Moon landing hoax

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 02 Sep 2006 13:33:22
From: Gerhard Nowak
Subject: Moon landing hoax

I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
too much evidence now out there:

1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
storage media at that time just don't fit.
Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance

.2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
or high definition pictures?

3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
bright spots up there to indicate them.

4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?

Thx for your patience

Gerry

Date: 02 Sep 2006 18:02:12
From: G a z .
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

In article <44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net >,
nonspam@gmx.net says...

> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>

> Gerry
>

Gerry,

I have to admit that I would not usually get involved in this topic,
although I have to agree that as times goes by there are infact more
and more questions that arise, all of which seem to add yet more
weight to the "it could'nt have happened" side!

But there is yet another question that has arisen, and that being that
the so called "original moon landing tapes" were supposedly High
Definition, no doubt they (NASA) will tell us all that they were
digital too...

But to be honest I would like to believe that Man did make it to Moon,
but sadly as time goes by, I have yet even less faith in the so called
facts.

So with me the jury is out, and that case must be proved yet again.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 21:22:44
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

G a z . wrote:
> In article <44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
> nonspam@gmx.net says...
>
>> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
>> too much evidence now out there:
>>
>
> So with me the jury is out, and that case must be proved yet again.
>

"Must" doesn't enter into it .. no one really
cares whether you believe the truth or not.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:56:13
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:02:12 +0100, G a z . <spamno@email.com > wrote:

>I have to admit that I would not usually get involved in this topic,
>although I have to agree that as times goes by there are infact more
>and more questions that arise, all of which seem to add yet more
>weight to the "it could'nt have happened" side!

I haven't seen a new or original question since this whole hoax thing
became visible about a decade ago. Just the same old questions, long
since answered.

>But there is yet another question that has arisen, and that being that
>the so called "original moon landing tapes" were supposedly High
>Definition, no doubt they (NASA) will tell us all that they were
>digital too...

They aren't (not "weren't", since there is no reason to believe they
won't be found) high definition. They are simply higher definition than
the images most of us saw on TV. The thousands of still images made on
the Moon are much higher resolution, and if there were any evidence of
fraud that's the place to find it. Of course, nobody has.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:07:43
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

G a z . <spamno@email.com > wrote:

>In article <44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
>nonspam@gmx.net says...
>
>> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
>> too much evidence now out there:
>>
>
>> Gerry
>>
>
>Gerry,
>
>I have to admit that I would not usually get involved in this topic,
>although I have to agree that as times goes by there are infact more
>and more questions that arise, all of which seem to add yet more
>weight to the "it could'nt have happened" side!
>
>But there is yet another question that has arisen, and that being that
>the so called "original moon landing tapes" were supposedly High
>Definition, no doubt they (NASA) will tell us all that they were
>digital too...
>
>But to be honest I would like to believe that Man did make it to Moon,
>but sadly as time goes by, I have yet even less faith in the so called
>facts.
>
>So with me the jury is out, and that case must be proved yet again.

It's a case of weight of evidence - the evidence for is overwhelming,
the evidence against shaky and easily demolished. No jury would
convict on the evidence of the moon hoax people. However when it
comes to beliefs - one cannot argue a person out of a position he did
not reach through rational and logical thought.

Eugene L Griessel

Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of religion.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 12:38:26
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance
>
> .2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
> This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
> Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
> unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
> or high definition pictures?
>
> 3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
> sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
> bright spots up there to indicate them.
>
> 4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?
>
> Thx for your patience
>
> Gerry
>

Yawn.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 07:19:55
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. I guess you all are from the States.
> And you want to be proud of your country.
> I also watched it live. That doesn't mean it's true!
>
> I don't know, what to believe, but there are too many questions open.
> The professors' explanations about the crosshairs and the stiffing element
> in
> the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
> There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.

Hi:

And that's the thing. You MOON LOONS don't want to believe NASA...don't
want to believe "the professors," don't want to believe _anybody_ who
tries to talk sense into you with facts and logic.

I GUARANTEE...If I could transport you to the Apollo 11 landing site,
right now, you (and your buddies) would STILL not believe. "Oh, that
LEM lower stage was landed here by an unmanned rocket. HOW COULD MEN
PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS?!"

LOL!

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
<http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/ >

>
> Why don't we get photos of the Spacecraft still there on the surface?
> I have read in 2002 the ESA wanted to proof the truth. It never happened!
> We have such big telescopes on earth and out there in space, but we are not
> able to get a glimpse of the rotten spacecraft from the 60s? Or the mirrors
> up there?
>
> If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there, please
> post it,
> and I will shut up forever about this subject.
>
> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the bloody
> one) of the millenium.
>
> Thx
>
> Gerry

Date: 02 Sep 2006 07:12:21
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Hi:

I don't normally get involved in this FOOLISHNESS, bubba, but you seem
sincere--you even used a name instead of a weird handle. Also, I find,
as I get older, that I am more and more concerned about the spread of
scientific illiteracy and superstition. That being the case:

Gerhard Nowak wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance

Apollo 11 used slow scan TV, thus there were no "huge amounts of data"
to send. Back in the 60s, amateur radio operators (me, for example)
were transmitting slow scan signals all over the world. If you're not
sure what SS is, Google will quickly fill in the technical details for
you. This was all ANALOG of course. The images were not perfect, but it
was easy to see what was going on.

>
> .2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
> This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
> Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
> unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
> or high definition pictures?

Why? No conspiracy. NASA is a huge bureaucracy, just like the IRS. I'm
surprised they haven't lost the Moon rocks. No, modern digital
technology would not reveal squat. What has it revealed, afterall,
about the high resolution Hassie stills that the astronauts took in
abundance? What "crap" are you talking about? PLEASE no "flags waving
when they shouldn't be!" :-)

>
> 3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
> sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
> bright spots up there to indicate them.

They are not those kind of mirrors. These retroreflectors were designed
to return laser signals shot at 'em. Even a finely coated aluminized
mirror of this size wouldn't do what you want it to, however.

>
> 4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?

I saw 'em. I've touched one. You can, too, if you visit KSC. More to
the point, thousands of scientists have touched 'em--and analyzed 'em.
Think back to college...would your curmudegeonly ol' GY101 professor be
taken-in by rocks from Khazachstan (sp?)? Mine wouldn't.

Now for the questions you DIDN'T ASK:

--If it was all just a huge conspiracy, why was it not exposed? Whay
hasn't it been exposed after 40 years (tinfoilhatters squawking about
flags does not count as "exposed" ;-)). Thousands would have to have
been involved. That's no way to keep a secret. Clearly bad, old NASA
didn't/couldn't kill 'em all.

--If it was all just a huge conspiracy, why didn't the USSR find out?
Do you know how much money they were pumping into the KGB's foreign
intelligence operations? And while they were maybe not as good as they
were reputed to be, the KGB boys played the game well and would have
found out. Period. Do you think the USSR would have kept silent?

--Of course I could go on and on...about silly claims about "flags that
wave when there is no air," "and bad ol' shadows where they shouldn't
be," but these silly assertions have been DEBUNKED so many times, I'm
not going to burden anybody, including you, with the truth one more
time. A good source of the truth:

<http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html >

Read it, and grow up a little. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
<http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/ >

>
> Thx for your patience
>
> Gerry

Date: 02 Sep 2006 15:24:53
From: Gareth Slee
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

RMOLLISE <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Also, I find, as I get older, that I am more and more concerned about the
> spread of scientific illiteracy and superstition.

I find it interesting too. Most of my (fairly intelligent) colleagues
have a *very* poor understanding of science.
But if you take time to explain something to them then they become
involved and usually ask good questions.
I find people generally enjoy science and are *very* interested in it,
but the way it's delivered to them (usually via the media) means they
are sometimes badly misinformed.

--
Gareth Slee

Date: 02 Sep 2006 06:34:09
From:
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

> 4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?
>
> Thx for your patience
>
> Gerry
The Russians would have loved to exposed any Hoax, DUHHHH!
They where racing us and a Media exposure of a Hoax would have made
very good Propagandia for their Commie Ways.
They had a Ship up to Moniter the landing and offered Help if needed,
if i recall .
Doug S.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 15:46:10
From: Gerhard Nowak
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Thanks for your comments. I guess you all are from the States.
And you want to be proud of your country.
I also watched it live. That doesn't mean it's true!

I don't know, what to believe, but there are too many questions open.
The professors' explanations about the crosshairs and the stiffing element
in
the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.

Why don't we get photos of the Spacecraft still there on the surface?
I have read in 2002 the ESA wanted to proof the truth. It never happened!
We have such big telescopes on earth and out there in space, but we are not
able to get a glimpse of the rotten spacecraft from the 60s? Or the mirrors
up there?

If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there, please
post it,
and I will shut up forever about this subject.

Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the bloody
one) of the millenium.

Thx

Gerry

Date: 02 Sep 2006 13:27:13
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote:

>
>the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
>There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.

In other words dozens of the world's leading geophycists, geochemists,
geologists, etc., none of whom owed any allegiance to the USA or NASA,
were all fooled by some rocks only NASA ever found, and which have
never been subsequently found anywhere on earth? Ah well - takes all
sorts I suppose.

Eugene L Griessel

Progress may have been all right once, but it went on too long.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 10:46:35
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen > wrote:

> Ah well - takes all sorts I suppose.

Including people with delusions of grandeur, I suppose.

Bud

Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:03:51
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net > wrote:

>On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>
>> Ah well - takes all sorts I suppose.
>
>Including people with delusions of grandeur, I suppose.
>

You suffer from that?

Eugene L Griessel

Good taste and humour are a contradiction in terms,
like a chaste whore.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 12:46:35
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen > wrote:
> William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah well - takes all sorts I suppose.
>>
>>Including people with delusions of grandeur, I suppose.
>>
>
> You suffer from that?

I suspect Moon hoaxers do, a delusion being a belief that is
contrary to fact. One form of a delusion of grandeur is the
possession of secret knowledge that the rest of humanity is too
unenlightened to have. The moon hoaxer is obviously superior
to the ordinary person, at least in the hoaxer's mind, because
he has been able to see through the vast conspiracy that has
clouded the minds of everyone else.

I used to live across the street from an engineer who worked on
the Apollo project. He was rightly proud of his work.

The real moon hoax is the assertion that we didn't go to the
moon.

Bud

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:21:40
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 13:46:35 -0400, William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net > said:

> On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>> William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah well - takes all sorts I suppose.
>>>
>>> Including people with delusions of grandeur, I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> You suffer from that?
>
> I suspect Moon hoaxers do, a delusion being a belief that is contrary
> to fact. One form of a delusion of grandeur is the possession of
> secret knowledge that the rest of humanity is too unenlightened to
> have. The moon hoaxer is obviously superior to the ordinary person, at
> least in the hoaxer's mind, because he has been able to see through the
> vast conspiracy that has clouded the minds of everyone else.
>
> I used to live across the street from an engineer who worked on the
> Apollo project. He was rightly proud of his work.
> The real moon hoax is the assertion that we didn't go to the moon.
>
> Bud
>
>
My uncle helped build the LEMS. He died a few years ago. He helped put
man on the moon.

Screw the non believers. Their parents must be SO proud....

Date: 03 Sep 2006 06:15:18
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net > wrote:

>On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>> William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2006-09-02, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) <eugene@dynagen> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah well - takes all sorts I suppose.
>>>
>>>Including people with delusions of grandeur, I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> You suffer from that?
>
>I suspect Moon hoaxers do, a delusion being a belief that is
>contrary to fact. One form of a delusion of grandeur is the
>possession of secret knowledge that the rest of humanity is too
>unenlightened to have. The moon hoaxer is obviously superior
>to the ordinary person, at least in the hoaxer's mind, because
>he has been able to see through the vast conspiracy that has
>clouded the minds of everyone else.

I don't know - most conspiracists I've met (admittedly none who are
primarily moon hoaxers) are pretty pathetic people who are desparately
seeking something to take the blame for their dull humdrum lives. In
many cases they will not or cannnot believe that they are largely
authors of their own fate - so a giant , nameless faceless secret
conspiracy can easily be invoked to explain their own failure.
I haven't met any who suffer delusions of grandeur - or if they do
they are disguising the fact pretty well!

>
>I used to live across the street from an engineer who worked on
>the Apollo project. He was rightly proud of his work.
>
>The real moon hoax is the assertion that we didn't go to the
>moon.

You are right there. But most of these people seem to work in the
reverse scientific way. They have a theory and are looking for facts
to support is while rigorously ignoring any fact that may negate it.
Doing that one can prove just about anything - at least to oneself.
Looking at the Apollo program in a scientific way leaves one in no
doubt that Homo sapiens did indeed travel to the moon. The
unassailable evidence to support this is overwhelming and
incontrovertible.

Eugene L Griessel

I have my own opinions on things....is that ok with you?

Date: 03 Sep 2006 11:25:26
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> I don't know - most conspiracists I've met (admittedly none who are
> primarily moon hoaxers) are pretty pathetic people who are desparately
> seeking something to take the blame for their dull humdrum lives. In
> many cases they will not or cannnot believe that they are largely
> authors of their own fate - so a giant , nameless faceless secret
> conspiracy can easily be invoked to explain their own failure.
> I haven't met any who suffer delusions of grandeur - or if they do
> they are disguising the fact pretty well!

I wouldn't necessarily call it delusions of grandeur, but the theorists
I've met certainly do feel superior in one aspect--that they are less
naive (they believe) than all of us who have been snowed by government
black suits, or what have you. But they don't usually respond so well
to the question of what would convince them they were wrong--because
they have constructed an unfalsifiable edifice of belief. It's just a
religion for them.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:06:29
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za > wrote in message
news:44f985bf.1366259@news.uunet.co.za...
> "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
>>There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.
>
> In other words dozens of the world's leading geophycists, geochemists,
> geologists, etc., none of whom owed any allegiance to the USA or NASA,
> were all fooled by some rocks only NASA ever found, and which have
> never been subsequently found anywhere on earth? Ah well - takes all
> sorts I suppose.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Progress may have been all right once, but it went on too long.

where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time? Most
should be on display for the public
since it was the public who payed for them!! We have only been told they
exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:26:58
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 16:06:29 -0400, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > said:

>
> "Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> news:44f985bf.1366259@news.uunet.co.za...
>> "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
>>> There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.
>>
>> In other words dozens of the world's leading geophycists, geochemists,
>> geologists, etc., none of whom owed any allegiance to the USA or NASA,
>> were all fooled by some rocks only NASA ever found, and which have
>> never been subsequently found anywhere on earth? Ah well - takes all
>> sorts I suppose.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> Progress may have been all right once, but it went on too long.
>
> where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time?
> Most should be on display for the public
> since it was the public who payed for them!! We have only been told
> they exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
> cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
> sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!
>

Hush hush? Some of them have been on DISPLAY over the years Beavis. Jim
Lovell was grand marshall of a city hall opening in Poughkeepsie,N.Y.
many years ago (I got his autograph!) and had one for display. It was
enclosed in a clear dome for protection and they even had guards.
Awestruck doesn't cut how I felt.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 13:42:29
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

I saw one of those sample and it had a crystal in it that could NOT form on
earth, it could only form where there was no O2 to interfear with it. And
any rock taken from anywhere on Earth can be ID'd as to type and from where
it was formed.

You can join the other clueless ones within the Cyber Black Hole.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

"MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > wrote in message
news:9vlKg.1308$Mh7.816@edtnps90...
>
> "Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> news:44f985bf.1366259@news.uunet.co.za...
>> "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>the flag is not enough. Nor the examinations of the moonrocks.
>>>There are too many kind of rocks still unexplored on earth.
>>
>> In other words dozens of the world's leading geophycists, geochemists,
>> geologists, etc., none of whom owed any allegiance to the USA or NASA,
>> were all fooled by some rocks only NASA ever found, and which have
>> never been subsequently found anywhere on earth? Ah well - takes all
>> sorts I suppose.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> Progress may have been all right once, but it went on too long.
>
> where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time?
> Most should be on display for the public
> since it was the public who payed for them!! We have only been told they
> exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
> cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
> sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!
>

Date: 02 Sep 2006 22:43:01
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:M4GdnfTwnNsUcGTZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@inreach.com...
>I saw one of those sample and it had a crystal in it that could NOT form on
>earth, it could only form where there was no O2 to interfear with it. And
>any rock taken from anywhere on Earth can be ID'd as to type and from where
>it was formed.
>
> You can join the other clueless ones within the Cyber Black Hole.
>
>

"starlord" the day I take you as a credible source for anything scientific
or geologic is the day
I would have given up.

Date: 03 Sep 2006 02:15:59
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

MAT wrote:
> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
> news:M4GdnfTwnNsUcGTZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@inreach.com...
>> I saw one of those sample and it had a crystal in it that could NOT form on
>> earth, it could only form where there was no O2 to interfear with it. And
>> any rock taken from anywhere on Earth can be ID'd as to type and from where
>> it was formed.
>>
>> You can join the other clueless ones within the Cyber Black Hole.
>>
>>
>
>
> "starlord" the day I take you as a credible source for anything scientific
> or geologic is the day
> I would have given up.
>
>

So give up, please: I'm sure Dennis won't mind.

And your personal insults to long-established saa
contributors will not be missed; no, they'll not
be missed.

Phil

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:24:40
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > wrote:

>where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time? Most
>should be on display for the public
>since it was the public who payed for them!! We have only been told they
>exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
>cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
>sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!

More than half of them have been preserved for investigation as
scientific tools improve. The are kept in isolation because it does
no good to expose them to earthly contaminants.

Eugene L Griessel

A preposition is a word that you should never end a sentence with.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:21:58
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:06:29 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net >
wrote:

>where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time? Most
>should be on display for the public
>since it was the public who payed for them!!

They are stored at JSC, and there is nothing hush-hush about it. They
aren't on display because that would ruin their value. They are
carefully kept in contact with only a few types of material and in a dry
nitrogen atmosphere. That way, as new analysis techniques are developed
they are as uncontaminated as possible. Many people have access to the
samples. You could too... it's just a matter of writing up a proper
request explaining the nature of the research you want to conduct.

>We have only been told they
>exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
>cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
>sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!

They were _very_ expensive to collect; between that and their scientific
use, they are far more valuable than the Hope Diamond.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:26:05
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:olpjf2hn6vshpiq0i4on17g0ijlv8m2tng@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:06:29 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>where are the 800 + lbs of rocks? why so hush hush after all this time?
>>Most
>>should be on display for the public
>>since it was the public who payed for them!!
>
> They are stored at JSC, and there is nothing hush-hush about it. They
> aren't on display because that would ruin their value. They are
> carefully kept in contact with only a few types of material and in a dry
> nitrogen atmosphere. That way, as new analysis techniques are developed
> they are as uncontaminated as possible. Many people have access to the
> samples. You could too... it's just a matter of writing up a proper
> request explaining the nature of the research you want to conduct.
>
>>We have only been told they
>>exist and we have only seen insanely small chunks
>>cocealed in acrylic plastic as if they are the Hope diamonds for God's
>>sake!! They are just rocks with certain metals and elements!!
>
> They were _very_ expensive to collect; between that and their scientific
> use, they are far more valuable than the Hope Diamond.

You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
have to request on research grounds they should just be available anytime!!

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:30:24
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 16:26:05 -0400, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > said:

>
>>
>> They were _very_ expensive to collect; between that and their scientific
>> use, they are far more valuable than the Hope Diamond.
>
>
> You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
> have to request on research grounds they should just be available anytime!!
>

Bullshit. They are rare. We HELPED pay for them. So what. They HAVE
been on display and ARE available to various groups. They needed to be
studied and still need to be studied.

Get freaking real man.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 16:38:50
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

MAT wrote: to Chris L Peterson

> You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! '

We paid for CIA headquarters, too. If that's your main point, you can
do better.

Lots of us have seen rocks from the moon. That you haven't doesn't mean
it can't be done; it simply means that you haven't been in the right
place at the right time.

--
St. John
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood.
-Daniel Hudson Burnham

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:32:42
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > wrote:

>You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
>have to request on research grounds they should just be available anytime!!

You paid for stealth bombers, nuclear aircraft carriers and M1 tanks
too - see how far you will get demanding one of those anytime.

Eugene L Griessel

Truth is not determined by majority vote.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:32:18
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > wrote in message
news:xNlKg.2289$0k7.1248@clgrps13...
>
> You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
> have to request on research grounds they should just be available
anytime!!
>
What, just for the hell of it? We paid for the Moon missions too, but I
didn't expect a trip to the lunar surface.

Weird.

Clear skies, Alan

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:32:04
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:26:05 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net >
wrote:

>You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
>have to request on research grounds they should just be available anytime!!

That's idiotic. We didn't pay for the rocks themselves, we paid for the
knowledge that is derived from them. Displaying them would destroy that
value.

We paid for the Space Shuttle, too. I don't see any taxpayers getting
free rides.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Sep 2006 22:40:38
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:8fqjf2dtlhlqah6thhhqlvvg9jdgd75bqk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:26:05 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
>>have to request on research grounds they should just be available
>>anytime!!
>
> That's idiotic. We didn't pay for the rocks themselves, we paid for the
> knowledge that is derived from them. Displaying them would destroy that
> value.
>
> We paid for the Space Shuttle, too. I don't see any taxpayers getting
> free rides.

You're such an ass...

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:32:35
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 18:40:38 -0400, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > said:

>
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:8fqjf2dtlhlqah6thhhqlvvg9jdgd75bqk@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:26:05 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
>>> have to request on research grounds they should just be available anytime!!
>>
>> That's idiotic. We didn't pay for the rocks themselves, we paid for the
>> knowledge that is derived from them. Displaying them would destroy that
>> value.
>>
>> We paid for the Space Shuttle, too. I don't see any taxpayers getting
>> free rides.
>
> You're such an ass...
>

No he's not. He's right. They need to be taken care of properly. Like
lunar meteorites they need to be kept as clean and pristine as possible
so as not to degrade.

You have a LOT to learn dude.

Date: 03 Sep 2006 07:06:48
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

MAT <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net > wrote:

> >>You avoided my main point ...WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR THEM!! You shouldn't
> >>have to request on research grounds they should just be available
> >>anytime!!
> >
> > That's idiotic. We didn't pay for the rocks themselves, we paid for the
> > knowledge that is derived from them. Displaying them would destroy that
> > value.
> >
> > We paid for the Space Shuttle, too. I don't see any taxpayers getting
> > free rides.
>
> You're such an ass...

He might be an ass or he might not. He is, however, correct.

Public money (in the form of taxes) payes for a lot of stuff that you,
the taxpayer, don't have direct access to. Nuclear weapons would be a
good (if extreme) example.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Skype: greyarea

Date: 03 Sep 2006 10:14:00
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

In article <8fqjf2dtlhlqah6thhhqlvvg9jdgd75bqk@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> We paid for the Space Shuttle, too. I don't see any taxpayers getting
> free rides.

Are you saying that none of the astronauts are paying their taxes? <g >

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 02 Sep 2006 14:11:24
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote:

> Why don't we get photos of the Spacecraft still there on the surface?

Did you actually visit the site I pointed you to? Did you read it? *All*
of it? I'm thinking of the part that goes:

"What about the Hubble Space Telescope? Could it see the Apollo landers
on the moon? No. The best the Hubble Telescope can do is see things on
the moon 20-30 meters across, about ten times too large to see the
Apollo equipment. Of course, even if we could see the landers,
conspiracy buffs would say that merely proved we had put landers on the
moon. Even a half-eaten peanut butter sandwich inside the lander could
be explained away. And of course the photos could always be dored."

> If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there, please
> post it,
> and I will shut up forever about this subject.

Telescopes neither Earth-bound nor orbital have the resolution to do
that.
>
> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the bloody
> one) of the millenium.

I hate to break it to you but simply because you don't believe it
doesn't mean it isn't true.

We went to moon. Just accept it.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Skype: greyarea

Date: 02 Sep 2006 14:27:27
From: Gareth Slee
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com > wrote:

>
> We went to moon. Just accept it.

You're wasting your breath Jim...
Anyway we all know they *were* faked. Hey Gerry take a look at this
site, pretty conclusive I'd say.
<http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm >

--
Gareth Slee

Date: 02 Sep 2006 16:23:20
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gareth Slee wrote:
> Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> We went to moon. Just accept it.
>
> You're wasting your breath Jim...
> Anyway we all know they *were* faked. Hey Gerry take a look at this
> site, pretty conclusive I'd say.
> <http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm>
>

Funny site :)

Phil

Date: 02 Sep 2006 14:44:29
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gareth Slee <gax.slee@ntlworld.com > wrote:

> Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > We went to moon. Just accept it.
>
> You're wasting your breath Jim...
> Anyway we all know they *were* faked. Hey Gerry take a look at this
> site, pretty conclusive I'd say.
> <http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm>

Heh. Every time I try to find that site I find I've lost the link.

<bookmarks >

There.

Thanks.

Jim
--
Find me at : http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Skype : greyarea

Date: 02 Sep 2006 08:07:24
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak wrote:
> If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there, please
> post it, and I will shut up forever about this subject.

Somehow, I doubt very much that you would. There is no convincing a
True Believer. There is no amount of proof that could be presented that
wouldn't just be viewed as part of the hoax.

--
St. John

Date: 02 Sep 2006 12:50:37
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:

>Gerhard Nowak wrote:
>> If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there, please
>> post it, and I will shut up forever about this subject.
>
>Somehow, I doubt very much that you would. There is no convincing a
>True Believer. There is no amount of proof that could be presented that
>wouldn't just be viewed as part of the hoax.

True. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Eugene L Griessel

Teamwork is essential. It allows you to blame somebody else.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 11:58:36
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. I guess you all are from the States.
> And you want to be proud of your country.
> I also watched it live. That doesn't mean it's true!
>

There are those of us here who were involved in
the program, knew the astronauts and saw the data.
Have we been carrying that data around with us
for 35 years? No.

Pride in country is not the issue. Knowledge vs.
the doubt of misguided fools and skeptics is the
issue.

Now back to your monthly Flat Earth Society
meeting. Who knows? Maybe you can get Daniel
Min's autograph.

Phil

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:18:59
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 07:58:36 -0400, Phil Wheeler <wt6uh-ng7@yahoo.com > said:

> Gerhard Nowak wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments. I guess you all are from the States.
>> And you want to be proud of your country.
>> I also watched it live. That doesn't mean it's true!
>>
>
> There are those of us here who were involved in the program, knew the
> astronauts and saw the data. Have we been carrying that data around
> with us for 35 years? No.
>
> Pride in country is not the issue. Knowledge vs. the doubt of
> misguided fools and skeptics is the issue.
>
> Now back to your monthly Flat Earth Society meeting. Who knows? Maybe
> you can get Daniel Min's autograph.
>
> Phil

LOL!

Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:18:37
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 07:46:10 -0400, "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > said:

> Why don't we get photos of the Spacecraft still there on the surface?

A little thing called "Resolution" is why. Look it up.

I have read in 2002 the ESA wanted to proof the truth. It never happened!
>
See above.

We have such big telescopes on earth and out there in space, but we are not
> able to get a glimpse of the rotten spacecraft from the 60s? Or the
> mirrors up there?
>
>
See first answer.

If somebody has the (undored) photos of the spacecraft up there,
please post it,
> and I will shut up forever about this subject.
>
> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the
> bloody one) of the millenium.
>
> Thx
>
> Gerry
>
>
> I'd like to thank the parents and teachers of the world for doing such a
great job with the children......

Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:10:59
From: bob
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:44f96ef6$0$18491$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>
>blah blah blah

> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the bloody
> one) of the millenium.
>

Ah, well there's the rub. Everything is a hoax. What a tiny, maleable mind
this guy has.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:39:07
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

bob wrote:
> "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:44f96ef6$0$18491$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>> blah blah blah
>
>
>> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the bloody
>> one) of the millenium.
>>
>
> Ah, well there's the rub. Everything is a hoax. What a tiny, maleable mind
> this guy has.
>
>

Yeah .. we could likely convince him his very
existence is a hoax; but he is more likely to
suspect that we are the hoax, and he is the only
living person on the planet ;)

Phil

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:46:35
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Phil Wheeler wrote:

> bob wrote:
>
>> "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:44f96ef6$0$18491$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>>
>>> blah blah blah
>>
>>
>>
>>> Otherwise it will remain as the biggest unbloody hoax (911 was the
>>> bloody one) of the millenium.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, well there's the rub. Everything is a hoax. What a tiny, maleable
>> mind this guy has.
>>
>
> Yeah .. we could likely convince him his very existence is a hoax; but
> he is more likely to suspect that we are the hoax, and he is the only
> living person on the planet ;)
>
> Phil

Oh, my. I thought for a moment of there being more like him, but I've
seen his twin in rec.bicycling.offroad or sommat like that. Everyone
that disagrees with him is and idiot and/or a liar.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:09:49
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

>
> Yeah .. we could likely convince him his very existence is a hoax; but he
> is more likely to suspect that we are the hoax, and he is the only living
> person on the planet ;)
>
> Phil

He probably doesn't believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or Danny Joe Min
either. :-)

Date: 02 Sep 2006 10:58:58
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote:

>4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?

Professor Ahrens of the University of Cape Town, South Africa received
moon rock for analysis sometime in 1970 IIRC. (As did many other
academics worldwide.) I attended a lecture he gave - there was little
doubt the rock he received was not of terrestrial origins having a
number of unique characteristics - I remember him describing the glass
"beads" embedded throughout - which was not something known in any
earth rock. Was he, and his world-wide colleagues collaboraters on
the hoax? Along with the Australian radio-astronomers who relayed the
data and pictures?

It would have to be one of the most widespread and successful hoaxes
to have involved so many people of so many nations - many of whom had
no vested interest in promoting the hoax - and to have endured so long
without somebody selling the story to a scandal sheet.

Eugene L Griessel

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 19:24:29
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Is it possible we didn't really witness the crew module lift off from the
moon and that the camera didn't
really follow it up for a short time?

Date: 02 Sep 2006 10:06:28
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-02 05:33:22 -0400, "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > said:

> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance
>
> .2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
> This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
> Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
> unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
> or high definition pictures?
>
> 3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
> sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
> bright spots up there to indicate them.
>
> 4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?
>
> Thx for your patience
>
> Gerry
>

It's the year 2006 and STILL there are people who doubt or believe we
didn't go. I'm not wasting much time with you frieaking morons anymore.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 06:56:17
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Johnny Borborigmi wrote:
> It's the year 2006 and STILL there are people who doubt or believe we
> didn't go.

I'm betting that most, if not all, of them weren't alive in 1969, and
simply can't believe that anything technically challenging was possible
in "ancient times."

--
St. John, who watched it live

Date: 02 Sep 2006 14:04:58
From: Falcon
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

St. John Smythe wrote:

> Johnny Borborigmi wrote:
>> It's the year 2006 and STILL there are people who doubt or believe we
>> didn't go.
>
> I'm betting that most, if not all, of them weren't alive in 1969, and
> simply can't believe that anything technically challenging was possible
> in "ancient times."

Hence the reference to streaming video. Kids eh?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Date: 02 Sep 2006 10:41:59
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote:

> Thx for your patience

Wearing very thin by now, I expect.

Most of your questions are answered here:
<http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.ht
m >

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Skype: greyarea

Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:27:17
From:
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Gerhard Nowak wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?

They used an *analogue* method of transmission, something primitive
known as "television", rather than today's modern Internet Protocols.

In fact, since there _would_ have been difficulties attempting to
transmit from the Moon a conventional NTSC-style color signal, the
astronauts instead used a low-tech method of color television called
the "field sequential" system. This was the principle used by CBS for
early color TV broadcasts before the modern method of color TV was
available.

Note, too, that their weak transmitters on the Moon were picked up by
very large parabolic dish antennas on Earth, similar to the earliest
ones used for satellite TV, but many times more expensive. The video
signal was then *converted* to regular broadcast standards, and fed to
the TV networks.

As for Kazakhstan: a secret known to more than one person is difficult
to keep. Hundreds of the world's foremost geologists?

John Savard

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:32:07
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"jsavard" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1157243237.506522.61110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

> As for Kazakhstan: a secret known to more than one person is difficult
> to keep. Hundreds of the world's foremost geologists?

How many terrestrial megatonnes of moon rocks would you folks like?
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:02:20
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

What G-force is greated when a moon module slams into the atmosphere at
23,000 mph?

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:29:31
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:02:20 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net >
wrote:

>What G-force is greated when a moon module slams into the atmosphere at
>23,000 mph?

Do you mean the Command Module? The lunar modules didn't reenter.

The maximum G varied because of different reentry profiles. It was
highest for Apollo 10, which peaked at 6.78. Certainly, however, none of
the reentries involved "slamming" into the atmosphere. Like all
controlled reentries, the paths were very shallow to support
aerobraking. An uncontrolled entry (as from a meteoroid) or reentry can
easily produce 100s of Gs.

Have a look at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/contents.htm ; lots of
interesting stuff, and chapter 5 has details of the G forces experienced
at both liftoff and reentry for all the Apollo missions.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Sep 2006 22:44:01
From: MAT
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:h2qjf29qq0497lafbvi9to5htphf53i6ib@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:02:20 GMT, "MAT" <mikAlexT@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>What G-force is greated when a moon module slams into the atmosphere at
>>23,000 mph?
>
> Do you mean the Command Module? The lunar modules didn't reenter.
>
> The maximum G varied because of different reentry profiles. It was
> highest for Apollo 10, which peaked at 6.78. Certainly, however, none of
> the reentries involved "slamming" into the atmosphere. Like all
> controlled reentries, the paths were very shallow to support
> aerobraking. An uncontrolled entry (as from a meteoroid) or reentry can
> easily produce 100s of Gs.
>
> Have a look at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/contents.htm ; lots of
> interesting stuff, and chapter 5 has details of the G forces experienced
> at both liftoff and reentry for all the Apollo missions.

Ok.

Date: 02 Sep 2006 18:02:48
From: VicXnews
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote in news:44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93
@newsspool4.arcor-online.net:

> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance

http://imdb.com/title/tt0205873/

Date: 04 Sep 2006 00:33:15
From: gerhard nowak
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Thank you everybody for your wonderful comments.
I am not a moon-hoaxer. I just want to find out the truth.
I learned a lot today with your over 55 comments.
The thing about the SS in the 60s or else.

All the professional astronomers which replied so patiently,
thank you too.

I wrote today to the german Spacecenter mission ESOC in Darmstadt
for a photo on that matter. I will post it, if it comes, for sure.

Today, hoaxes are kept secret in a big society with regards to
state security. At that time, maybe nobody knew about except
the astronauts themselves?

Today the SMART-1 satellite was crashing into the moon ocean
of excellence. I wonder, why it was never able to orbit the moon
in a very low altitude for finally taking sharp and close pics from
the moon, if all our telescopes are not able to! But they never sent one!
Maybe again out of security reasons, or do they want to market them?

In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?

Gerry

Date: 03 Sep 2006 23:53:41
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

gerhard nowak wrote:
> Thank you everybody for your wonderful comments.
> I am not a moon-hoaxer. I just want to find out the truth.
> I learned a lot today with your over 55 comments.
> The thing about the SS in the 60s or else.
>
> All the professional astronomers which replied so patiently,
> thank you too.
>
> I wrote today to the german Spacecenter mission ESOC in Darmstadt
> for a photo on that matter. I will post it, if it comes, for sure.
>
> Today, hoaxes are kept secret in a big society with regards to
> state security. At that time, maybe nobody knew about except
> the astronauts themselves?
>
> Today the SMART-1 satellite was crashing into the moon ocean
> of excellence. I wonder, why it was never able to orbit the moon
> in a very low altitude for finally taking sharp and close pics from
> the moon, if all our telescopes are not able to! But they never sent one!
> Maybe again out of security reasons, or do they want to market them?
>
> In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
> in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?
>
> Gerry
>
>
Very unhealthy to orbit that low with mountains
getting in the way, i heard some of those mountains
or craterwalls are quite high(and not a bit soft).
Also there are some mass concentrations below the
surface, so it is almost impossible to produce an
accurate low level circular orbit.
In fact, those mass concentrations have been
discovered by analyzing some low level orbits.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:24:25
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll > wrote in message
news:44fb4ee5$0$23339$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl

> Very unhealthy to orbit that low with mountains
> getting in the way, i heard some of those mountains
> or craterwalls are quite high(and not a bit soft).
> Also there are some mass concentrations below the
> surface, so it is almost impossible to produce an
> accurate low level circular orbit.
> In fact, those mass concentrations have been
> discovered by analyzing some low level orbits.

A truly smart (aka AI/robotic) satellite incorporated with sufficient
momentum reaction wheels and a good supply of reaction thruster fuel
shouldn't have any problems cruising at 10 km, and otherwise it gets a
little iffy at one km. 500 meters is asking for serious trouble.
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 03 Sep 2006 16:46:33
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-09-03, gerhard nowak <gerardino@arcor.de > wrote:

> In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
> in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?

Unhappily, lunar orbits are dynamically unstable, being strongly
perturbed by the Earth, which makes durations of many years out
of the question.

There is a planned lunar probe that will have the capability of
resolving lunar modules. http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Bud

Date: 03 Sep 2006 14:08:15
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

gerhard nowak wrote:
> In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
> in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?

It might be, if the Moon had an absolutely uniform gravitational field.
However, the gravity is stronger over some parts of the Moon than over
others, and that eventually drags the orbit down. It doesn't have to
drag it down very far; with a width of 3,500 km or so, the eccentricity
of the orbit only needs to go from 0.0 to 0.00003 for the spacecraft to
crash.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 03 Sep 2006 20:48:28
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

gerhard nowak wrote:
>
> Today, hoaxes are kept secret in a big society with regards to
> state security.

Surely you jest!

Date: 03 Sep 2006 20:35:42
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"gerhard nowak" <gerardino@arcor.de > wrote:

>In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
>in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?

Nein. It's not atmosphere but gravity that counts.

Eugene L Griessel

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:15:08
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za > wrote in message
news:44fb3c7a.6150776@news.uunet.co.za

> "gerhard nowak" <gerardino@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> >In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
> >in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?
>
> Nein. It's not atmosphere but gravity that counts.

Actually there is a thick sodium atmosphere, and otherwise it's those
pesky mascon issues that makes even 100 km into quite a ride.
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:12:37
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"gerhard nowak" <gerardino@arcor.de > wrote in message
news:44fb3c12$0$5155$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net

> Thank you everybody for your wonderful comments.
> I am not a moon-hoaxer. I just want to find out the truth.
> I learned a lot today with your over 55 comments.
> The thing about the SS in the 60s or else.
>
> All the professional astronomers which replied so patiently,
> thank you too.
>
> I wrote today to the german Spacecenter mission ESOC in Darmstadt
> for a photo on that matter. I will post it, if it comes, for sure.
>
> Today, hoaxes are kept secret in a big society with regards to
> state security. At that time, maybe nobody knew about except
> the astronauts themselves?
>
> Today the SMART-1 satellite was crashing into the moon ocean
> of excellence. I wonder, why it was never able to orbit the moon
> in a very low altitude for finally taking sharp and close pics from
> the moon, if all our telescopes are not able to! But they never sent one!
> Maybe again out of security reasons, or do they want to market them?
>
> In an atmosphereless environment it should be possible to orbit
> in lets say 500 m alt without problems for many years, isn't it?

You're being way too kind and yet you're still the one that's asking way
too many silly questions, and the mainstream status quo flak is still as
thick as beef stew.

You do realize that a slight and harmless modification to our KECK
instruments can become worthy of resolving less than one meter. I can
inform team SALT how to accomplish the same if not considerably better
resolution.

I'm thinking the likes of Thomas Lee Elifritz is 100+% right about "Our
Fascist Space Agency", whereas I also happen think it has always been
much like our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s), having a little if not
entirely something to do with folks exactly like these Usenet spook/mole
rusemasters avoiding and/or having banished the truth, and otherwise
having been perpetrating disinformation, of which they and others of
their kind wouldn't know much of anything about whatever's the actual
truth, much less care as to allowing other interpretations of history or
sharing the facts out of any one of those 700 missing NASA/Apollo boxes.

Christ almighty on another stick. So much as dare to mention something
of truth and nothing but the truth, that's entirely supported by the
regular laws of physics and otherwise easily replicated to boot, and all
of the sudden the Usenet lights go out entirely. Either that or the
mainstream status quo flak gets so thick that it blocks out the
sunlight.

Instead of play "Where's Waldo" it's "Where's Venus" ?

First off, there's absolutely nothing to imagine or otherwise guess
about where the visual location of Venus was throughout those Apollo
missions, and it was most certainly within the DR(dymanic range) of
those unfiltered Kodak moments, whereas Venus would have photographed as
somewhat of a violet skewed color because of what the horrific raw
amount of solar UV_a energy does with such an atmospheric orb, and also
of what the sensitivity of their unfiltered Kodak film that's
unavoidably more violet and UV_a spectrum sensitive than the human eye
represents.

According to any halfass worthy 3D solar system simulator (aka
Celestia), with regards to missions A_11, A_14 and A_16, as in how about
good and not so planetology old but otherwise geothermally toasty Venus,
as having existed right in plain unavoidable sight of most any
unfiltered Kodak moment that was pointed in the general/vague direction,
as especially viewed from orbit and/or rather easily if not unavoidably
obtained from their physically dark and naked anticathode worthy deck,
as in Venus being vibrantly plain as day and looking as though
sufficiently nearby, as being that of a fairly large item and easily
viewed as for being that of an absolutely impressive looking orb
(especially to the more spectrum sensitive unfiltered Kodak eye) that's
somewhere above their physically dark lunar horizon and that of big old
UV secondary/recoil bluish looking mother Earth.

There's absolutely no question that we've been snookered and otherwise
dumbfounded (a few too many of us into the poor-house or simply to
death) by those having "the right stuff". The cloak and daggers plus
countless smoking guns of lies that beget lies and of their ongoing
deceptions are everywhere you care to honestly look. Of course, you
don't have to look if you don't want to know the truth.

I could go through this line item by line item, however I've got lots
more besides your four sub-topics to share and share alike. Interested?

It's not as though you and I have to prove everything that's NASA/Apollo
is at risk, however the all-knowing followers of the NASA/Apollo koran
do have to prove and/or otherwise substantiate upon 100% of their side
of each and every argument.

The "where's Venus" as opposed to "where's Waldo" question is a
perfectly reasonable and otherwise as good as most any proof-positive
form of a worthy test example, that we haven't exactly walked on that
moon. Of course, if your original topic was merely posted another part
of the ongoing ruse, then all I can say is "so what's the difference".

Secondly, I believe we did make every effort as to get to that moon of
ours, and in fact Apollo 13 may have accomplished just that feat by way
of their having once orbited from a somewhat safe distance. It's only
the landing and walking upon that physically dark and nasty moon that's
so atmospherically naked, representing itself as nothing less than a
very large and highly electrostatic anticathode, that's emitting those
secondary radiation energy spectrums of various gamma and X-rays, is
what's entirely missing a few of those NASA/Apollo primary wheel cogs.

That physically dark and nasty moon of ours is also a touch more locally
radioactive than Earth, with hot zones perhaps as much a 5 millirem/m2
to deal with. Add the collective 3.14e6 m2 worth of that as your
surrounding dosage to the solar and cosmic influx, then honestly
contribute a little something on behalf of the unavoidable anticathode
of secondary/recoil of what's equally TBI(total body irradiation) dosage
worthy, and as such our moon simply is not representing itself be any
kind of DNA end-user nor Kodak film friendly environment, much less is
it capable of looking so guano island like and as though xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated.

There's also nothing within the laws of physics or that i can find
within any form of planetology/moontology or hocus-pocus astrophysics
that's magically keeping those nasty forms of solar charged particles
from becoming just as badly populated throughout that lunar terrain, if
not of being considerably worse off intensity than any hot-zones found
within our Van Allen belts (gravity beats magnetosphere any day of the
week).
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 07:44:38
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com > wrote:

>You do realize that a slight and harmless modification to our KECK
>instruments can become worthy of resolving less than one meter. I can
>inform team SALT how to accomplish the same if not considerably better
>resolution.

Team SALT would not touch anyone as ignorant of basic optics like you
with a barge pole.

Eugene L Griessel

'Off the top of the head ideas' are often like dandruff
- small and flaky.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:50:54
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za > wrote in message
news:44fe7c13.6623460@news.uunet.co.za

> "Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You do realize that a slight and harmless modification to our KECK
> >instruments can become worthy of resolving less than one meter. I can
> >inform team SALT how to accomplish the same if not considerably better
> >resolution.
>
> Team SALT would not touch anyone as ignorant of basic optics like you
> with a barge pole.

In other words, because you can't manage to specify otherwise, you admit
that I'm 100% correct about the soft-modifications to KECK that could
deliver a one meter resolution, if not a touch better if this were
performed by team SALT.
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 04 Sep 2006 17:59:29
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:33:22 +0400, "Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net >
wrote:

>I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
>too much evidence now out there:
>
>1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance

Simple. It was sent as a real-time analog signal, over a dedicated
communications channel, and recorded onto analog video tape. Ultra
high frequency radio has more than enough bandwidth to carry a
frequency-modulated television signal. And the receiver that NASA
was using was not a set-top set of rabbit ear antennae. It was a
honking big radio dish. Regarding storage, video tape had been
around for a couple of decades at the time, and is more than adequate
to store analog television signals.

>.2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
> This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
> Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
> unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
> or high definition pictures?

NASA didn't trash them. Last I heard, they were saying they are not
believed to be lost, but just misplaced among all the objects in
NASA's inventory.

>3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
> sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
> bright spots up there to indicate them.

Go do the optical math. Even with the largest Earth-based telescopes,
you can't resolve objects that small. There's no way that an
incoherent light beam (i.e., sunlight) reflected from something that
small is going to be visible from this far away.

>4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?

Yes, they've been examined by prominent geologists, who conclude they
are not of terrestrial origin.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:27:58
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

You are a very good liar, and rather nicely brown nosed to boot.
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:02:43
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

It's not as though you and I have to prove everything that's NASA/Apollo
is at risk, however the all-knowing followers of the NASA/Apollo koran
do have to prove and/or otherwise substantiate upon 100% of their side
of each and every argument.

The "where's Venus" as opposed to "where's Waldo" question is a
perfectly reasonable and otherwise as good as most any proof-positive
form of a worthy test example, that we haven't exactly walked on that
moon. Of course, if your original topic was merely posted another part
of the ongoing ruse, then all I can say is "so what's the difference".

Secondly, I believe we did make every effort as to get to that moon of
ours, and in fact Apollo 13 may have accomplished just that feat by way
of their having once orbited from a somewhat safe distance. It's only
the landing and walking upon that physically dark and nasty moon that's
so atmospherically naked, representing itself as nothing less than a
very large and highly electrostatic anticathode, that's emitting those
secondary radiation energy spectrums of various gamma and X-rays, is
what's entirely missing a few of those NASA/Apollo primary wheel cogs.

That physically dark and nasty moon of ours is also a touch more locally
radioactive than Earth, with hot zones perhaps as much a 5 millirem/m2
to deal with. Add the collective 3.14e6 m2 worth of that as your
surrounding dosage to the solar and cosmic influx, then honestly
contribute a little something on behalf of the unavoidable anticathode
of secondary/recoil of what's equally TBI(total body irradiation) dosage
worthy, and as such our moon simply is not representing itself be any
kind of DNA end-user nor Kodak film friendly environment, much less is
it capable of looking so guano island like and as though xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated.

There's also nothing within the laws of physics or that i can find
within any form of planetology/moontology or hocus-pocus astrophysics
that's magically keeping those nasty forms of solar charged particles
from becoming just as badly populated throughout that lunar terrain, if
not of being considerably worse off intensity than any hot-zones found
within our Van Allen belts (gravity beats magnetosphere any day of the
week).
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:29:07
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:45:44
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Gerhard Nowak" <nonspam@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:44f94fd6$0$26959$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net

> I'm sorry, but I have to ask again in this matter, there is
> too much evidence now out there:
>
> 1. How was it possible, to stream video down to earth in 1969?
> These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of
> storage media at that time just don't fit.
> Not to talk of the signal loss on 380.000km distance
>
> .2 All the tapes from the 1969 moonlanding are gone missing now.
> This everybody knows, I guess. NASA also. Why did they trash them?
> Is it because the modern approaches of Digital photography could
> unveil all the crap in there, besides of "waving flags" in the Vacuum
> or high definition pictures?
>
> 3. Whats about the mirrors planted up there, they never reflect any
> sun ray on full moon, do they? There should be at least some
> bright spots up there to indicate them.
>
> 4. Did anybody anytime see the moon-rocks personally? How does
> anybody know, they are not from Khazachstan?
>
> Thx for your patience
>
> Gerry

Just keep asking these warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo rusemasters, as to
where the heck was good old, relatively nearby and extremely bright
Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16. It's what usually makes them go
absolutely Usenet postal along with sharing the full gauntlet of their
mainstream infomercial spewed crapolla as lethal flak that's intended to
terminate folks like yourself.

Keck Observatory

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/5f760efff41f4fd7/2a7e4ce388550812?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=5&hl=en#2a7e4ce388550812
"PP" <PP@2K.com > wrote in message
news:nuogn2t5sht2e0enitrbcb5lit8ba35sph@4ax.com
> I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
> deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
> Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
> this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
> they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
> Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

Obviously to speak the truth, such as per accomplishing a
soft-modification of KECK is topic taboo, as in X-rated because it's
telling us how impressive the moon can be imaged, and to such resolution
that would make it possible to see our moon at better than a meter
resolution, and especially interesting of the earthshine and 532 nm
laser illuminated moon.

Those corner cube retroreflectors were items of much less than a square
meter. However, even if contained within a given 10 X 10 meter
look-see, as such would have to image as a relatively bright 100 m2
pixel, especially if everything were being extra illuminated via 532 nm
laser and as most impressive when accomplished by earthshine and given
several minutes or if need be an hour worth of exposure in order to
fully benefit from thousands of such powerful laser shots.

There's certainly no tracking or even digitial image stacking problems
that I know of, and approprate soft-masking so that we're utilizing just
1% of each primary mirror can't possibly impose a problem for team KECK.
So, by using their f40 secondary mirror and the 1.75 micron CCD format
as their imaging sensor, where's the beef?

Oddly this following LLR entro page gives us everything except the
hard-science as to the specific photon counts that supposedly
accomplished as good as an impressive 313 extra photons/minute, much
less the results in a CCD image format that would thereby have allowed a
fully deductive independent review of such pixel by pixel results, in
order to see with such terrific resolution as to whatever else was
unavoidably illuminated within the same 532 nm laser target zone of
roughly 3.14e6 m2.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/optics_bench.html
"In the picture at left you can see most of the optical layout as well
as both the outgoing and incoming light paths. Our Nd:YAG laser produces
very short pulses (~95 ps FWHM) of green light (532 nm) at a repetition
rate of 20 Hz. The paths of these pulses of laser light are represented
as beams in our drawings."

APOLLO Laser / Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/laser.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/onscope.html

If there were as many of those 532 nm photons returning as suggested,
then having the easily modified KECK obtained image would have to be
showing us an extremely extra bright speck or rather that of an
unusually bright pixel as representing wherever that retroreflector was
supposedly situated (especially of the A15 unit) as resting on the
otherwise physically basalt dark (nearly as dark as coal) lunar surface
that's only in earthshine, while at the same time giving us a darn good
quality look-see at whatever else is within that very same 115 MJ/pulse
of their laser illuminated zone. You'd have to believe much larger
aluminum items that should have been nearby and should have been just as
equally laser illuminated, especially off those bright aluminum and/or
even painted white items resting upon such a nearly coal dark and dusty
basalt and unavoidably meteorite strewn cosmic morgue of such a naked
surface, whereas they too should be worthy of contributing a good share
of those very same photons, that should have made such artificial items
substantially brighter than the nasty and physically dark moon itself.

This following page is by far their most informative, though still
without CCD image of their laser illuminated zone, thus still offering
no possible way of our telling the difference between an aluminum strewn
impact crater as opposed to a given retroreflector.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/first_range.html

What our Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation is
saying, is that their less than square meter resolution of LLR
capability is nearly at hand (they claim +/- 6 inch tracking), just not
being shared in any CCD image format. Of course, this NASA official
infomercial spewing observatory has but no other viable option but to
deliver the goods as specified, or else. Too bad there's still no
independent way of our knowing, as to all of the surrounding nasty turf
of whatever else is there to behold that's perfectly capable of
reflecting such vibrant photons, which should by rights work rather
nicely on behalf of any CCD image that's even limited as to 100 m/pixel,
especially as extra doable while the physically dark moon itself is
getting only something less than full earthshine illuminated.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo_gui.html
With all of this spendy eye-candy, there's still nothing via 1.75
micron/pixel CCD image that's using such state of the art CCDs (I belive
these are currently better off than 1.5 micron/pixel) and the likes of
our rather serious KECK magnigfication optics that can be soft-modified
in order to deliver a meter/pixel resolution. (actually, digital scanned
positive photographic film plates have been as good or better than the
very best CCD's for decades, but don't tell that one to a soul)

The existing 3.5 meter instrument of the Apache Point optics and CCD
image should be good for at least 100 meters/pixel, if not a little
fuzzy but roughly 10 meters/pixel resolution of our earthshine and laser
illuminated moon.

http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/dmc/adler/planets/Planets.html
"These moons are 3 of Uranus's 5 large moons"
I'm certainly impressed at roughly 3e9 km distance and obviously having
delivered way better than 1158 km resolution of Ariel. So, why don't
you folks accomplish the math, and then you can tell me and the rest of
us village idiots as to what the 2007 vintage of such nifty optics and
best of CCDs can muster as of today.
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 12 Dec 2006 23:42:14
From: Barry's Leftnut
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

On 2006-12-12 10:45:44 -0500, "Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com > said:

> Just keep asking these warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo rusemasters, as to
> where the heck was good old, relatively nearby and extremely bright
> Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16. It's what usually makes them go
> absolutely Usenet postal along with sharing the full gauntlet of their
> mainstream infomercial spewed crapolla as lethal flak that's intended to
> terminate folks like yourself.

Brad, take one for the team man, shoot yourself. Seriously do it.
You're totally clueless. Corky the retard laughs at you.....

Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:22:34
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"Barry's Leftnut" <testicle@sac.net > wrote in message
news:2006121218421443658%testicle@sacnet

> On 2006-12-12 10:45:44 -0500, "Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Just keep asking these warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo rusemasters, as to
> > where the heck was good old, relatively nearby and extremely bright
> > Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16. It's what usually makes them go
> > absolutely Usenet postal along with sharing the full gauntlet of their
> > mainstream infomercial spewed crapolla as lethal flak that's intended to
> > terminate folks like yourself.
>
> Brad, take one for the team man, shoot yourself. Seriously do it.
> You're totally clueless. Corky the retard laughs at you.....

In other words, your 3D interactive solar system simulator also shows
the unavoidably big and vibrant Venus (as extremely bright to the
unfiltered Kodak eye) as depicted clearly above the lunar horizion, or
otherwise parked near to Earth, as being viewed from the physically dark
moon as of those NASA/Apollo A11, A14 and A16 missions.

Then why on Earth don't you folks post a few examples of exactly what
your 3D simulator has always had to offer, that's somehow making Venus
as stealth/invisible as were all of those Muslim WMD, which you folks
claimed to have existed?

Why don't you post a few documents and example photos that proves how
the laws of physics do not apply to those unfiltered Kodak moments.

How about your 60:1 of GLOW rocket/payload ratio; have you folks got
that?

How about your fly-by-rocket lander w/o momentum reaction wheels; have
you got that?

What do have to lose?
-
Brad Guth

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

Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:47:51
From: AM
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

Brad Guth wrote:
> "Barry's Leftnut" <testicle@sac.net> wrote in message

>> Brad, take one for the team man, shoot yourself. Seriously do it.

> In other words,

I guess this means you are not going to do it.

Damn.......

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:54:15
From: George
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

"AM" <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:y46dnTzQzZEFjx3YnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Brad Guth wrote:
>> "Barry's Leftnut" <testicle@sac.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Brad, take one for the team man, shoot yourself. Seriously do it.
>
>> In other words,
>
>
> I guess this means you are not going to do it.
>
> Damn.......

Darn. I was just starting to search for tickets on e-bay to the show.

George

Date: 14 Dec 2006 19:45:08
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Moon landing hoax

There's that silly jewboy speak again. Of course, I do believe that was
probably exactly what your kind were telling Jesus Christ, to get
himself onboard that stick (or else), as well as being told to any other
trouble maker that wasn't going along with your status quo ruse of the
day. Too bad our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) wasn't around to
accuse innocent folks of having all of those nasty WMD, and silly
intentions of utilizing such at the very next provoked drop of a hat.

topic: Mass Is Light

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/d988a3124f6e1685/9d1206b4b1975448?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=12&hl=en#9d1206b4b1975448
>> John Griffin: If those films had been exposed long enough to
>> gather enough photons to show any distant point source, they
>> would have been fried.

What silly point source are you flatulating about? Certainly not big
old and relatively nearby Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16 that's
pixel per pixel or rather photographic grain per grain a whole lot more
vibrant than Earth, though to think that even Sirius would have been
technically impossible to have excluded, especially as unavoidably
obtained through that unfiltered Kodak eye, as recorded onto that
thermally and rad sensitive Kodak film that actually takes rather nicely
to recording a fair enough spectrum worth of UV-a photons.

BTW; while EVA moonsuit strolling on the naked moon that's physically
nearly as dark as an open pit coal mine, there's actually quite a bit of
stellar and solar UVa to go around, not to mention the UV
secondary/recoil worth of near-blue(secondary black light affect)
photons that should have been unavoidable. Starshine includes a great
deal of near-UV and UV-a within their spectrum of many other photons,
most of which the human eye can not perceive. However, the unfiltered
Kodak eye that's without benefit of a 10t/m2 UV filtering atmosphere is
actually rather sensitive to the near-UV and even into a portion of the
UVa spectrum. In other silly words that even an incest cloned borg
minion like yourself could appreciate, artificial items of blue become
unavoidably more noticeably bluish and/or more vibrant than other colors
as perceived by the human eye (that is unless your local source of
illumination was that of the xenon lamp spectrum).
-
Brad Guth

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