Guth Venus is way more alive than Usenet

John Turco wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
John Turco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

edited, for brevity

Too bad the scientific matter of replicated facts proves that I'm more
than sufficiently right. It also proves that the rest of you naysay
folks are just deathly afraid of your own perpetrated cold-war shadows.
Hello, Brad:

What the hell are you talking about, and how does it concern digital
photography?
Er, John, please don't encourage him! Read his other "originals". See a
pattern?

Well, no, as I believe this is the only one of Brad Guth's threads
I've stumbled upon, here in news:rec.photo.digital. You're implying
that he's a troll and/or kook, I assume?

Well, he's differently focussed.....very bright, though, by his own
admission. Sorta genius level, by his habit of posting to .mensa, unless
that's his personal fiefdom.

In any case, I dutifully removed all of his other, cross-posted
newsgroups, before replying! g

Thanks; it looks like he'll come here and play with us, which will be
amusing.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

John Turco wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
John Turco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

edited, for brevity

Too bad the scientific matter of replicated facts proves that I'm more
than sufficiently right. It also proves that the rest of you naysay
folks are just deathly afraid of your own perpetrated cold-war shadows.
Hello, Brad:

What the hell are you talking about, and how does it concern digital
photography?
Er, John, please don't encourage him! Read his other "originals". See a
pattern?

Well, no, as I believe this is the only one of Brad Guth's threads
I've stumbled upon, here in news:rec.photo.digital. You're implying
that he's a troll and/or kook, I assume?

Well, he's differently focussed.....very bright, though, by his own
admission. Sorta genius level, by his habit of posting to .mensa, unless
that's his personal fiefdom.

Hello, John:

Oh, any idiot can simply post to news:rec.org.mensa! ;-)

In any case, I dutifully removed all of his other, cross-posted
newsgroups, before replying! g

Thanks; it looks like he'll come here and play with us, which will be
amusing.

--
John McWilliams

I doubt the "amusing" part of it. His articles are barely coherent,
which must be a sign of true genius. g


Cordially,
John Turco

"John McWilliams" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
You're back.

Reverse, reverse. fu set, geniuses deleted.

Full reverse or even full stop isn't going to cut it. You're an
intellectual bigot, and as such you don't even play fair by your own
rules.
-
Brad Guth


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

Where's the truth in Usenet?

As per ususal, this warm and fuzzy topic about Venus still isn't hardly
going anywhere because, obviously others and myself are more than
sufficiently right. As such, here's another related sub-topic that's
worth tossing into this Usenet naysay ring of fire.

What's this I'm hearing? The hell you folks say that our own government
and those nifty energy corporations are liars. My God and Christ
almighty on another stick, what is this pagan world of your's coming to?

Obviously some of us village idiots are thinking it's already too late,
as they tend to perceive we're still way too addictive to energy that's
being extracted and otherwise produced via some of the dirtiest known
and otherwise soot, NOx plus many other toxin producing methods. I
think we're just downright greedy little perverted *******s that don't
have a stitch of remorse and as such really don't give a tinkers damn
about others or that of our failing environment, that's about to get yet
another slap in the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad
our DNA isn't getting rad-hard.

The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including
yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with
our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon
enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing
in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in
the dirty past that's killing us and most every other living thing on
Earth. At least thus fare there's little if any evidence that we've
made any improvement in the quality of other than on behalf of the
wealthiest species of human life.

I do believe this one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger
Coppock dumbfounded past the point of no return, thinking that it's all
the fault of humanity, rather than primarily the matter of our somewhat
recently obtained moon as having caused most of the last thaw via
gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to
boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't quite manage to think
inside or much less outside the cozy little box that has been
orchestrated as though carefully constructed around our dumb and dumber
mindsets, in that we have to believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or
MI/NSA~NASA certified, and nothing else matters.

"Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages"
wrote in message

HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1

: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
: has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting.
: In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The
: battery has been charged.
The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
refreezing could occur.

The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted
to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen.

The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
calories of heat energy released to the air.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules

In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
Joules)...

... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
kinetics as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
" This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. "

I say that's absolutely impressive, and I'd also have to totally agree
that it's all about to explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant
and greedy little fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, and
that's not to mention the discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and
other deep geophysical energy resources that's now extensively into our
surface environment along with all of the megatonnes/year worth of NOx
from hell.

It's so bad off that even fish are drowning (leaving lots more room for
jellyfish), yet the mainstream status quo is absolutely hell bent upon
staying the course of those thousand soot and NOx producing lights.

Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded by those folks having "the right
stuff", as to even so much as realize how totally snookered and
summarily dumfounded into denial we all are, and how soon some of us are
going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a direct
result.

The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while
turning out a hefty and essentially tax-free offshore profit at the
ongoing demise of others.

There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much
less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has
to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy
isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application
has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling
alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very
same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because,
apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable
without hardly a stitch of repercussions.

Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd
care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another
taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our
failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely
compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or
by way of better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any
viable combination (including h2o2/biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll
represent a near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any NOx
because, the mostly nitrogen atmosphere itself isn't getting consumed.

God forbid that we should ever have a surplus of such environmentally
clean energy to put into the makings, storage and distributions of such
nifty products as LH2 or h2o2, and of subsequently making the
consumption of damn near everything else so much more efficient and so
much cleaner, not to mention biologically and environmentally so much
end-user friendly.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
Where's the truth in Usenet?

There's none.

f-u set.

--
lsmft

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news
Brad Guth wrote:
Where's the truth in Usenet?

There's none.

But yourself and most others have insisted with all of your little black
hearts that your mainstream status quo information and infomercial based
mindset is all but true and honest to God.

Why can't you folks (outside of NASA) substantiate matters of your
NASA/Apollo fiasco, or otherwise merely constructively contribute to any
of my nifty topics that are in fact 100% honest topics as based upon
100% honest observations plus involving the regular laws of physics plus
the hard and honest works and subsequent best available swags of so many
others?

Is it because I'm not sufficiently Jewish? or is it because I'm not a
collaborating Third Reich member in good Skull and Bones standing?

You folks can't seem to even establish whatever a good photographic
enlargement proves is mostly hot rocks, much less of a very natural
looking fluid arch. Isn't that pathetic, or what?

You have no contrary science on behalf of so many things that I'm
imposing and/or asking about, yet you folks keep insisting that your
lack of such science is what offers more than sufficient proof-positive
that the ongoing infomercial world of disinformation that we have to
live in is perfectly fine and dandy as is, and thereby provides reason
enough to base all future plans and assumptions upon regardless of the
collateral damage or carnage upon the innocent.
-
Brad Guth


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

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news Brad Guth wrote:
Where's the truth in Usenet?
There's none.

But it seems yourself and most others have collectively insisted with
all of your little black hearts that your mainstream status quo of
information and infomercial based mindset is all but true and honest to
God.

Why can't you folks (outside of NASA's koran) manage to substantiate the
most basic of matters that pertain to that of your NASA/Apollo fiasco,
or otherwise merely constructively contribute to any of my nifty topics
that are in fact 100% honest topics as based upon 100% honest
observations plus otherwise involving the regular laws of physics, along
with the hard and honest works and subsequent best available swags of so
many others?

Is it because I'm not sufficiently Jewish? or is it because I'm not a
certified brown-nosed collaborating Third Reich member in good Skull and
Bones standing?

You folks simply can't seem to even establish whatever's a good
photographic enlargement as to proving best as to what's mostly of hot
rocks, much less of a perfectly natural looking 'fluid arch' as existing
on Venus. Isn't that pathetic, or what?

You have no contrary science on behalf of so many things that I'm
imposing and/or asking about, yet you folks keep insisting that your
lack of such science is what offers more than sufficient proof-positive
that the ongoing infomercial world of disinformation that we have to
live in is perfectly fine and dandy as is, and thereby provides reason
enough to base all future plans and assumptions upon, regardless of the
collateral damage or carnage upon the innocent.

It seems that your status quo science basis is one of your bigotry
denial being in denial, and then some.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
If I'm not asking too much, please take another unbiased/(open mindset)
1:1 look-see, and tell us whatever you honestly think,

oh **** it that what I think it is? is that an alien city?

"makc.the.great" wrote in message
ups.com

If I'm not asking too much, please take another unbiased/(open mindset)
1:1 look-see, and tell us whatever you honestly think,

oh **** it that what I think it is? is that an alien city?

Actually it's suggesting a fairly complex and perfectly rational
community of large (assuming well insulated) structures that's most
likely established for those really big (I'll suggest 3+ meter and
perhaps 250+kg) exoskeletal Venusians that are going to kick serious
butt if we're not extremely nice.

Notice the nearby 'fluid arch'?

Would you like to talk energy?

Would you like to talk fresh water?

Would you like to talk bridge, tarmac or rigid airship?

Would you like to talk about going ice or frozen h2o2 skating on Venus?

How about a little extra fun via body surfing through that thick
atmosphere?

Can you manage to accomplish your own PhotoShop or whatever digital
enlargements?

If you were going to select a given planet for mining/extracting
valuable elements, wouldn't Venus more than qualify?
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
"makc.the.great" wrote in message
ups.com

If I'm not asking too much, please take another unbiased/(open mindset)
1:1 look-see, and tell us whatever you honestly think,
oh **** it that what I think it is? is that an alien city?

Actually it's suggesting a fairly complex and perfectly rational
community of large (assuming well insulated) structures that's most
likely established for those really big (I'll suggest 3+ meter and
perhaps 250+kg) exoskeletal Venusians that are going to kick serious
butt if we're not extremely nice.

Notice the nearby 'fluid arch'?

Would you like to talk energy?

Would you like to talk fresh water?

Would you like to talk bridge, tarmac or rigid airship?

Would you like to talk about going ice or frozen h2o2 skating on Venus?

How about a little extra fun via body surfing through that thick
atmosphere?

Can you manage to accomplish your own PhotoShop or whatever digital
enlargements?

If you were going to select a given planet for mining/extracting
valuable elements, wouldn't Venus more than qualify?
-
Brad Guth


f u set