Men on the moon?

Science > Physics > Men on the moon?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"CNC Area"
Date:	28 Jan 2005 08:04:28 PM
Object:	Men on the moon?

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Men on the moon?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Mr Frazir,
 Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2--
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 04:20:54 PM

"CNC Area" <CNCArea@sauder.com> wrote in message news:642A954DD517D411B20C00508BCF23B003552E5E@mail.sauder.com...

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

A fake
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "CWatters"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 05:04:16 AM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:a%TKd.8860$QD2.514137@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

A fake
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html

LOL
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 02:01:47 PM

In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:04:16 GMT
<Qa3Ld.9254$_A3.690190@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:a%TKd.8860$QD2.514137@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

A fake
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html

LOL

I've been wondering where that wandered off to. :-)
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	26 Feb 2005 08:00:00 PM

"CNC Area; Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch."
Yes in deed it is a damn healthy stretch, and then some. However, at
least orbiting the moon was doable.
Humanity is by enlarge entirely snookered, and that's not just
Americans but them stupid Russians, British and Australian morons are
just as snookered if not worse off, as in absolutely dumb and dumber to
the point of their being entirely dumbfounded at whatever our mutually
insane cold-war perpetrating governments decide to accomplish, even if
that's inventing reasons for murdering innocent folks over oil, along
with our continuing quest as to pollute mother Earth is apparently just
fine and dandy. The Physics and science institutions and associated
communities are almost entirely dependent upon public funding, as well
as private fundings that which only transpiring because of government
rulings, since it's a diversion of funds that would have otherwise have
been taxed.
SMART-1 (ESE/NASA); Even though specifically designed to avoid imaging
anything Apollo related, the SMART-1 data and image files are being
systematically filtered/moderated to death, as in wherever's necessary
is being appropriately excluded, such as thermal data, atmospheric
data, of primary and secondary radiation via the X-ray spectrometer
(such as everything that's below 20 nm that's going ballistically
vertical on their D-CIXS X-ray Spectrum counts/second/channel has been
cut-off and/or summarily eliminated), and most likely of whatever
images shall be excluded from public view if there's any possible
chance of disclosing a single scientific number or that of offering a
scientific word that's contrary to whatever's NASA/Apollo certified.
Even though the initial orbits will accomplish their imaging from 300
km out to 3000 km (thus at minimum 3 times as far away than the Apollo
orbits) the resolution is going to be absolutely pathetic by RadioShack
standards. Hells bells, a $100 KITS camera could do as well, in fact a
free cell-phone camera of 2.2 micron/pixel as ductaped to the eye piece
of a WalMart spotting scope might even do better.
Thus the ruse and the rusemasters continue cloning upon one another,
and of the reproduced mutated individuals of their all-knowing hive
proceed along as being the intellectual scum-sucking pustules of
whatever keeps stuffing our snookered humanity into that spendy
disinformation and infomercial space-toilet of life. Other than that,
such borgs can make for really nice friends, much like any robot
without a soul that's programmed to please it's master.
The mainstream status quo of everything that's NASA/Apollo, that which
knows for a bloody fact that those Kodak moments (supposedly obtained
on the lunar surface) are entirely bogus, as either that or their KODAK
film (which no one can have a first hand look-see at) somehow lost
nearly an entire dye spectrum worth of photo-chemical emulsion.
Secondly, our government knows damn well that there's been other life
upon Venus to boot, as well as for their knowing that my LSE-CM/ISS has
been doable. None the less, here you are as perhaps another all-knowing
and/or snookered topic/author stalking fool that's just as ready to
bash at whatever doesn't suit your borg like intellectual programming,
thereby having absolutely nothing positive to offer but whatever suits
the support of the other incest cloned LLPOF borgs, that which as a
collective you don't actually give a flying hocky puck about humanity
(never have, never will), and if that's not insulting enough, I could
pull out any number of political and religious stops to boot.
Without question; the sorts of necessary hard-science on behalf of
NASA/Apollo would have been the actual R&D as recorded upon movie film
of the various stages in getting such 3D fly-by-rocket landers to
actually function, much less accomplishing such via anything AI.
Another touch of hard-science would have been a trailer/leader portion
of film to analyse, and/or some of the actual spare frames as exposed
upon the lunar surface being digitally scanned at a sufficiently high
order of dpi and depth of at least 128 bits. Lo and behold, there's far
less than crapolla being provided by what's NASA/Apollo, and I as well
as most any village idiot moron can damn prove it.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	28 Feb 2005 02:18:10 AM

Dear 'tj Frazir' and friends of humanity,
Besides the lack of and/or evidence exclusions upon those supposed 3D
fly-by-rocket landers that still can't be accomplished, the science of
our moon (what little there is of it) is not actually about seeing nor
about believing in anything except the almighty dollar, as they'll just
as soon switch pagan Gods or warlords at the drop of any old hat, or
rather as the drop of one thin dime becomes yet another blood-bath
fight to their death in going after that dime. So, I'm not exactly sure
that there's even room for any discussion/argument pertaining to the
human eye, especially if it matters not what that eye sees.
The human eye absolutely sucks; as in what the freaking hell was God or
that of our supposed intelligent designers thinking, whereas many
animals and even a good number of insects have evolved with less
impaired eyes than humans, and half of those have a better brain as for
interpreting what's to be seen, whereas the brain-dead unfiltered Kodak
eye sees and manages to records beyond human perceptions, and as such
the Kodak eye should have recorded the UV blacklight secondary affect
as generating a near-blue color shift. As to whatever polarised filter
should have made the lunar surface record as darker (not lighter), and
by having a point source of such raw solar illumination should have
created razor sharp and of extremely high contrast prone shadows. The
11~12% average reflective surface index should not have offered hardly
any appreciable secondary fill-light other than loads of secondary UV
photons of at least near-blue, therefore the red, white and fluorescent
blue flags should have been absolutely glowing as prime examples of
what such a pesky raw solar influx environment had to offer. Only
extreme filters could have otherwise prevented such color skewed
distortions.
http://www.maxmax.com/aUVPowderUltraVis.htm
This link offers a good consumer level of a photographic example of
color spectrum shift. Obviously the special fluorescing powders being
offered do exactly what they're supposed accomplish under the 365 nm
source illumination. However, even though this wasn't a scientifically
monochromatic 365 nm but more likely that of 365 +/- 40 nm (raw solar
like) illumination, you should still be taking notice of the
non-fluoresing nutural (probably formica) background, as to how that
material also shifted rather significantly as to becoming noticably
bluish, and do remember that the source light was primarily that of 365
nm which is entirely invisible to the human eye but somewhat within the
far spectrum of what an unfiltered Kodak eye would have recorded, along
with obviously recording the secondary or photon-recoil bluish shift. I
believe the raw/unfiltered solar influx offers plenty of 350~400 nm
energy/m2 to work with, so go figure why there wasn't the slightest
hint of anything outside of what artificial xenon illumination would
have provided.
Not that any damn fool is ever going to employ the likes of Kodak film
on behalf of future lunar expeditions (especially within a fully solar
illuminated and secondary X-ray environment whereas Fuji film would
fair so much better) but, if one absolutely had a death-wish as to
venture upon the hot and nasty and TBI moon with camera and film in
hand, here's a couple of essential filters I'd take along for the ride
(actually there's no good reason why both of these filters or that of a
custom milticoated version should not have been (in addition to
whatever polarised filter) standard, as integral upon each and every
lens.
Hoya Sharp Cut Filter:
http://www.hoyaoptics.com/pdf/L42.pdf
L42 offers a clear 420 nm cut-off filter = 72% block or cut at 420 nm
and way better than 95% at 400 nm.
http://www.hoyaoptics.com/pdf/LA140.pdf
LA-140 (amber) provides a broad spectrum light balancing filter that
would have cut most of the near-UV by 95%, virtually all of the UV/a
and even better than 25% of the primary IR that should have been worth
the effort since such a dark basalt surface would have been radiating
roughly 25% of the solar near-IR influx as secondary IR as also being
that of a spectrum shifted contribution, of which the photo emulsion
dye should not have recorded all that much of whatever's over 750 nm
anyway, thus it certainly would not have modified upon anything
photographically to the Kodak eye.
At least upon Venus the atmospheric filtering represents a rather
significant factor in favoring the lower half of our visual spectrum,
as in somewhat of a band-pass that's centered towards 450 nm. Nearly
all of what's greater than 550 nm and otherwise towards the
red(650+nm), near-IR and of the primary IR spectrum is absorbed and/or
reflected by the clouds plus whatever suspended S8 and
acidic(H2SO4/H2O) haze of exactly what such a dense CO2 atmosphere of
92 bar effectively accommodates.
Now perhaps that's what sucks, whereas even a village idiot such as
myself can manage to find loads of well documented photographic
examples, countless amateur, commercial and even Kodak official
examples of exactly what the UV/a, near-UV and secondary recoil-photons
offered as near-blue illumination energy would have contributed as per
color-shifting a given unfiltered exposure, and otherwise there's
companies specializing in optical filters that seem to have been
providing optical filters because they know exactly what they're
talking about, all confirming upon the same photographic results with
and without appropriate spectrum filters, as would have been the
situation for the sort of environment hosting such a great amount of
near-UV and UV/a raw solar energy. So, instead of others proving my
interpretation in error, I've been stalked and bashed to a fairlywell
by the mainstream status quo that seldom if ever offers their examples
or unapproved specifics, while intent upon inflicting as much personal
and physical harm as they think is possible without tipping their dirty
perpetrated cold-war hands.
Basic township on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	20 Mar 2005 02:35:55 PM

tj Frazir,
I very much enjoyed that little 'problem is Nasa snapped the shot of
the earth as it wet around the moon on Dec 21 1868.'
What I'd like to learn a bit more about is pertaining to that 0.03 psi
worth of lunar surface atmosphere of dense gas atoms.
"tj Frazir Mar 15, 8:37 am;
There is a layer of dence gas atoms 50 miles thick on the moon at .03
psi on the ground.
I very much like your big balloon method of getting something robotic
onto the moon without having it vaporised upon impact, like what
happened to all of our unmanned Apollo landers.
I actually have another weird notion of a hot-tipped sort of gyrocopter
that would fly a crew and payload quite nicely at 0.03 psi, especially
if that were within an argon or even a CO2/Rn sort of atmosphere.
I'm thinking of using h2o2/c12h26 as for the rotor tip rocket fuel,
perhaps a small but powerful IRRCE for accommodating the added forward
motion that should really get with the program without hardly weighing
much.
Size and thereby payload isn't all that restricted as per say a balloon
method that couldn't per say hardly lift squat, although it means
importing the hot-tipped gyrocopter and of the necessary fuel, all of
which may need a few of those massive balloon volumes so as to keeping
whatever's delivered from impacting at much greater than 10 m/s
(obviously the slower the better). I suppose if push came down to
shove, an impact deployment method could manage to survive as great as
40 m/s, especially survivable if that landed in meter's deep moon-dirt.
What we need is a few qualified minions that can R&D this hot-tipped
gyrocopter into reality. Got any of those spare aeronautical minions?
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	22 Mar 2005 06:48:42 PM

This response is actually intended for the likes of 'tj Frazir' and
other friends of humanity,
Stop wasting your talents and whatever resources on the likes of
Lord/wizard 'bz', as for this incest cloned borg has disclosed upon a
hidden agenda and ulterior motives that'll eat you alive.
No matter's what you've started or merely contributed, the likes of
'bz' will only string you along so far, that is before they start in
with their collectived approved and provided VX gas that's intended to
put a stop and/or at least derail whatever your topic or intent of any
given topic. Essentially 'bz' sucks whenever it gets down to actually
contributing anything that's even coming close to his 'nondisclosure'
policy that actually lethal with respect to his sorry butt should
something slip out
As you already know better than most, some folks (actually a great
many) have a truly sickening and perverted form of humor, as they'll
suggest and/or specify upon what's actually public knowledge as from
those that already know all there is to know, as though their
need-to-know methods of helping a given topic is by way of sharing so
damn little that's usually focused upon defending whatever's their
position, and if need be by way of 'evidence exclusions', rather than
offering a gram towards exployting upon the possiblies of whatever
others are having to offer, and this tactic especially within the
highly subjective realm of observationology.
Keeping in mind that folks like 'bz' seldom originate a topic but
seemingly arrive like ETs coming out of nowhere with their all-knowing
vaporware, as focused onto the given topic scene after the fact and
then seldom if ever contribute squat that doesn't fully comply with
their NASA/Apollo approved bible of 'so what's the difference' and of
their supposed 'high standards and accountability' that subsequently
needs that nifty amendment of 'up yours', especially applied whevever
there's without a stitch of hard-science that you're bring thought of
as having WMD. Sorry folks, but that sucks ripe and big time,
especially when there are so many dead and otherwise dying bodies of
friends and perfectly innocent folks surrounding the one and only
smoking gun as well as their bloody feet.
Unlike what Lord/wizard 'bz' has suggested, I'm certainly not the one
that's trying to change the laws of physics to suit anything, just
trying to apply them without their usual social/political conditions
that so happen to suit their mainstream status quo of whatever our
perpetrated cold-war(s) and of so much other collateral damage and
strife that so happens to include the ongoing carnage of the innocent,
as such having to offer their side of a given argument merrit that's
clearly against humanity is absolutely 'Hitler' sick, though apparently
of which the likes of 'bz' sees absolutely nothing whatsoever improper
nor the least bit worth a gram of remorse about our past, present nor
future that's become beyond sucking for those that are either dead or
about to die for no apparent good reason. As it's just another 'bz'
status quo of business as usual all the way into the intellectual
space-toilet of life as seen fit by those directly and indirectly (like
'bz') having remained as resident whatever administration supportive
and thereby more than willing to continue the great ruse/sting of the
century without a stitch of hard-science, much less remorse.
That puts the likes of 'bz' way past the realm of just being immorally
sick to the soul.
Now it seems the likes of Lord/wizard 'bz' is (without ever once
asking) proclaiming without ever putting up or even so much as
suggesting squat of their own image interpretation as proof on their
side of the argument, that I don't have a freaking clue as to
interpreting a hard-science worth upon whatever an 8-bit and 12
looks/pixel radar image that was obtained at roughly 43=B0 as for
accomplishing a damn near 3D look-see at what's most likely artificial
and/or even as to contemplating as to whatever's perfectly natural but
extremely interesting about Venus. This two-faced nutbag discredits
whatever and whomever suits a perverted criteria of snookering thy
humanity. Well damn, the only village idiot 'fool on the hill' that's
being snookered this time around isn't me, and I certainly hope 'tj
Frazir' is not falling for any of his certified crapolla either.
As far as I can tell, the only actual flames coming out of this forum
that sucks are those being fueled along by the 'bz' intellectual
flatulence that'll accomplish whatever it takes to disqualify every
other honest soul upon Earth, and if that's something unacceptable for
myself to be sharing and stating, then so be it. This would not be the
first bridge that I've burned and, it probably will not be my last.
-
This closing part is being contributed for the ongoing benefit of
others (news media and general topic newcomers), and not that it
matters to those without a stitch of remorse outside of whatever
appeases their NASA/Apollo cold-war or bust God, as in spite of their
flak having the intent as to kill-off my PC if not myself, within my
spare dyslexic time I've slightly polished on my external 'gv-topics'
page, and I'm working on other pages as soon to be improved. As I learn
more that can be independently supported by sufficient hard-science,
I'll share that knowledge, which will likely include revisions and
retractions of what I've offered thus far. Unfortunately, since I'm
unfunded and on the usual 'need-to-know' bases with regard to anything
that might rock a mainstream boat, this process is going to take many
thousands of my lose cannon shots before the truth and nothing but the
truth is going be told. And I bet you thought the likes of big and
fully loaded aircraft smashing into fully occupied tall buildings was
as bad as it gets; think again.
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	22 Mar 2005 01:48:24 PM

tj Frazir,
I'd just posted this into sci.physics 'Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs',
before I'd fully realized upon what was transpiring between the likes
of yourself and mainstream wizard 'bz'. Actually 'bz' isn't so far
being nearly as bad off as most of the status quo borgs. Just don't
hold your breath, as I'm not so much focusing upon 'bz' as I'm actually
learning from the likes of 'bz' while I'm allowing others to realize
there are somewhat really nasty folks out there keeping the truth from
being accepted, and 'bz' isn't so far one of those ultra bad guys, just
leaning and/or wavering toward being just as bad by way of being
somewhat two-faced, which is somewhat the same as having two
butt-cheaks and that lying intellectual crack in between.
BTW; that's still a rather super terrific moon image:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/luna9close.gif
This is pretty much depicting as recorded by other telephoto obtained
images from orbit, as offering a relatively dark surface that's having
lots of contrast via a point-source of illumination and loads of strewn
impact shards just about everwhere you'd care to look. The fact that
the probe obtaining this image vanished under meters of dark moon dust
stands to reason as well.
Unfortunately, it seems that you're still into communicating and/or
attempting to communicate with yet another potentially incest cloned
borg (Skull and Bones member in good standing of the NASA/Apollo high
collective that nearly always sucks), and these individuals are each
every bit as hard-wired with the potentially lethal nondisclosure
V-Chip that will self-destruct within theit collective little brain
that's situated somewhere between their butt-cheaks. Before ever
admitting to so much as one perpetrated cold-war damn thing is when the
internal V-Chip implodes.
Some of these folks are nearly a DNA/RNA match to our resident 'so
what's the difference' warlord(GW Bush), whereas these incest cloned
borgs might very well have resolved all of their mutual issues with
regard to orgin sharing, they otherwise have absolutely no signs of
remorse along with all the collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent to prove it.
Thus if you start to see another GW Bush smerk (due to a lack of
botoxin injections) or otherwise hear any sign of their intellectual VX
flatulence getting underway, get yourself as far upwind as possible. In
other words, this pun is not a test of our civil defence warning system
because, it's far more real than those WMD.
As far as I can tell by way of hard-science and them pesky darn laws of
physics, there's no place to be found that's any dustier than our moon,
and just as downright nasty as you have stipulated about it's coal like
dark and collected stuff that's not only proof-positive reactive in
producing those secondary/recoil photons of hard-X-rays but also meters
deep in places (unfortunately, it's not the least bit retro-reflective
as for creating those illumination hot-spots nor is it worth a damn
with regard to clumping).
Perhaps there's a perfectly good reason as to why the orbit detected
thermal conditions are sticking to the 123=B0C ruse is due to their
having poor resolution, thus averaging in the somewhat more reflective
and otherwise disregarding the surrounding surface thermal conductive
aspects without taking into account the heavy atmospheric elements that
are invisibly cloaking our moon in a clear lens the likes of CO2, Ar,
Kr, Xe and possibly even a touch of Rn having a half-life of perhaps 92
hours means there needs to be a good amount of ongoing replenishment
via radium (Ra226 half-life of 1600 years) or via some other process,
whereas under such a clear insulative blanket is where those moon-dirt
and vacuum insulated near coal black rocks are individually roasting at
something greater than 123=B0C by day. But again without a stitch of
interactive surface probe science to being had, there's no viable
method other than by way of something that'll offer the IR spectrum of
what's better than a few m/pixel resolution, or of course an actual
probe inserted into a given moon-rock would be asking too much.
Whereas just like here upon Earth, within the noonday desert sun that's
beating down upon that black Lamborghini that's getting a whole lot
hotter than the surrounding sand, and eventually inside the Lamborghini
is where in spots it has gotten even hotter yet. Fortunately there is
such a thing as IR reflective glass that'll cut roughly 50% of the
available IR energy from getting through (although that wasn't the case
regard to those moonsuits of the late 60s), but given time and nowhere
for the core heat to go is not going to make the interior of that
Lamborghini any cooler until well past sunset...
BTW; adding a few hundred spare BTUs/hr from the occupant of that
Lamborghini isn't exactly going to help keeping that beer cold,
although once past the 37=B0C mark it's not going to much matter for
long. At 50=B0C and fresh out of cold beer, you've got perhaps a
dripping sweat worth of an hour to kiss your sorry moonsuit butt
goodbye. Much above 75=B0C and at 5 psi there could even be spontaneous
human combustion, certainly at near vacuum there shouldn't much
question as to what their law of physics end result is going to be
capable of producing that nicely sauteed astronaut ala-moonsuit, as for
whatever's H2O is going to flash into less than thin air before
whatever's left of those TBI onlooking eyes. Gee whiz folks, sounds
like a real nice place to never visit, at least not by day.
Of course, my lunar terraforming notions of bombing our moon with the
likes of dry-ice and frozen Rn, besides creating whatever horrific
impacts worth of vaporising lunar basalt into releasing 1e6:1 worth of
O2, the very nature of the delivered CO2 might revert to just good old
C and O2, whereas the Radon should vanish in a few days, unless we'd
replaced that lunar bombing of frozen Rn with the likes of Ra226 which
might react quite nicely with the already available He3 into making a
nifty long-term supply of Rn. After the Ra226 is sufficiently depleted,
say in 6400 years it should be at 1/16th of it's initial potency, and
by then having a good amount of terraformed atmosphere becoming the
case, there shouldn't be hardly any significant threat for naked humans
on the surface of our moon, or at least for accommodating the likes of
whomever we don't want living here on Earth (I have a growing list of
whom those folks should be, roughly the bulk of the upper 0.1% of
humanity that have been snookering upon the lower 99.9% of humanity,
and I do believe there should be plenty of available space on and/or
within the moon for 6.5e6 folks).
-
This closing part is being contributed for the ongoing benefit of
others (news media and general topic newcomers), and not that it
matters to those without a stitch of remorse outside of whatever
appeases their NASA/Apollo cold-war or bust God, as in spite of their
flak and within my spare dyslexic time I've slightly polished on my
external 'gv-topics' page, and I'm working on other pages as soon to be
improved. As I learn more that can be independently supported by
sufficient hard-science, I'll share that knowledge, which will likely
include revisions and retractions of what I've offered thus far.
Unfortunately, since I'm unfunded and on the usual 'need-to-know' bases
with regard to anything that might rock a mainstream boat, this process
is going to take many thousands of my lose cannon shots before the
truth and nothing but the truth is going be told. And I bet you thought
the likes of big and fully loaded aircraft smashing into fully occupied
tall buildings was as bad as it gets; think again.
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 02:11:27 PM

CNC Area wrote:

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

1) Google
"lunar laser ranging" 9,280 hits
llr laser 11,500 hits
moon reflector laser 19,500 hits
laser nordtvedt 742 hits
lunar nordtvedt 757 hits
2) Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 03:10:45 PM

In article <41FBEDEE.D8BDD71D@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

CNC Area wrote:

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

1) Google
"lunar laser ranging" 9,280 hits
llr laser 11,500 hits
moon reflector laser 19,500 hits
laser nordtvedt 742 hits
lunar nordtvedt 757 hits

2) Idiot.

NASA could drop things off on the Moon and bring rocks back, not to
mention sending probes all over the solar system. But for some reason it
just seems implausible to some that they could have done it with a human
payload.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekul�
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 04:35:48 PM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctgu4l$bkp$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <41FBEDEE.D8BDD71D@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

CNC Area wrote:

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

1) Google
"lunar laser ranging" 9,280 hits
llr laser 11,500 hits
moon reflector laser 19,500 hits
laser nordtvedt 742 hits
lunar nordtvedt 757 hits

2) Idiot.

Yeah, implausible they'd send a schoolteacher up on Challenger,
implausible
they'd build a re-entry vehicle with tiles glued to it, implausible that
any fool would bother to climb a mountain, implausible that a bunch of
guys would drive hell for leather around an oval going nowhere,
implausible that anyone woudl build a Harrier to land vertically, or
Concorde to carry ordinary peope at twice the speed of sound, its all
implausible. Human beings are soooo expensive, we need to keep them all
perfectly safe. I've seen a shuttle launched. It's implausible.
Androcles.
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 06:21:22 PM

the moon is 1/6 the gain in mass pushing 1/6 the weight.
F--MA
The earth is the gain in mass pushing the weight F--MA.
on the moon ,,the gain in mass is only 1/6 but it only pushes 1/6 the
wieght.
V is identical at 90 Deg and the moon and earth wount move thier
kenetic mass is to large.
nasa filmed a feather and hammer fall and tthey fell at 1/6 the earths
speed.
Nasa don't understand that the mass gain pushes the atom down the
energy slope angle.
F does not aply to the entire mass of the atom , just the gain in mass
across the atom.
There is no pull of gravity , even the particals change mass at C and
have more mass when on one side of the atom than the other as it
displaces time in the energy slope.
All the mass of the atom is falling to its center.
There is more mass on one side than the other across the atom. More
mass is falling to its center on one side and less on the other side.
The atom is pushing its self in direction as thrust .
The gain in mass is F
F--ma
V is constant.
.

User: "robert j. kolker"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 05:05:36 PM

Androcles wrote:

implausible that anyone woudl build a Harrier to land vertically, or
Concorde to carry ordinary peope at twice the speed of sound,

It was mostly the rich and famous that rode on Concorde. A flight cost a
great deal of money, something like 4k usd.
Bob Kolker
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 07:11:12 PM

In article <8dUKd.15147$n9.1718@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctgu4l$bkp$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <41FBEDEE.D8BDD71D@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

CNC Area wrote:

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

1) Google
"lunar laser ranging" 9,280 hits
llr laser 11,500 hits
moon reflector laser 19,500 hits
laser nordtvedt 742 hits
lunar nordtvedt 757 hits

2) Idiot.

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.
--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 07:35:02 PM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cthc7g$frp$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <8dUKd.15147$n9.1718@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctgu4l$bkp$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <41FBEDEE.D8BDD71D@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

CNC Area wrote:

Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

1) Google
"lunar laser ranging" 9,280 hits
llr laser 11,500 hits
moon reflector laser 19,500 hits
laser nordtvedt 742 hits
lunar nordtvedt 757 hits

2) Idiot.

Yeah, implausible they'd send a schoolteacher up on Challenger,
implausible
they'd build a re-entry vehicle with tiles glued to it, implausible
that
any fool would bother to climb a mountain, implausible that a bunch of
guys would drive hell for leather around an oval going nowhere,
implausible that anyone woudl build a Harrier to land vertically, or
Concorde to carry ordinary peope at twice the speed of sound, its all
implausible. Human beings are soooo expensive, we need to keep them
all
perfectly safe. I've seen a shuttle launched. It's implausible.
Androcles.

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

:-)
Androcles.

--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet

Oh heck, I prefer the children's section in the library these days.
"Harry Potter" or "Myths and Legends", I'm about 2000 years too early
for the modern *****.
Androcles.
.

User: "Timo Nieminen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 04:35:41 PM

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

It doesn't always work that way. Sometimes they assume that the task in
question is trivially easy, having been performed by those self-evidently
equally incompetent (at best!). "Cavemen made stone tools because they
were too stupid to make better ones", "farming is easy", etc.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 08:18:49 PM

"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0501310832060.23569-100000@localhost...

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about
aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

It doesn't always work that way. Sometimes they assume that the task
in
question is trivially easy, having been performed by those
self-evidently
equally incompetent (at best!). "Cavemen made stone tools because they
were too stupid to make better ones", "farming is easy", etc.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

If I recall correctly, the tomahawk wielding North American Plains
aboriginals
lived in teepees, not caves, and rapidly adapted to the rifle,
completely bypassing the English long bow. No yew trees, I suppose....
Androcles
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 07:05:58 PM

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501310832060.23569-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

Oh, man, I've tried making stone tools. It's a lot of work! Knapping
takes a lot of skill, but somehow I'm especially impressed by accounts
I've read of people that have bored holes through rocks by dipping the
wet ends of reeds in sand and abrading right through it. It takes less
brainwork, but you really have to want that hole.
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
.

User: "Timo Nieminen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 07:35:22 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

Sand-drilling with a bow-drill might be tolerable, sand-drilling without a
bow-drill can only be described as "better than nothing". Knapping takes
skill, but once you have that skill, and if you have good stone, it's
remarkably easy and quick. I saw video of an amateur knapper making a
footlong flint blade, starting with a prepared core. Take a long flake off
the core, and less than 30 seconds later, the flake was a decent blade.
Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.
As an amusing aside, I recall reading about a lot of head-sweat invested
in trying to understand why Clovis point have a hollow on one side. Lots
of guff about "blood grooves" and all that. Of course, if they actually
bothered making one, they'd realise that it would take effort and wasted
stone to get rid of it.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 07:57:59 PM

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311128110.18388-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A fellow student once commented on people telling stories about aliens
building the pyramids and etc... they assume everyone else is as
incompetent as they are.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

As an amusing aside, I recall reading about a lot of head-sweat invested
in trying to understand why Clovis point have a hollow on one side. Lots
of guff about "blood grooves" and all that. Of course, if they actually
bothered making one, they'd realise that it would take effort and wasted
stone to get rid of it.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
.

User: "Timo Nieminen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	30 Jan 2005 08:16:45 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. Bottle bottoms are sometimes thick enough and flat enough. But
they're rather small and delicate - good material for the already skilled,
but lousy for practice. Local museum used to have a most excellent
bottle-bottom spearhead. Utilitarian, and beautiful. About 3 cm long.
Good stone lying around on the surface tended to go first. Depletion of
finite resources. Some ancient butchering sites seem to have been used
over and over again due to the stone being there. Lots of bones and lots
of flakes. No "tools" of the type that were being looked for. Some bright
person decides, no problem, we'll assemble the flakes, fill the interior
with some resin, and then we'll know what tool they made, butchered with,
and took away with them. Seems that the flakes re-assembled made up a
whole rock. The flakes were the tool, lovely instant razor blades. Discard
when blunt, flake off a new one. The hammer stones may have been carried
from some distance away, and left there. Who needs to carry a hammer stone
around, when the raw material you'll use it on will stay in the same
place?
OTOH, if your stone won't flake, maybe it can be ground. That's the hard
way to do it. Ground basalt axe heads were a big trade item around here
before white settlement; they'd go halfway across the continent.
If you're ever in Seoul, check out the War Memorial (ie, a large museum of
various things military) which has a superb collection of ground stone
daggers, axes, and halberd heads (well, points that were mounted (almost)
perpendicular to a shaft - don't want exactly perpendicular, since you
want the point normal to the impact). Don't know if they had granite
mace-heads (mace-heads, they had, but I forget what they were made of).
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 10:05:33 AM

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some summer
with more time than sense.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 10:35:26 AM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctll0d$2dd$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why
people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of
the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes
off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer
head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some
summer
with more time than sense.

Want some flint? I'll ship you some for the price of shipping and
handling. There's an ancient flint mine within walking distance of my
home.
Androcles.

--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 11:33:00 AM

In article <i7tLd.33007$v8.20368@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctll0d$2dd$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why
people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of
the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes
off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer
head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some
summer
with more time than sense.

Want some flint? I'll ship you some for the price of shipping and
handling. There's an ancient flint mine within walking distance of my
home.

Androcles.

I appreciate that, and I hate to turn down free flint. But honestly, I
wouldn't do anything with it for a very long time, if ever. And I would
feel really chintzy if you were kind enough to ship it over for no good
reason.
But you'll be around for a while, right? It's okay if I keep you in mind
in case my plans change? I don't want to lose the possibility of free
flint (plus shipping) if I do need it.
--
"I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
and say, 'Step off, *****. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
-- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 01:10:20 PM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctlq4c$53g$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <i7tLd.33007$v8.20368@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctll0d$2dd$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise
why
people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of
the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes
off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer
head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint
and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some
summer
with more time than sense.

Want some flint? I'll ship you some for the price of shipping and
handling. There's an ancient flint mine within walking distance of my
home.

Androcles.

The mine is of a greater interest than the flint.
Fort Amherst was built by the forced labour of French POW's during the
Napoleonic wars to protect the naval dockyard.
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=575000&Y=170000&width=500&height=300&gride=575690.233039791&gridn=167737.866980034&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=50000&multimap.x=319&multimap.y=254
http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/caponier_fort_amherst.htm
I used to play in there as a kid. It was pitch black then with debris
everywhere, totally abandoned, so a flashlight was a must. Today it is
just another tourist trap.
Tunnels were dug into the chalk, and one runs right through the flint
mine, which
is essentially a bottle-shaped hole in the ground, wider at the oval
base than at the neck.
Being a soft rock, chalk is easy to mine and flint nodules imbedded in
it are commonplace.
Androcles.
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 02:55:34 PM

In article <wovLd.34234$v8.9995@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctlq4c$53g$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <i7tLd.33007$v8.20368@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctll0d$2dd$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise
why
people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of
the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes
off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer
head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint
and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some
summer
with more time than sense.

Want some flint? I'll ship you some for the price of shipping and
handling. There's an ancient flint mine within walking distance of my
home.

Androcles.

The mine is of a greater interest than the flint.
Fort Amherst was built by the forced labour of French POW's during the
Napoleonic wars to protect the naval dockyard.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=575000&Y=170000&width=500&height=300&gride=575690.233039791&gridn=167737.866980034&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=50000&multimap.x=319&multimap.y=254

http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/caponier_fort_amherst.htm

I used to play in there as a kid. It was pitch black then with debris
everywhere, totally abandoned, so a flashlight was a must. Today it is
just another tourist trap.

Tunnels were dug into the chalk, and one runs right through the flint
mine, which
is essentially a bottle-shaped hole in the ground, wider at the oval
base than at the neck.
Being a soft rock, chalk is easy to mine and flint nodules imbedded in
it are commonplace.

Androcles.

Ah, I remember tunnels. Near where I grew up, St. Paul, Minnesota, has
some quality sandstone, and it was mined for porcelein. Very, very
silent. Unless kids were shouting in them. Some of them connect to the
lovely arched brick storm drains that run under the city. The entrances
have all been plugged up with cement in recent years.
You probably don't want a link to the Pig's Eye Sewage Treatment Plant.
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 04:53:09 PM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctm606$9gc$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <wovLd.34234$v8.9995@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ctlq4c$53g$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <i7tLd.33007$v8.20368@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <dummy@dummy.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:ctll0d$2dd$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0501311204350.18397-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise
why
people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one
of
the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get
flakes
off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a
hammer
head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint
and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself
some
summer
with more time than sense.

Want some flint? I'll ship you some for the price of shipping and
handling. There's an ancient flint mine within walking distance of
my
home.

Androcles.

The mine is of a greater interest than the flint.
Fort Amherst was built by the forced labour of French POW's during the
Napoleonic wars to protect the naval dockyard.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=575000&Y=170000&width=500&height=300&gride=575690.233039791&gridn=167737.866980034&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=50000&multimap.x=319&multimap.y=254

http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/caponier_fort_amherst.htm

I used to play in there as a kid. It was pitch black then with debris
everywhere, totally abandoned, so a flashlight was a must. Today it is
just another tourist trap.

Tunnels were dug into the chalk, and one runs right through the flint
mine, which
is essentially a bottle-shaped hole in the ground, wider at the oval
base than at the neck.
Being a soft rock, chalk is easy to mine and flint nodules imbedded in
it are commonplace.

Androcles.

Hmm...sandstone... we use clay here.
Not cheap, though....
Don't show this to your better half unless your wallet is deep, I
wouldn't want to pay for the web page, let alone the product.
http://www.thewedgwoodstory.com/
http://www.wedgwood.com/wedgwood/wedgwoodauctionsite/homepage.asp?uid=6E09198D-7A1C-4BB6-9EB4-2A4A9C458846&location=U&rtn=N

You probably don't want a link to the Pig's Eye Sewage Treatment
Plant.

conference)
Err... no thanks.
Androcles
.

User: "Timo Nieminen"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	31 Jan 2005 05:08:17 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

Glass. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's what flint and
obsidian are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I find myself some summer
with more time than sense.

Don't know much about flint. If you get some, don't forget to heat treat
it:
http://www.geocities.com/knappersanonymous/heat.html
And the parent site of that page has instructions for making a
bottle-bottom head!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.

User: "Mark Fergerson"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	01 Feb 2005 08:37:42 AM

Timo Nieminen wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

Good stone helps. Trying with inferior stone makes you realise why people
resorted to underground mining for flint, why obsidian was one of the
major trade items in prehistoric times, etc.

I've never had good stone to try it with, I could never get flakes off of
anything I'd found. I did spend some time trying to make a hammer head
out of granite. Granite is hard.

I learned knapping about thirty years ago as part of a "practical
hippie" course. Lots of dropouts... ahem.

I have a pale green beauty 1 3/8" long. A Hopi made it in about five
minutes at the local Indian Fair here in PHX last year for five bucks.
You shoulda seen the other Anglos standing in front of his booth
watching open-mouthed; you'd have thought he was doing real magic! He
had one near 8" long made from a Sparklett's-type water bottle, but it
was for display only despite offers in the hundreds of dollars. He makes
much of his living teaching such "lost" arts.
I bought the green one not just because it was beautiful, but also
for inspiration, and discovered that knapping glass is _lots_ easier
than stone; no grain at all and the hardness (it's harder than granite)
actually helps. As you say, it explains why obsidian was such a popular
trade item.
BTW, knapping snowflake obsidian:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Slideshow/Igrocks/Igrock7.html
is a *****. Those pretty inclusions tend to stop the conchoidal
fracture. This guy manages it, but he's a _real_ expert:
http://www.flintknappers.com/dave/dr63.jpg
Also, I've read that some Apache Tears have internal streses that
prevent them from being knapped properly. Annealing might help, but I
haven't tried it.
Mark L. Fergerson
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	01 Feb 2005 10:36:19 AM

wheres the math ?
F is the gain in mass pushing the wieght of the atom.
1/6 the gain in mass pushing 1/6 the wieght
is identical speed of fall .
Not 1/6 the speed.
the Gain in mass pushing its wieght on earth is equal speed as 1/6 the
gain pushing 1/6 the wieght.
nasa fucked up.
The math proves it.
nasa could net yet today identifie F .
Im putting he ID tag on F.
F is the gain in mass from one side to the other over an atom.
Up is by law a gain in mass and the math is the math.
A push to less mass.
F--MA
Nasa dont understand the gain in mass is pushing the atom and the
atom pushes its self.
The gain in mass is proprtional and the speed of evry atom the same.
F is the gain in mass pushing the wieght of the atom .
F--MA
nasa cant even use that math as they sill have not identified F .
F is the gain in mass is the law.
nasa dont understand the law.
ienstien tapped it in brail on thier forheads and they still dont
understand.
The atom pushes its self down the slope.

.

Page 1 of 6

Post reply

MEN ON THE MOON -- Video Remembrance -- Death of Wally Schirra.
DRESS REHEA