jowr; Corner cube retroreflectors. But I am sure you have an
explanation for how they got there.
What "corner cube retroreflectors"? (do the math)
You've got no such hard-science proof of any such stinking
retroreflectors. How's that?

At least team KECK has never located upon any notions of such, nor of
having detected any reflected laser beam from such. Never a satellite
obtained image nor any proof of a specifically retroreflector
contributed laser beam. Have you?

I've alread posted as to what's laser photon doable and of what isn't.
Too bad that your naysay search engine can't manage to locate squat,
WMD nor least of all the truth.

: Unless you've got different laws of physics that work quite
differently
: upon our moon than for us village idiots here on Earth, as otherwise
: I'd have to say that you're also nothing but a damn liar.
Only on days that end with "y".
So you admit to using those conditional laws of physics that'll always
suit whatever's your side of the argument, such as in support of your
LLPOF version of hard-science that otherwise sucks and blows.
-
Brad Guth

Yaysay verses Naysay

It's not hardly fair that the yaysay crowd as for having been
sequestered and upon their deductive reasoning as per having been
limited to the regular laws of physics, of replicated hard-science and
of allowing all other forms of evidence to share and share alike is
having to contend with the free-for-all naysay collective gauntlet
that's often based upon those highly conditional laws of physics, as
well as on their remote or soft-science that's most often of
infomercial-science that's not easily if at all replicated, and
otherwise of their continually having excluded upon most other forms of
boat rocking evidence.

Under such naysay mindset conditions is obviously why the facts and
thus the truth can become anything you'd care to make them. No wonder
their naysay view and/or stance upon most anything that being contested
is so often skewed, so easily distorted if not such opposing evidence
having become banished or via nondisclosure eliminated from the given
argument.

I don't want to sound as though I've discovered something entirely new
about government, religion or about the highly protected realms of
physics and of their precious science that's about as coveted as such
cultism ever tends to get, whereas throughout history we seen their
lies upon lies and eventually we've seen the cover-thy-butt results of
their wag-thy-dog plus subsequent infomercials of damage control, if
not in the form of their having created wars and/or the perpetrated
threat of such wars. What do we think would happen if other than
having our NASA, NOVA and GOOGLE in the very same boat?

Putting those three rusemasters together is much like our DHS becoming
their mothership or fleet master encharge of all the other boats that
seem to entirely fill their mainstream status quo with whatever they
alone interpret as being the truth or that of any importance.

Science as well as religion and government can just as easily push a
given discovery to the front page, or it can just as easily
topic/author stalk and banish such no matters what the truth or
consequences, from ever seeing the light of day. Every such cult is
having to operate exactly like the Third Reich, keeping itself as WMD
stealth as they can and using every trick in their koran or any other
black book in order to justify and/or to exclude upon whatever's
capable of rocking their status quo boat. The mainstream of science as
well as government and certainly of religion has a bloody fleet of such
boats to protect, along with a few of such as specialized boats that
have been specifically hauling loads of ulterior motives and hidden
agendas as their WMD of spendy infomercials and/or as having those MIB
that are perfectly capable of orchestrating diversions that'll emerge
as need be.

Omitting evidence is actually fairly common place in government,
religion and per most any other group of powerful individuals that
obviously intend to survive in spite of themselves. It's called global
domination, except without rules of fair play nor a stitch of remorse
(aka Hitler like). Our own resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) is actually
quite good at the game of life via domination, that is as long as
you're not a Muslim that's caught sitting on an oily rock.

jowr,
Your counter/naysay argument of "It is impossible, you have no proof"
and "I refuse to discuss your argument" is actually all the proof we
honest folks need (read the above). In fact, it also proves that
you're one of THEM, or perhaps of something far worse.

Your "We did it. Multiple times. We left crap up there that we can
interact with from here, and we brought stuff back." is 100%
infomercial based, yet only further proves as to how snookered and thus
easily dumbfounded you really are, as I was as of nearly seven years
ago. You have no such fly-by-rocket-lander, you have no such Kodak
moments from the lunar surface, nor have you anything as having been
humanly or even robotically recovered from our gamma/hard-X-ray moon
that's otherwise extremely dark and nasty as you can imagine.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Taking a lump of film into space is not exactly easy to reproduce.
Steve Ralph,
But there's no such requirement of taking Kodak's film into space, much
less onto our gamma and hard-X-ray gauntlet of our dark and nasty moon
unless your conditional laws of physics are so entirely different on
the moon as opposed to whatever's terrestrial.

So... how are they going to fake it next time?
What "next time"? or even first time other than via robotics?

I'll buy via earthshine for a few minutes or possibly hours, but that's
about it, unless they're not planning on surviving. I'll certainly buy
into robotics and of their remote pilot crew as station-keeping a safe
enough distance as being extra well shirlded within the LL-1 zone, as
risky business but otherwise perfectly doable.

In other words, you've got absolutely nothing that proves such xenon
lamp spectrum illuminated Kodak moments ever took place upon our moon.

Nor have you.

Why am I not the least bit surprised.

Of course you're not.

SR

PS. Your physics sucks. I suggest you visit this page.
http://www.badastronomy.com/ and try
Googling "inverse square law"

Quote:
There are two broadly defined Van Allen belts. In the inner belt you find
energetic protons, energetic electrons, and alpha particles. In the outer
belt you find primarly energetic electrons.

The passage through the significant parts of the Van Allen belts took about
four hours. But since the intensity of the radiation was different at each
point along the path, it's difficult to use that figure to arrive at an
analytical estimate of exposure.

Shielding against alpha particles is trivial. A sheet of cardstock typically
does the trick. Shielding against energetic protons is rather easy as well,
since these are large, heavy particles that tend not to penetrate most solid
materials except at very high energies. Shielding against electrons is more
difficult, but is best accomplished by non-metallic materials. There is not
as great a need to shield against electrons, however, since their biological
effect is limited compared to that of the heavier particles.


Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Taking a lump of film into space is not exactly easy to reproduce.
Steve Ralph,
Sorry for this reply update; But there's no such requirement of your
ever having to take Kodak's film into space,

Idiot. You obviously do not understand what a "reprocucable experiment" is.


much less onto our gamma
and hard-X-ray gauntlet of our physically dark, double IR roasted and
otherwise physically downright nasty moon unless your conditional laws
of physics are so entirely different on the moon as opposed to
whatever's terrestrial.

So... how are they going to fake it next time?
What "next time"? or even first time, other than via robotics?

I'll even buy via earthshine for a few moonsuit minutes or possibly
hours, but that's about it, unless they're not planning on surviving.
I'll certainly buy into robotics and of their remote pilot crew as
station-keeping a safe enough distance and for their being extra well
shielded as coasting efficiently within the LL-1 zone, as still spendy
and damn risky business but otherwise perfectly doable.

In other words, it's obvious that you've got absolutely nothing that
proves such xenon lamp spectrum illuminated Kodak moments ever took
place upon our moon. Why am I not the least bit surprised.

You've also posted absolutely nothing as to the R&D and subsequent
prototypes of those fly-by-rocket landers that somehow managed in spite
their not having involved those momentum reaction wheels in order to
deal with mascons or any of those internal spacecraft factors that were
continually changing on the fly (especially on their final down-range
run).
-
Brad Guth

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Steve Ralph" wrote in message
...

[...]
And how the f*** would you know? Been there have you?
Must have been alien technology.

Though I agree sending a cat (or better still you) on the round trip
would settle the question.

So... how are they going to fake it next time?

Once someone in our lab accidentally bombarded steel with electrons
accelerated from thousands of volts. Only merely a few minutes, we
found all our sealed and unused polaroid films in our lab as well as
adjacent ones all exposed solidly white. With this fact, I can vouch
for Mr. Guth's arguments. The question is that if you have any
supportive account to back yourself up.

Another idiot. Your lab is not outer space. And I would not care to work in
your lab, it is obviously very dangerous!

sr

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steve Ralph,
I'll keep offering what I've accepted as the truth and nothing but the
truth, whereas yourself and of your incest cloned collective of borg
like e-spooks, as brown-nosed minions working on behalf of NASA's Third
Reich damage-control, can just keep pretending that you're so
all-knowing.

Wow. Best rant I've seen for a while. No wonder you nearly fried yourself.
Why do you think I work for NASA? Or is that just an overloaded braincell
glitching?

sr

Obviously, even "koobee.wub" is a whole lot smarter and thus way less
dumbfounded than yourself.

tj Frazir; This gamma moon is just like looking at spent
urainium with pixy the gamma cam.

tj Frazir; RADIOACTIVE Thorium oxide, titanium triduim oxide
iron oxide. A very radioactive moon is an atomic waistland.
OK folks, I'll have to buy into Frazir's "atomic waistland", plus
having to be that of a terribly solar/cosmic reactive wasteland
(especially by day). But I'm still into thinking the 50,000 rads that
"tj Frazir" speaks of is actually an honest misinterpretation of such a
given number actually being a remote count via satellite of what's
representing 50,000 microrads/m2/hr, which by the way is still humanly
lethal and most certainly of what's producing those extra nasty counts
of hard-X-rays via those unavoidable interactions of gamma with most
any available mass. The greater the availabe density of said mass is
also exactly what the laws of physics have to stipulate, and of
hard-science having proven such density generates the most of and the
worse forms of hard-X-rays. The densiity of lunar basalt itself is of
course worse off than aluminum for having generated the extra
secondary/recoil worth of those hard-X-rays.

The near solid element of aluminum is essentially transparent to gamma,
and as such it's hardly even worthy of offering as a good attenuation
factor against the likes of hard-X-rays, that is unless you're talking
about a rather serious thickness or depth of perhaps a meter. Only of
soft-X-rays and of less harmful rays are of those sufficiently impeded
or attinuated by the likes of aluminum. In fact, the density of
aluminum (as opposed to our nifty atmosphere) is actually what's
providing a good source of having created all of that secondary/recoil
resource worth of hard-X-rays from the unavoidable local and gamma
influx.

By way of standing in the center of a km radius, as a zone of what's
unavoidably surrounding yourself if being situated upon the moon, is
insuring that 3.14e6 m2 worth of essentially full exposure to each of
these 50,000 microrad emitting square meters shall happen, whereas lo
and behold, your moonsuit naked DNA butt and everything else connected
is either rapidly becoming quite dead on the spot and/or at least well
into the nasty process of eventually going to hell from the inside out.
Unfortunately, the demise upon your DNA only gets worse unless you're
situated within a deep lunar pit or best being deep underground,
whereas otherwise it's going to be rather hard avoiding the matter of
yourself becoming exposed to at least 3.14e6 m2 worth of whatever's so
dark and nasty, hosting a wee bit more than it's fair share of being
radioactive plus terribly reactive about our naked moon.

This point of argument is rather clear, that our gamma/hard-X-ray moon
simply isn't all that moonsuit friendly, especially if that moonsuit is
having to contain your frail human DNA for hours on end, much less if
having to fend off such a TBI nasty gauntlet and otherwise double IR
roasted environment plus fending off whatever's direct by way of what
our sun and cosmic influx has to contribute on a continuous basis, such
as currently being infomercial proposed for the actual quest of humanly
exploring and exploiting our moon.

Standing on a given lunar terrain of a hill or the given peak of most
any given crater rim, and as such you can multiply that previous
surround of nasty dosage by as much as another thousand fold exposure,
and that's simply because the lunar atmosphere hasn't amounted to any
sufficient density as to hardly attenuate squat of whatever's incoming
or of what's locally generated as secondary/recoil radiation, nor of
whatever the local radioactive have to contribute. Therefore, even
50,000 microrads/m2/hr of gamma is getting downright testy and
certainly way more than lethal if we're having to multiply that
surrounding gamma count per hour by a factor of 3.14e9.

Being situated deep in a crater is about as moonsuit safe and sane as
it gets, short of going underground.

There's not much question that our NASA/Apollo crews never walked upon
that nasty moon of ours and lived perfectly unscaved to tell about it.
At best they spent their time at LL-1, which is roughly 58,000 km away
from our dark and nasty moon that's well documented as emitting so much
gamma and hard-X-rays, as well as per absorbing and otherwise
reflecting so much IR. Possibly one orbit of the moon as for returning
home was within the cards, but having to orbit that nasty sucker is not
actually necessary once you understand the rather nifty mechanics and
dynamics of utilizing the mutual nullification zone for what it is,
essentially the holy grail of high-ground that's good for obtaining so
much other hard-science as pertaining to our moon, Earth and sun plus
offering unlimited forms of astronomy potential.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yaysay verses Naysay
[...]

A sure sign of kook science is the percentage of the verbiage dedicated to
disrespecting all who might disagree. In this case, it is 98% disrespect. Of
the 2% remaining, no science is mentioned.

2; Of the 2% remaining, no science is mentioned.
Now there's a Usenet name "2" that we can all trust.

Too bad that your naysay 'search engine' can't so much as identify your
own squat, yet you seem to have no problems whatsoever in stalking and
of bashing whomever's rocking your good ship LOLLIPOP.

I noticed that you've contributed zilch worth of hard-science. Why is
that?
-
Brad Guth

Do you really think a gram of radioactive material has exactly
the same effect on you a kilometer away as it does a meter
away?
Randy Poe,
If it's not a point-source but arriving from each and every surrounding
square meter that's in sight, and even if that's but representing
50,000 microrads/m2 seems a bit lethal, especially if there's
supposedly such a slight to nonexistent atmospheric density/m3, as then
the answer is YES, whereas it's nearly impossible to get yourself far
enough away without becoming surrounded by more of the same.

On Earth and at sealevel it supposedly takes roughly 130 meters in
order to cut the radiation dosage of hard-X-rays by 50% (I'd suppose
that cutting gamma by 50% is going to take all of ten fold as much),
whereas higher altitudes represents less density and as such it's
obviously going to take considerably more distance per half dosage
that's also benefiting from the source of that radiation being somewhat
of a given point rather than entirely surrounding your moonsuit naked
butt.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Do you really think a gram of radioactive material has exactly
the same effect on you a kilometer away as it does a meter
away?
Randy Poe,
If it's not a point-source but arriving from each and every surrounding
square meter that's in sight, and even if that's but representing
50,000 microrads/m2 seems a bit lethal, especially if there's
supposedly such a slight to nonexistent atmospheric density/m3, as then
the answer is YES

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/underst...s.htm#distance

- Randy