes (aka GW Bush and his trigger happy *** Cheney for
starters).


Ok, forget the anti-think-tank minions. Give me one iota of hard science
that backs up your claim to be the only one capable of hard science.
See, it's not what you say, it's what you _DO_. Saying that a thing is
true, or a thing thought to be true is not, is not enough. You have to
offer E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Lots of people, including the minions here, don't
get that.

But I'm not "the only one capable of hard science", never have been and
will likely never be as all-knowing as yourself. Most everything I'm
dealing with is via remote science that's humanly subjective, as
otherwise based upon the best available hard-science that has having
been made public, plus having taken in as much soft-science that fits
sufficiently within your accepted box of rules, and/or whatever else is
developed along the way as extracted from whatever my best swag can
manage to deductively contribute as to what's most likely the case
(being most likely is always a whole lot better off than being most
unlikely). Of course, if we had an actual hard-science deployed set of
instruments on our moon, or perhaps just having a good LL-1 instrument
platform, or even if having established the Venus VL2-TRACE alternative
as a perfectly viable station-keeping platform on behalf of science
accomplishing a better job on Venus, as such we'd obviously be a whole
lot better off than we are right now.

Obviously you don't believe in remote/soft-science, therefore radar
imaging is Jack taboo, thereby not even the very best of such radar
images obtained of Earth are qualified as valid science within your
skewed book of hyped infomercial-science or bust. You obviously don't
believe in anything that's outside of your NASA/Apollo koran, or rather
paganology on a stick that seemingly sucks and blows because, you're
all so deathly afraid of there being more holes in that all of that
infomercial NASA crapolla than all of whatever SpongeBob SquarePants
has to offer. Boat rocking simply is not your thing.

BTW; what's with all of this "Mother duck crosses over" topic?
-
Brad Guth

.

Loading