http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/

The prophet Job made the case for disputing man’s claim for
order by leaning towards the CHAOS that surrounded him and
discrediting the consensus.  Yet to most Americans, the less
tangible cost of consensus in the age of the microchip was
the atrophy of the idea of "conflict". Now we’re "zeroing
in" on trying to make the chaos "symmetrical" by creating
THE FRACTAL AETHER out of the void – a sharper distinction
for those who would be more alive if the forces of light
would *JUST STICK AROUND (and perhaps do, with what’s
called an ‘artifact’):

*The Shroud of Turin is one example of how a ~13th century
 carbon dated cloth made it to the tomb where Jesus was
 buried. Perhaps the cloth was originally borrowed from a
 13th century European location, and then returned to the
 same location at a later date, but since the carbon dating
 verifies the shroud in the 1200′s, the question remains:
 Would a shroud from another time and place be selected
 for the express purpose of creating a projected image of
 both past and future event horizons during the resurrection?
 If the point of death and burial of Jesus represents zero
 time, then some 1200(+) year 1/2 cycle represents a total
 bandwidth of some 2500 years, give or take about 50. 2500
 years is approximately 1/10 of 25,000 years – the exact
 quantity representing the solar precessional period. The
 harmonic is 25, which is a direct vibration of the number
 5. The number 5 is represents the settling time of the
 great attractor that we have used above for the Alpha and
 Omega pole orientation. We are now within the 5 year period
 representing the dawn of a new age – a new age that began
 with the sinking of Atlantis, and end with a rise in
 consciousness to the fourth level called "ONE", which,
 supposedly, is a great dissolution into unity, or HARVEST.

Immigration problem? No, maybe Americans are not
EMMIGRATING ENOUGH!

…

- — -

OM wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:33:31 GMT, Dave Michelson <da…@ece.ubc.ca>
> wrote:

> >OM wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:51:47 GMT, Dave Michelson <da…@ece.ubc.ca>
> >> wrote:

> >>> surfduke wrote:
> >>>> BTW

> >>>> I did finally find a picture of a model that had the access detailed
> >>>> out. I can send it to anyone who wants it.
> >>> Me, for one,

> >> …Here it comes, kids: .history’s first "Mee tooo!" thread!

> >At least it will be ‘on topic’.  :-P

> …Yeah, things have been *really* OT since the trolls on .policy have
> been adding .history to their headers. That "Borderline" maggot needs
> to have his skull caved in as well as his hands cut off.

Such a nice guy this OM fellow is.

Hey, I got into it with Borderline too. Had to quote Teddy Roosevelt’s
"The Man in the Arena" to him and he never responded back. But Jeffrey
Dahmer stuff like you post?

The irony is to watch you fall all over yourself kissing the asses of
the space "celebrities".

I’m amazed how OM thinks that S.S.H  belongs to him.

I cross posted to S.S.P just to piss you off.

Lastly, I wonder if the real "OM" is aware of how much of a jerk you
are?

Eric

- — -

>                            OM
> —
>    ]=====================================[
>    ]   OMBlog – http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld   [
>    ]        Let’s face it: Sometimes you *need*         [
>    ]          an obnoxious opinion in your day!           [
>    ]=====================================[

Found this in another ng.

Net reaches out to final frontier
Iris will allow troops to communicate over the net from remote regions
A programme to kick-start the use of internet communications in space
has been announced by the US government.

The Department of Defense’s Iris project will put an internet router
in space by the start of 2009.
It will allow voice, video and data communications for US troops using
standards developed for the internet.

Eventually Iris could extend the net into space, allowing data to flow
directly between satellites, rather than sending it via ground
stations.

"Iris is to the future of satellite-based communications what Arpanet
was to the creation of the internet in the 1960s," said Don Brown, of
Intelsat General, one of the companies who will build the platform.

Arpanet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the predecessor
of the internet, was developed by the United States Department of
Defense.

Remote access

The Iris (Internet Router Protocol in Space) project has been given
the go ahead after winning funding from the US Department of Defense,
under its Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) programme.

The programme aims to develop advanced concepts and put "innovative
concepts into the hands of war fighters in the field."

The Iris project is one of seven that has been given funding this
year. Others include development of smart sensors and counter
camouflage technology.

Iris is a three year programme to develop a satellite platform and
"space hardened router".
A router is a piece of hardware that directs packets of information
around a network.

The specially designed equipment will be developed by network
specialist Cisco while the geostationary satellite, IS-14, will be
built by Intelsat.

When launched in 2009 it will allow troops to communicate over the
internet from the remotest regions from Europe Africa and the
Americas.

"Iris extends the internet into space, integrating satellite systems
and the ground infrastructure for warfighters, first responders and
others who need seamless and instant communications," said Bill
Shernit, CEO of Intelsat general.

After initial testing the satellite will be opened up for commercial
use.Cyber space
Launching Iris could also signal the beginning of the development of
the internet in space.
At the moment most satellites have to communicate with one another
through ground stations or via radio signals to a relay satellite.

Deploying routers on satellites would allow them to communicate
directly with one another using common internet standards, known as
internet protocol (IP).

"The Iris architecture allows direct IP routing over satellite,
eliminating the need for routing via a ground-based teleport," said Mr
Brown.

It also raises the possibility of routinely transferring data through
the satellite network, rather than ground based cables.

"This is a logical extension of radio communication between
satellites," said Paul Stephens of DMC international imaging, a
subsidiary of Surrey Satellites in the UK.

Along with Cisco and US space agency Nasa, it put one of the first
routers in space onboard the UK-DMC satellite, part of the Disaster
Monitoring Constellation (DMC) used for observing the Earth for major
disasters.

The DMC router uses the latest IP networking standards to send
critical images to ground stations for use by rescue workers.

With IP becoming more prevalent for use in space, Nasa and internet
pioneer Vint Cerf have also investigated the possibility of using
internet technology across the solar system.

Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
interplanetary internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6551807.stm

This time I’d been getting all of those nifty "Your post was successful"
worth of Usenet conformation feedbacks, and yet not a one of my
contributions shows up in the topic index.  Apparently our silly Jewish
run or rather stealth moderated Usenet is once again having been
selectively terminated as of 6:57 am.  Whereas a few other groups were
still running full speed ahead as of 7:44 am, alt.politics.bush was
still flying as of 8:41 am, and apparently the God of Usenet likes
"alt.atheism" because, he/she had kept that group afloat until 8:28 am,
along with "alt.religion.islam" as being good for 8:10 am, with
"alt.bible" still kicking butt at 9:20 am, and "soc.culture.usa" still
breathing as of 8:29 am.

BTW;  do take notice as to all of those pesky Mailgate.org "Mailgate:
Message not available" topics, and of taking a bit further notice as to
what those sorts of topics were about.  Most of my Mailgate topic index
is primarily those listed as "Mailgate: Message not available", but you
can often still open those topics to see what’s worth hiding from us
clients and otherwise totally excluded away from the public’s outside
view.

Moon landing hoax… I found the fatal flaw.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/726e40…
Dear MI/NSA spook Ed,
Yes we most certainly can place Venus within that very crystal clear and
dark sky at the time of those NASA/Apollo landings, just as well as any
basic 2D solar system simulator (including those of NASA) can more than
substantiate upon that exact location of Venus, though it gets
especially impressive if you’re utilizing a fully interactive 3D
simulator that’ll put the viewer and whatever FOV(frame of view) as
actually situated upon the moon.  Our NASA and many others have those 3D
simulators that’ll put that FOV at each and every landing site, as well
as their having the supercomputer for accomplishing a fully interactive
animation, exactly as though you’re the actual orbiting or EVA astronaut
holding that camera along with it’s unfiltered optics and containing
such film that was more spectrum sensitive than any human eye.

IF you can in fact manage to record those deep blue oceans of mother
Earth along with a little something of the moon, or of their equipment
and/or especially of any EVA astronaut within a given FOV (as
NASA/Apollo supposedly accomplished just exactly that from orbit and
otherwise multiple times from the deck), then you sure as freaking hell
would have recorded that nearby crescent of Venus, as especially more
vibrant looking than the naked eye because of their using such
unfiltered optics and of that Kodak film that was actually rather
near-UV(violet) and even a little UV-a sensitive to a much greater
extent than the human eye.  It’s that simple.

Warhol, Plisek and so many others (including myself) have been right all
along.

However, finding just those right words and of all the best available
science, or even of those regular laws of physics that’ll tell an
entirely different story is simply not good enough for putting all of
these NASA/Apollo rusemasters down for good, as they and of their borg
like collective of brown-nosed clowns merely avoid, exclude and/or
whenever possible banish whatever on the fly, not to mention having been
sharing their expertise at delivering as much spermware/fuckware into
your PC as they can muster.

Besides the rather unusual lack of Venus and a few other DR(dynamic
range) worthy items that should have been recorded, there’s actually any
number of those Kodak moments telling us the truth, as well as per those
pesky laws of physics having been otherwise telling us the whole truth
and nothing but the truth about our naked and somewhat salty old moon
that’s more than a little TBI lethal to our frail DNA.

The color spectrum of such a raw solar illumination is simply NOT going
to be that of such a terrestrial looking spectrum worth of color
saturation, such as provided by their xenon arc lamp spectrum that’s
very terrestrial looking and therefore without hardly any UV to speak
of.

Their hocus-pocus magic worth of surface tension, of that far better
than nicely vacuum dried, sub-frozen and otherwise double IR/FIR roasted
to death worth of such absolutely bone dry and yet rather nicely
clumping with such an absolutely terrific amount of surface tension
worthy moon dirt was apparently far more extra special (meaning
terrestrial like) than anyone had thought possible.  Their moon dirt was
also without a breath of static and otherwise so nicely reflecting, in
that it had a very guano island look worth of albedo of far better than
0.5 for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, in many
locations reaching an impressive albedo of 0.75.

Perhaps that also explains as to why their hocus-pocus controlled (w/o
benefit of momentum reaction wheels) worth of down-range and soft
landing thrust having displaced next to nothing, and perhaps also why
Venus was simply nowhere in sight, even though it was in fact
unavoidably so nearby and very much there to behold, as would have been
rather easily recorded within the available DR(dynamic range) and
FOV(field of view) of most any number of such unfiltered Kodak moments.

That physically dark moon environment is simply TBI(total body
irradiation) hotter and thereby more potentially lethal than any Van
Allen badlands you can point at.  There’s simply no possible way in hell
such Kodak film survived for such an extended amount of time, especially
without such poorly shielded film having taken significant gamma and
Xray hits.

Those MythBusters or any 5th grader with a PC or MAC at their disposal
need only to run the likes of CELESTIA, or something less or better than
3D simulation in order to more than prove this point, that we’ve been
entirely snookered by the right stuff of those that’ll knowingly lie and
otherwise perpetrate whatever on behalf of their government, as well as
on behalf of whatever faith-based cult or chapter of Skull and Bones
they belong to.
–
Brad Guth

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

And neked long-haired Aryan babes in psychic contact with Aldebaran:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/
Words fail me…imagine someone as mad as Brad Guth, but actually
competent enough to make a decent website!
The thing has _grandeur_! It should be turned into a comic book
series…the Third Reich was absolutely acrawl in flying saucers and
strange women with hair down to their ankles. Even the Venusian
Firewomen would fear the Vril Thrill Girls, as they do their
bare-breasted dance of Aldebaran Abandon!
Don’t even get me started on the giant flying cattle-killing machine in
Argentina…that trip is just too heavy to take without a strong drink
in your hand….but I bet Adolf himself was at the wheel that day.

Pat

To me, it seems the Russians have a first, Space Tourist to Orbit. Is the
proper name or a Space Tourist, Cosmonaut or Space Flight
Participant(Astronaut)?

–
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeG…@GMail.Com

I’m reviewing Caldicott’s new "War in Space" book and would like
to verify the identity of a missile shown on its cover — you can see the
cover at
http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title…

I’m thinking it’s a Sea Sparrow — a really stupid missile to use to
illustrate a book on ‘space weapons’ — but in this case,
you can judge the book by its cover.

<baa…@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1176763078.766942.231680@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com…

- — -

> April 15, 2007

> Katherine Trinidad
> Headquarters, Washington
> 202-358-3749

> Kyle Herring
> Johnson Space Center, Houston
> 281-483-5111

> RELEASE: 07-89

> NASA UPDATES SHUTTLE TARGET LAUNCH DATES

> HOUSTON – During a meeting Monday at NASA’s Johnson Space Center,
> agency officials revised the target launch dates for space shuttle
> flights during the next 12 months. The space shuttle and
> International Space Station programs agreed to the changes during a
> meeting to evaluate options following the STS-117 mission’s delay,
> which was caused by hail damage to the external fuel tank.

> Flights beyond April 2008 have not been assessed. Both shuttle and
> station program officials will continue to consider options for the
> remainder of the shuttle flights and those target launch dates are
> subject to change.

> Upcoming shuttle missions:
> -STS-117 targeted for no earlier than June 8, 2007, on Atlantis
> -STS-118 targeted for no earlier than Aug. 9, 2007, on Endeavour
> -STS-120 targeted for no earlier than Oct. 20, 2007, on Discovery
> instead of Atlantis
> -STS-122 targeted for no earlier than Dec. 6, 2007, on Atlantis
> instead of Discovery
> -STS-123 targeted for no earlier than Feb. 14, 2008, on Endeavour
> -STS-124 targeted for no earlier than April 24, 2008, on Discovery
> instead of Atlantis

> The shuttles for STS-120, 122 and 124 were exchanged to best meet the
> demands of the missions and to have the least amount of impact on the
> flight schedule.

> The shuttle launch manifest is available online at:

> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html
> For details on upcoming shuttle missions and their crews, visit:

> http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle

> -end-

alright
at first I was surprised
http://click.adultsingles.com/partner/click.asp?id=72473&site=ads&typ…

honestly i THINK it’s wrong

I realize this is hardly original, but still….

Nuclear rocketry – nuclear technology in general – is natural in
space. It
is unnatural on earth.

Most of the time, I try my best to avoid the words "natural" and
"unnatural".
I’m showing me age in this distaste. Say the word "natural" and I get
a
flash of ol’ Cosmic Charlie with sunflower seeds and an acoustic
guitar. Despite
this, I find that the words "natural" and "unnatural" are unavoidable
when I turn
me attention to nuclear technology and space.

Nuclear chemistry and regular chemistry are hugely different.

They occur under very different physical conditions. Nuclear fusion,
for example,
wants a temperature of millions of degrees. Chemical fusion will
settle for a
few hundred degrees. In some cases less.

Nuclear and chemical also involve different things. Nuclear involves
heavy hadrons
and dense nuclei. Chemical involved light leptons and tenuous
"electron clouds".

And most of all: Chemical is planetary. Nuclear is a thing in outer
space.

On planets, chemistry is natural and nuclear is unnatural. In outer
space,
nuclear is natural.

These are subjective conclusions grounded in objective facts. The
objective facts
are where nuclear reactions are common and uncommon and where and
where regular
chemistry is common.

Earth (like other planets?) is lousy with regular chemistry. The
fanciest chemistry
around is life. Earth had chemical drugs and chemical poisons –
chemical
pollution – before it had human beings. On earth there are (or were
before
humans and the modern era) very few nuclear events.

In outer space, it is turned around. Space is lousy with nuclear
reactions.
Stars do nuclear burning. Exploding stars play giant H-Bomb. Cosmic
rays
are cosmic. Really.

Chemical technology – that is technology that relies on chemical
reaction and not
on nuclear reactions – can fit in on planets. Ever some level of
chemical
pollution can (one hopes) fit in.

Of course chemical technology can also NOT fit in. We can go to far.
We can
crank out more chemical pollution than our world can swallow. (And
that
unfortunately seems to be the trend.)

Can Earth swallow ANY nuclear pollution?

On Earth, chemical pollution is basically "same old same old". Though
we are
burdening Earth with way, way too much, there may be a kind of "safe
dosage". On
earth, nuclear pollution is NOT "same old same old". Is there any
"safe dosage"?

In outer space there may not be any such thing as an UNSAFE dosage of
nuclear
pollution. If we nuked the sun, the sun would not turn radioactive.
The thing
was and is radioactive. Making it 1% worse would be far beyond our
lowly means
even if we had a railroad to heaven.

I have two proposals:
                1) Ban nuclear technology from earth.
                and
                2) Deploy nuclear technology in space.

Angus