Once again, there's absolutely nothing coming from wizard Jay Windley
that anyone can pin down. Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing, though claims manned
space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in the park at perhaps 10
mrem/day, at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
his fairy tail Apollo stories.

You'll notice how wizard Jay says a great deal, but there's never any
specifics, absolutely nothing that's not thoroughly moderated to death
by NASA and published in the Apollo Bible.

"I'm an engineer. I make people's lives better by using the laws of
the universe to increase humankind's collective ability and alleviate
its collective and individual discomforts."

That's certainly a good side of wizard Jay, though odd, as for some
reason those same laws of physics don't seem to apply to the likes of
our moon or Venus. Such as where lighting index isn't relevant,
radiation exposures are whatever Jay wants them to be, Kodak film
doesn't even measurably fog after two weeks exposure, interplanetary
laser communications isn't possible, other life isn't possible, a
lunar SAR receiving aperture isn't possible and, I'll just bet
anything that a lunar space elevator isn't remotely possible either.

Thankfully wizard Jay certainly isn't alone, as his Borg collective is
sort of alive throughout the internet. This latest offering of mine is
merely regarding the honest fact that space elevators are not equal,
not even politically correct, though being dead right seems about all
that matters, especially if you're the least bit against wasting time
and lots of money.

Being the least bit right about a lunar Space Elevator is almost as
bad off as being 10% right about there being Other Life on Venus.
Thank God I'm not Cathar, as then I'd be literally dead right (that
black smoke was actually the Pope roasting another Cathar, white smoke
was a Jewish flavor) and, that's almost as testy as holding out
invisible WMDs.

Check out this Borg group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator/

I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE. Yet all I've received is pure
bashings, of receiving no worthwhile specifics nor "what if"
considerations whatsoever, as though there's none other than an Earth
SE irregardless of the complexities, cost or carnage.

Obvisously, since being complex and spendier than all of wholy hell is
of absolutely no moral consideration whatsoever for this space
elevator group, that's when I thought that all bets were off, as in
anything was fair game for consideration, including my questioning of
their ulterior motives.

Obviously since their honest motives aren't making any sense, that
only leaves ulterior motives, or utter stupidity and, they've clearly
indicated that they already know just about everything there is to
know, so that supposedly rules out stupidity but perhaps not
arrogance.

I'm thinking, if instead of learning and sharing various technical SE
expertise, and of insuring credits wherever credit is due, if instead
bashing ring of fire is the true name of this game, then perhaps I'll
just gather up some of that still warm and fuzzy flak and return it
with love.

Of course, if someone actually wanted to express anything meaningful
towards doing a lunar SE, or of what could be associated with it or
not, as that would actually be somewhat of what I thought these
talented SE folks would have to offer. My mistake, how absolutely
foolish of myself to even think that there's anyone that actually
gives a tinkers damn about much of anything that's not benefiting
their agenda, much less humanity.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Dear Brad Guth:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
Once again, there's absolutely nothing coming from wizard Jay Windley
that anyone can pin down. Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing, though claims manned
space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in the park at perhaps 10
mrem/day, at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
his fairy tail Apollo stories.

The word is tale. Mr. Min, you should be ashamed of yourself.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Hrx6b.46437$Qy4.5999@fed1read05...
Dear Brad Guth:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
Once again, there's absolutely nothing coming from wizard Jay Windley
that anyone can pin down. Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing, though claims manned
space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in the park at perhaps 10
mrem/day, at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
his fairy tail Apollo stories.

The word is tale. Mr. Min, you should be ashamed of yourself.

David A. Smith

Thanks so much. That's certainly the least of my problems, although of
those opposing, they do like to poke fun of me or of anyone objecting
to their correctly spelled agendas.

Here's a little something other that I've recently posted, probably
loaded down with more poor grammar and hard to understand syntax. BTW;
I'm only ashamed of being associated with the cold-war likes of our
NASA, as far too many folks have paid the ultimate price and, for what
I'm not sure anymore.


TRACE-II instead of any stinking space elevator or of terriforming
Venus.

Instead of our badly terraforming good old Venus, or even opting for a
spendy lunar or more so Earth se; how about our configuring and
shipping off an affordable and relatively compact TRACE-II, one that's
outfitted with a few of those solid state 5W lasers and of numerous
single channel photon detectors, being about 1/10th the Magellan
investment and of not 1% the operational overhead. All and all, that's
not even postage for the paper work related to accomplishing any space
elevator, much less terraforming Venus.

Station keeping the TRACE-II at Venus L2 (VL2) is not hardly even
rocket science anymore. Utilizing this instrument as a relay platform
for various communications while the optical features of TRACE-II goes
about imaging the visible portion of the sun and of its coronasphere
is hardly an insignificant opportunity. The CCD camera and associated
optics and filters are well proven, the resolution and range of scan
speed is way more than sufficient, it's entirely proven and best of
all, the original TRACE is about due for a replacement. So, the entire
TRACE team will not have to be retired and, this new vantage point of
VL2 is nearly ideal for accomplish certain tasks that the original
instrument was not only handicapped but much further away. The
TRACE-II could have an even more capable CCD of perhaps 4 times as
much resolution plus being upon average 0.275 AU closer to their
target. That at least 8 fold improvement in solar imaging, not to
mention the other aspects of what TRACE-II could accomplish for
essentially pennies on the dollar.

So, why waste all the time and billions if not trillions trying to
goto places ill suited for humans, especially of such frozen and
irradiated to death locations such as Mars, or of otherwise putting
nearly all of our eggs into one of those horrific space elevators,
when we can simply send off a few complex binary message packets
(local laser area code no less) such as asking "what's up?" or perhaps
"how hot is it?", then monitor for their reply, seems like a whole lot
more bang for the buck or euro and best of all, of not one roasted
astronaut.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/laser-com.htm

Less spendier yet will be of accomplishing the Moon-SAR imaging but,
that's not nearly as much fun as accomplishing any two-way
interplanetary call (I'm actually looking forward to my first email
smut from Venus): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

The lunar space elevator and our NExT CM/ISS perhaps isn't 1% of
accomplishing any Earth based space elevator, but that lunar SE
prospect is still talking in terms of tens of billions. That's
certainly far more than I've got.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

If I can save but one unnecessary roasting of another astronaut, or
save our humanity from needlessly blowing billions and/or trillions
upon humanly unobtainable goals, somehow I think that's one better off
than most all others have accomplished. If that effort turns out to
include the confirmation of "other life NOT as we know it" existing or
even the remains thereof on Venus, unlike certain individuals I've
known, I'll share big-time with specifics, as well as with the levels
of support for others honestly trying to make a difference in spite of
the status quo.

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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| Once again, there's absolutely nothing coming from wizard
| Jay Windley that anyone can pin down.

Or rather, the exact specifics you think I'm supposed to provide aren't
there. I've given you plenty of useful information. You just aren't
interested in it because in order to grasp it you'd have to first admit that
you were gravely wrong. And you're not about to do that. You can't come to
terms with just how wrong you are.

You throw out words such as "secondary radiation" and "solar minimum"
without understanding what they mean and how they fit into a big picture.
Until you understand the basic, qualitative aspects of cislunar radiation
then nothing that anyone can say will make sense to you.

| Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
| that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing

You can't seem to think outside the context of your own theory, and until
you are able to do that -- and thereby see all that's wrong with it -- you
won't be able to appreciate anything I say.

I have stated this on numerous occaions. I have stated in great detail why
your model doesn't work. You have simply ignored those statements and
continue banging me over the head with your science fiction. You accept
only the possibility that your theory might be wrong in what numbers are
"plugged" into it. You won't consider the possibility that it's
conceptually invalid.

First, you take a cumulative figure composed of several widely-separated,
discrete events and then try to amortize that over the measurement period as
a steady rate. This is statistically invalid.

Second, you neglect the qualitative differences between long-term missions
and short missions and how the statistical analysis of risk can be vastly
different between them.

Third, you try to directly compare the radiation environments from two
radically different zones in cislunar space. You attribute the difference
to some hypothetical conspiracy to conceal the truth instead of to the
qualitative differences in the environments themselves.

Until you are willing to correct those egregious errors in your theory,
there's no point in trying to talk about explicit exposures in concrete
units.

| though claims manned space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in
| the park at perhaps 10 mrem/day

I have made absolutely no such claim.

| at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
| his fairy tail Apollo stories.

No. I have explained the error in this estimate you keep making and trying
to pin on me. You are deriving a supposed continuous exposure rate where it
is not statistically justified. I have explained this already in great
detail by means of direct expostulation, analogy, and comparison. You have
not even commented on any of it.

| You'll notice how wizard Jay says a great deal, but there's never any
| specifics, absolutely nothing that's not thoroughly moderated to death
| by NASA and published in the Apollo Bible.

First, I have explained on numerous occasions why there are no specific
figures in my arguments: there is no figure I could give, which will make
your theory work. I'm trying to correct the QUALITATIVE errors in your
theory first, because until that's done you'll simply reject -- as you
have -- any specific figures I might give.

You've pre-rejected, based on your anti-NASA paranoia, any specific figures
I might wish to use. You've also demonstrated an inability to understand
when specific information can be applied to different situations.

Now when you're willing to discuss what's ACTUALLY wrong with your theory,
then perhaps you can have a meaningful conversation with me.

| That's certainly a good side of wizard Jay

Have you seen any other side? You obviously postulate some "Borg" side
which you claim undermines anything I might say. But that's simply your
stock answer to anything you don't want to deal with. Anyone who disagrees
with Brad Guth, whether or not he has a good reason, is a "Borg". Because
Brad Guth can't possibly be wrong.

| though odd, as for some reason those same laws of physics
| don't seem to apply to the likes of our moon or Venus.

Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the FACTS bear out the physics
expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories do not fit the facts, and
so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that they "must" be bogus.

| Such as where lighting index isn't relevant

I've never made this claim, and I've asked you fully a dozen times to
provide data to support whatever point you're trying to make.

| radiation exposures are whatever Jay wants them to be

I've never made this claim. I simply point out that your model -- which
demands constant high levels of radiation -- is not consistent with how
cislunar radiation behaves and is not consistent with acquired fact.

| Kodak film doesn't even measurably fog after two weeks
| exposure

Funny how the Russians' film didn't fog either. Again, the facts contradict
your theory. And we've shown you the flaws in your theory -- why it's
wrong. But you insist that the unfogged film is evidence of conspiracy to
conceal the truth, not evidence that your theory needs revision. Whatever
doesn't fit your theory is "thrown out" as "obviously" fabricated data.

| Thankfully wizard Jay certainly isn't alone, as his Borg
| collective is sort of alive throughout the internet.

Yes, and strange how this "Borg collective" is the scientists and engineers
actually responsible for building things.

Remove my name and web address at once from your web site. You have
misrpresented my statements there.

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

In sci.space.policy Jay Windley wrote:

Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the FACTS bear out the physics
expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories do not fit the facts, and
so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that they "must" be bogus.

pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back in time by
several decades? 8-P

IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe in history?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
|
| pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back
| in time by several decades? 8-P

I'm focusing on a particular couple of Brad's claims, not his entire
catalogue. I'm an expert in Apollo, and Brad has made specific claims
regarding Apollo.

| IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe
| in history?

For Brad's sake, no. For the sake of readers who wonder if there are
reasonable answers to Brad's statements, yes.

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

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
In sci.space.policy Jay Windley wrote:

Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the
FACTS bear out the physics
expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories
do not fit the facts, and
so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that
they "must" be bogus.

pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back in time by
several decades? 8-P

Nah. Millenia.



IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe in history?

Yes. Think of the lurkers who may not know.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

The world will see me gear up ,,buying mills.
What you going to do for steel ??
What my new auto plant and engine plant and world wide trains pwer
plants and underwater roads ,,,,,,
You wount nead space awaile.
Im sinking things so big you can shop in the mall under a huricane
where lines are changed.
My new shipping line will make it so cheep and so fast to ship
anything anywhere it will drive planet earth like the rail road did.

Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
In sci.space.policy Jay Windley wrote:

Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the FACTS bear out the physics
expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories do not fit the facts, and
so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that they "must" be bogus.

pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back in time by
several decades? 8-P

IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe in history?


When you or anyone figures out how the hell those nice astronauts took
such a walk in the park at a mere 10 mrem/day of open space travel,
that's not even for being within the Van Allen zone of death nor of
their strolling about on a lunar surface simply loaded with secondary
radiation issues, not to mention having to deal with all of that bone
dry clumping moon dirt that was so oddly reflective, as then I'll post
your specifics right on my INDEX and/or UPDATE page and, as Wizard Jay
will gladly inform you, I'll post credits, or of any web page link
you've got to offer.

For the moment, as this topic implies, I'm focused somewhat upon what
the likes of good elevator robotics (and/or TRACE-II) can accommodate,
of what a lunar space elevator can achieve for pennies on the dollar,
especially as compared to our doing any Earth SE. As usual, God
forbid, I'll not expect to be receiving any worth of expertise nor
specifics from the pro-Apollo camp.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
LSE UPDATES: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| When you or anyone figures out how the hell those nice
| astronauts took such a walk in the park at a mere 10 mrem/day
| of open space travel

Well, I figured out the problem in your estimates. And I tried several
times to tell you what it was. But because I started out my explanation
with, "Brad Guth is wrong..." you probably didn't see it. You won't admit
any specific error.

| that's not even for being within the Van Allen zone of death

Your computations indicate that you don't even know where the Van Allen
belts are. And you never admit any specific error.

| nor of their strolling about on a lunar surface simply loaded
| with secondary radiation issues

You don't know what secondary radiation is, or how strong it would be.

| having to deal with all of that bone dry clumping moon dirt

We tried to explain that to you. You won't admit any specific error.

| ...that was so oddly reflective

So far you haven't tried to explain this.

| as Wizard Jay will gladly inform you, I'll post credits, or of any
| web page link you've got to offer.

No. You'll completely restate what someone has said, sprinkling it
liberally with your own delusions and interpolations, and then post the
result as if it were something the original person has said. And then
you'll ignore every subsequent effort of that person to get you to quote him
accurately, or at worst to remove the butchered attributions altogether.
You'll accuse your supplier of "revisionism" and then insult him for it.

You're psychotic.

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