All,
I, too, watched the conspiracy Moon show on Fox with major interest. I've
seen all the evidence for the conspiracy, read Rene's NASA Mooned America,
and I still can't come to a definite conclusion. Just as there are photos,
videos, and murders that suggest the moonwalks were faked, there's also
equally valid explanations for the anomalies. What's frustrated is that
neither can be totally proven. Just as these photos might suggest a lie,
there are also videos that could not have been faked--such as the LEM
orbiting the Moon. Were there men aboard? I don't know, I wasn't there.
Even if Japan puts an orbiter around the Moon in two years that could
photograph moonwalk evidence, as suggested on the show, we won't be able to
trust the video that will be sent back. NASA can now edit video in real
time, as we all know as we endeavor to find polar holes. We can't trust
anything anymore. As easily as NASA could have faked the actual moonwalks in
the 60s, nowadays, with our existing technology, think how easy it would be
for NASA to produce fake photographic evidence that man did walk on the
moon, thus perpetuating the lie. You know they'd do it.
We're in a no win situation, folks.
Blake
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Frohwein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Conspiracy Theory: Did we ever land
on the moon?
Dean (and all),
A really interesting book is "Unconventional Flying Objects: A scientific
analysis" by Paul R. Hill. He never published this book, himself. After he
died, his daughter found it and published it to get the information out.
Paul became interested in these objects after he made his own, first
sighting of several of these. He noticed that they had capabilities that
were far advanced of any technology that he knew about.
It is interesting that Paul worked for NACA, which later, was renamed
NASA. According to the book, he was in a position to get and collect
information on UFO's but he was not allowed to share this info due to
their policies: "That policy was that flying saucers are nonexistant."
"When the name of the organization was changed from NACA to NASA, the
same officials remained in charge, and one could notice no change in
policy. The only difference was that individuals were going into space,
when astronauts sighted unknowns in space, a grounded official couldn't
rationally contradict them. But they could shut them off the air
(APRO Bulletin, Feb 1976)."
I, personally, feel that NASA hasn't been totally honest with us on
everything. However, I personally haven't yet seen any strong evidence
that there is anything majorly fishy about the moon landings. I guess
this boils down to individual interpretation of photos & results.
As a result, this is probably one of those where we can agree to
disagree. As such, I'll make these last few (possibly flawed) points
and leave it at that.
[email protected] wrote:
About the NASA lettering being illuminated in a region of shade-
No doubt that sunlight can reflect a beam into a region of shade, but
then that would be unusual, or better to say statistically unlikely.
You can reproduce these results yourself if you wish.
Place an object in sunlight on a very dark surface. View the shadow
side of the object. Any letters on the object will appear relatively
dark.
Now, place a white sheet of paper just outside of the objects shadow.
The letters on the object will now get much brighter even though they
are in the shade. This is due to the paper acting as a mirror to
make the dark side of the box lighter:
O <--- light source
White Paper +-------+
> >
V | |
------------ +-------+
------------------------------------------- <-Dark surface
[email protected] wrote:
For them to come back later on and say " Oh yeah, we actually walked
out first and staged the whole �one big step for mankind �" drama is
not reasonable. It smacks of deception in a big way.
I don't know that NASA has ever said in the first place that the
popular video that shows John Glenn stepping on to the moon surface
is the actual first step. I think many of us just assumed that we
were seeing the actual first step. It would have been helpful if they
had subtitled the video with words that mentioned that they were showing
a recreation of how the first step would have appeared but there was
no real subtitling equipment in those days I think. I could be wrong.
And how did they power a mobile air conditioner in their space suits
for as much as an hour and a half, an air conditioner so small that
they carried it on their backs and it kept them cool in 250* F heat?
Keep in mind that 250*F on the earth would be totally different than
250*F in a condition of no atmosphere. In 250F on earth, they would
very much probably be in big trouble real quick. The reason being that
the 250F air would act similar to the effect if you jumped in a bowl
of 250*F liquid.
In a condition of no atmosphere, heat doesn't exist until the sun hits
the space suit or actual molecules. In that case, you just have to cool the
surface of the suit that faces the sun. Since the suits are light
colored, much sun energy will be reflected instead of absorbed. With
very good thermal insulation, I think relatively little of this heat
would enter the suit.
I don't know that this is a complete, adequate answer to this question
but it is certainly something to consider.
And how could Niel Armstrong have piloted the LEM laterally for 16
seconds if the lateral thrusters were high on the top of the LEM,
above the center of gravity? He should have tipped over. He couldn�t
even see because of the dust which obscured his view, so how could he
manually juggle such a feat, even if he could see?
On some questions, such as this one, I don't know that I know enough
about the equipment to comment on what might be happening. I don't know.
Cheers,
Jeff
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]