El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
> > Saul Levy
> Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
> Double-A
I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better resolution, as well as better color saturations.
That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
>> > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
>> > Saul Levy
>> Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
>> Double-A
>I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better >resolution, as well as better color saturations.
>That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a >great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee >whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper >stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and >were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, >which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
>So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by >channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
>Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or >perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
> > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
> > Saul Levy
> Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
> Double-A
I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better resolution, as well as better color saturations.
That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
~ BG *********************************** GuthBall, I have an old Argus C5, 35mm. I can fix that up for you, if you can get an ok from NASA to strap you onto the side of the next rocket they hurl at the Moon. You can take pictures all the way down to the impact site ... since you're full of shit. it'll just leave a brown stain on the dark surface. Future generation may, however, retrieve the camera and develop the 36 pictures of your step-by-step demise ....
> > > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
> > > Saul Levy
> > Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
> > Double-A
> I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better > resolution, as well as better color saturations.
> That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a > great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee > whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper > stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and > were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, > which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
> So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by > channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
> Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or > perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
> ~ BG > *********************************** > GuthBall, I have an old Argus C5, 35mm. I can fix that up for you, > if you can get an ok from NASA to strap you onto the side of the > next rocket they hurl at the Moon. You can take pictures all the > way down to the impact site ... since you're full of shit. it'll just > leave a brown stain on the dark surface. Future generation may, > however, retrieve the camera and develop the 36 pictures of your > step-by-step demise ....
Unlike yourself, I already know first hand what those Kodak laws of film physics are all about. I also know UV fluorescence, as well as what dynamic range means.
> > > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
> > > Saul Levy
> > Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
> > Double-A
> I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better > resolution, as well as better color saturations.
> That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a > great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee > whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper > stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and > were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, > which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
> So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by > channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
> Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or > perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
> ~ BG > *********************************** > GuthBall, I have an old Argus C5, 35mm. I can fix that up for you, > if you can get an ok from NASA to strap you onto the side of the > next rocket they hurl at the Moon. You can take pictures all the > way down to the impact site ... since you're full of shit. it'll just > leave a brown stain on the dark surface. Future generation may, > however, retrieve the camera and develop the 36 pictures of your > step-by-step demise ....
Unlike yourself, I already know first hand what those Kodak laws of film physics are all about. I also know UV fluorescence, as well as what dynamic range means.
~ BG ******************************* Well, good for you, wunderchild ... I just point and click. Comes out perfect every time. No need to study dynamic range or UV fluorescence. So, what was your point, doofus ???
> > > > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
> > > > Saul Levy
> > > Mercury on the Moon? More amalgam for our teeth!
> > > Double-A
> > I'm convinced that my old cellphone camera could have gotten us better > > resolution, as well as better color saturations.
> > That wussy 6 to 8 km plume from such a minimal crater contained a > > great deal of sodium. Notice how they got no sign of any water (gee > > whiz, what a surprise). Too bad they didn't have a 14 tonne upper > > stage like those multiple Apollo ones that smacked into the moon and > > were never observed for their scientific data other than seismic, > > which we never got to see any of that raw data either.
> > So, why not just give us those original spectrometer channel by > > channel readings (the whole 9 yards, so to speak)?
> > Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or > > perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
> > ~ BG > > *********************************** > > GuthBall, I have an old Argus C5, 35mm. I can fix that up for you, > > if you can get an ok from NASA to strap you onto the side of the > > next rocket they hurl at the Moon. You can take pictures all the > > way down to the impact site ... since you're full of shit. it'll just > > leave a brown stain on the dark surface. Future generation may, > > however, retrieve the camera and develop the 36 pictures of your > > step-by-step demise ....
> Unlike yourself, I already know first hand what those Kodak laws of > film physics are all about. I also know UV fluorescence, as well as > what dynamic range means.
> ~ BG > ******************************* > Well, good for you, wunderchild ... I just point and click. > Comes out perfect every time. No need to study dynamic > range or UV fluorescence. > So, what was your point, doofus ???
If I were a parrot like yourself, I wouldn't have any point to make.
Otherwise, the entire LRO and its secondary LCROSS mission has been insider limited as to sharing the vast scope of science that should have been a whole lot more forthcoming. It's bad enough that it's nearly a half century late to begin with.
>On Nov 7, 8:21 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote: >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > > On Nov 6, 1:54 pm, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > > > Yes, Virginia, there ARE LCROSS CRASH RESULTS!
>> > > > I told you FOOLS that NO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS!
>> > > > Saul Levy >> > Where are those LCROSS UV secondary fluorescence hues? (invisible or >> > perhaps restricted to monochrome?)
>> > ~ BG >> > *********************************** >> Unlike yourself, I already know first hand what those Kodak laws of >> film physics are all about. I also know UV fluorescence, as well as >> what dynamic range means.
>> ~ BG >> ******************************* >> Well, good for you, wunderchild ... I just point and click. >> Comes out perfect every time. No need to study dynamic >> range or UV fluorescence. >> So, what was your point, doofus ???
>If I were a parrot like yourself, I wouldn't have any point to make.
>Otherwise, the entire LRO and its secondary LCROSS mission has been >insider limited as to sharing the vast scope of science that should >have been a whole lot more forthcoming. It's bad enough that it's >nearly a half century late to begin with.
That's the difference between you and I. I have "working" original thought. You do not. Hence, your propensity to blather on about crap that is not possible and really serves zero purpose.
> That's the difference between you and I. I have "working" original thought. > You do not. Hence, your propensity to blather on about crap that is not > possible and really serves zero purpose.
And a good example of that unplagiarized original thought is????
I have many. Why should I share them with you? I am not the one here trying to pimp stupid theories and unworkable concepts while decrying those that use known knowledge to disprove the same.
> I have many. Why should I share them with you? I am not the one > here trying to pimp stupid theories and unworkable concepts while > decrying those that use known knowledge to disprove the same.
Suppose if I were as ashamed of my accomplishments or lack thereof, I too would be unwilling to share.
Last time I'd checked, the regular laws of physics and best available science that can be independently peer replicated were not "stupid theories and unworkable concepts", but then I'm not nearly as kosher mindset or as trained parrot as yourself.
>> That's the difference between you and I. I have "working" original thought. >> You do not. Hence, your propensity to blather on about crap that is not >> possible and really serves zero purpose.
>And a good example of that unplagiarized original thought is????
|
