HELP - need moon hoax refutation info

[John Beadles]

All,

Sorry to bring up the sore subject again, but it's important in a minor
way. Jeff, the morning guy on a local Dallas radio station
(http://www.mix1029.com/) was talking about the abominable FOX moon hoax
show and how it made him doubt the moon landings. I called in and threw
out some counter arguments. Apparently, this guy Ralph Rene
(http://www.rene-r.com/), who wrote the book "Nasa mooned america" will
be on tomorrow morning. The producer told me to call back in tomorrow
morning and he'd put me on with this guy.

So, I'm looking for the argument of a lifetime tomorrow morning. I need
help. I need links to all the moon-hoax debunking arguments and info on
this guy I can get. I'd look up stuff in Deja, but at the risk of
sounding stupid, I've never been able to get deja to work for me. I'm
putting this mail up in the morning in the hopes that whovever can help
point me at information will post by 6pm central so I can collate it
tonight. Also, wasn't somebody working on a moon-hoax FAQ? I could
really use that.

Thanks all!

[Gareth Slee]

Try this

Compiled by Christopher.M.Jones

--------------------------------------------

Here's what I have so far, much more soon!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo Hoax Frequently Asked Questions.

Version 0.1 beta

Last modified: Feb. 17, 2001

Compiled and maintained by Christopher M Jones. Copyright © 2001
Christopher M Jones. This document may be archived and redistributed
freely electronically provided it is unmodified. It may not be
reproduced or redistributed for profit, without prior written consent
of the author. Any other use requires prior written consent of the
author. All material was written by the author unless specifically
attributed otherwise.

Questions, corrections, suggestions, or additions should be sent to
christ...@qwest.net.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization

Section 1: Photographic Evidence
1.1 Why are there no stars in the photographs from the Apollo
missions?
1.2 Why do the flags flutter in the Apollo films if there isn't any
atmopshere on the Moon?
1.3 Why do the shadows and lighting change and objects appear to be
lit by multiple light sources in the Apollo photos?

Section 2: The Unique Conditions on the Moon
2.1 Why is there no blast crater underneath the LM from the rocket
engine?

Section 3: The Dangers of Space
3.1 Isn't it impossible for a human to travel through the van Allen
radiation belts and live?
3.2 Wouldn't radiation from Solar flares kill the astronauts?
3.3 Aren't the temperature extremes on the Moon too much (too hot
in the Sun, too cold in the shade) for the suits the Apollo
astronauts are shown to use to be enough protection?
3.4 Why haven't any of the Apollo astronauts gotten ill (or died)
from their alleged exposure to large amounts of radiation on the
Moon?
3.5 Wouldn't the radiation and the temperature extremes of the Moon
damage or destroy equipment, especially vulnerable items like
photographic film?

Section 4: The Difficulty of Space Travel
4.1 Isn't it just too difficult to build a rocket that could travel
to the Moon?

Section 5: Coverups
5.1 Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?
5.2 Why was the Apollo 1 crew (and others) killed? What was NASA
trying to hide?

Section 6: Conclusive Evidence Apollo Was Real
6.1 Laser ranging retroreflectors.
6.2 Optical Tracking.
6.3 Radar tracking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1: Photographic Evidence

+
1.1 Why are there no stars in the photographs from the Apollo
missions?

Photographic film (and the human eye as well) have a limited "dynamic
range" (range from the minimum "signal intensity" to the maximum signal
intensity). In other words, when you take a photograph you set the
various exposure parameters (f-stop, exposure time) take a picture and
then (depending on the type of film you used) there will be a maximum
and minimum brightness that will be able to be represented on the
photograph. Anything much brighter than the maximum will be overexposed
(bright), and anything much dimmer than the minimum will be underexposed
(dark). In the case of taking pictures on the Moon, the foreground
objects (the lunar surface, the astronauts, the equipment) was very
bright (in direct sunlight totally unfiltered by an atmosphere) and were
much brighter than the background stars. Thus, an attempt to capture
the background stars visible from the Moon would horribly overexpose and
wash out any of the foreground objects (the lunar surface and the
astronauts). The same effect is seen with the space shuttle and space
station(s), when the vehicles are in direct sunlight no stars are
visible because they are too dim for the photographic equipment to pick
up.

+
1.2 Why do the flags flutter in the Apollo films if there isn't any
atmopshere on the Moon?

The flags you see in the Apollo film and television footage are not
"fluttering in a breeze", they are swinging. Most of the flags used in
Apollo had a bar that held the flag up at the top, any small motion
applied to the flag (such as when it is being pounded into the lunar
surface) would cause the flag to swing underneath the support bar, with
no atmosphere and 1/6 of Earth's gravity these swinging motions are not
"damped out" quickly as they would be on Earth so they tend to swing
for a considerable time. The wild swinging of the fabric of the flag
can look somewhat like a flutter, but it is distinctly different.

+
1.3 Why do the shadows and lighting change and objects appear to be
lit by multiple light sources in the Apollo photos?

There are several aspects to this "problem". First, is the distortion
caused by the recording equipment. Many of the photographs taken on
the Moon used wide angle lenses to obtain large field of view for each
image. As any professional or amateur photographer could tell you a
wide angle lense will distort images and directions somewhat because it
is essentially taking a 3D scene and squishing it flat. One effect of
this is that two objects that are parallel in the actual 3D scene can
appear to diverge in an image taken from a camera using a wide angle
lense. Second, is the uneven and rugged lunar terrain. The Moon's
surface is filled to the brim with hills, craters, etc. on just about
every scale. Two astronauts standing in two different places on the
lunar surface (even very close to each other) are likely to be on
slightly different terrain (i.e. one on a flat spot, the other on the
side of a hill). Thus, you will often see shadows of different lengths
from astronauts in different places. The result of the previous two
points is that a picture contain two objects on the Moon may appear to
show two different length shadows pointing in slightly different
directions. Some people contend that this is evidence that the Apollo
missions were filmed on a sound stage and lit with stage lighting, and
that it specifically shows that there are more than one light source on
the scene (i.e. instead of the one Sun). However, the different length
and apparent different direction shadows are simply a result of the
highly varying lunar surface and the wide angle lenses used. Note that
there is only one very sharp shadow for each astronaut or object in the
Apollo photographs. If there were multiple lighting sources, there
would be multiple shadows for each object.

And third, some people claim that there are objects and parts of
objects that should be in shadow but are still quite visible and fairly
bright. This is not surprising and is to be expected. On the Moon
there is one very bright light source (the Sun) but there are other
light sources, namely the Earth and the lunar surface. The Earth is
considerably larger and considerably more reflective than the Moon, so
on the Moon even a partially illuminated Earth is considerably brighter
than a full Moon on the Earth. The Moon has a "visual geometric albedo"
of 0.12 (i.e. it will reflect about 12% of the visual light that falls
on it), whereas the Earth has a visual geometric albedo of 0.37. Also,
the Earth as seen from the Moon is 13.5 times larger in area as the
Moon is as seen from Earth. This means that a "full Earth" as seen
from the Moon is 41.6 times brighter (!) than a full Moon as seen from
the Earth. The Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon near "local
morning" when the Sun was just beginning to rise above the horizon at
the landing site. This was done for several reasons but especially to
elongate the shadows of objects on the Moon so as to make it easier to
spot boulders and visualize the terrain during landing and during later
exploration of the lunar surface. At that time, the Earth would be
nearly half full, and so would be about 20 times brighter than a full
Moon. Additionally, the Moon's surface will reflect light around
locally, without trees and other obstructions, there will be quite a
lot of illumination from the lunar surface directly. Also, don't
forget the photographer. The Apollo astronauts wore very bright
white suits and were in sunlight brighter than the brightest sunlight
on Earth. When an astronaut stands next to an object they will cast
light onto that object from themselves much in the same way as a white
reflector used by a professional photographer will, and it will make
the objects in the shadows much less dark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: The Unique Conditions on the Moon

+
2.1 Why is there no blast crater underneath the LM from the rocket
engine?

This answer comes from Markus Mehring:

First, the descent engine was throttled down upon landing, it was
actually killed mid-air on several occasions, to be precise. Second,
the landing takes place in 1/6g, so the descent engine doesn't have to
push _that_ hard anyway. Third, there's no point in expecting a "crater"
resulting from a rocket engine - a mildly recessed area is rather what
would have to be found. And this slight depression is actually present,
and well described and documented by the astronauts, there's lots of
photos of this from each mission. Fourth, the characteristics of the
lunar surface don't necessarily allow for much of a depression. The
lunar surface has suffered millions and billions of years of micro-
meteoroid bombardment, which has shattered the upper surface to dust,
and made the lower surface just a few centimeters below _very_ compact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3: The Dangers of Space

+
3.1 Isn't it impossible for a human to travel through the van Allen
radiation belts and live?

The van Allen "belts" are zones of radiation where high speed particles
(such as protons and electrons) that have been trapped from the Solar
wind by the Earth's magnetic fields. The inner van Allen belt extends
from about 1,000 to 5,000 kilometers above Earth's surface, the outer
van Allen belt extends from about 15,000 to 25,000 kilometers above
Earth's surface. The radiation in the van Allen belts was a serious
concern for the Apollo program. The Apollo spacecraft were designed to
provide some protection from the van Allen radiation, but more than that
the mission was designed so that astronauts spent the least possible
amount of time in the van Allen belts. The actual amount of radiation
received by the Apollo astronauts during their passage through the van
Allen belts is difficult to determine but it is estimated to be about
2 rems (or 20 milli-Sieverts).

In comparison, a modern chest X-ray will deliver about 10-20 millirems
to the subject, radiation doses from background radiation (cosmic rays,
radon, uranium deposits, etc.) for the average human living on Earth is
on the order of 100 millirems per year, and annual doses for people
working around radiation (for example, X-ray technicians, nuclear power
plant workers, etc.) can range up to 0.4 rems per year. The "maximum
permissible dose" for radiation workers on Earth is 5 rems per year or
25 rems in a single emergency exposure. A 25-100 rem dose will increase
a person's chance of developing cancer. Around 100-200 rems, a person
will experience nausea several hours after exposure. Above 300 rems,
severe vomiting, and hemorrhaging will result nearly immediately, loss
of hair, and other health effects will result fairly rapidly, greater
than half of the people exposed to this much radiation will die within 2
months. Above 800 rems, diarrhea, dehydration, and problems with
digestive organs will result rapidly, over 90% of people exposed to this
much radiation will die within two weeks. Above several thousand rems,
death results in a few days and convulsions and nervous system failure
occurs almost immediately. So, 2 rems is certainly a lot, but by no
means would it cause instant death or illness. And in fact is most
likely to cause no noticeable immediate or long term effects.

+
3.2 Wouldn't radiation from Solar flares kill the astronauts?

Solar flares are a serious concern for anyone spending any amount of
time outside of Earth's protective magnetic field (and atmosphere). A
"solar flare" is an outburst of material from the Sun. These often
contain large amounts of protons travelling at very high speeds, this
is the predominant radiation danger from solar flares. However, only
the rarest and most powerful solar flares would be of serious concern
to the Apollo astronauts since they spent only a few days outside of
the Earth's magnetosphere. The radiation doses from solar flares
actually received by the Apollo astronauts was only a few rems (much
less than 20). As you can see from the data listed in the answer to
question 3.1, this is a serious dose, but will not cause any noticeable
immediate or long term effects (health or otherwise).

+
3.3 Aren't the temperature extremes on the Moon too much (too hot in
the Sun, too cold in the shade) for the suits the Apollo astronauts
are shown to use to be enough protection?

The Moon has no atmosphere and its days and nights last 2 weeks. This
can lead to extreme temeperatures on the lunar surface. During the day,
the average lunar surface temperature is 110 degrees C (230 F), during
the night the average temperature of the lunar surface dips down to
-150 degrees C (-240 degrees F). So, why aren't the Apollo astronauts
installed fried or frozen solid when they step foot on the Moon? First,
a bit about temperatures and heat exchange. When an object is at a
different temperature than its surroundings certain types of heat
transfer will occur so as to equalize the temperature differential and
bring the object to the same temperature as the surroundings. There are
three mechanisms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and
radiation. Heat conduction occurs when two objects touch directly, for
example, when your soft pallet comes in contact with a very cold sample
of ice cream and heat is conducted out of your sinuses and into the
cold ice cream, lowering the temperature of your sinuses dramatically
and causing an "ice cream headache". Heat convection occurs when a
moving fluid conducts heat to or from an object. For example, a hot
fireplace will warm air near the fire which will rise and be replaced
with cold air. Radiation occurs when the heat from an object is
transformed into electromagnetic radiation due to its temperature. For
example, a very hot piece of iron will radiate heat in visible
wavelengths of EM radiation so it will glow red, or even yellow or
white. Normally objects in our daily lives aren't that hot, so they
radiate in lower energy Infrared radiation.

When speaking of a temperature, it is somewhat meaningless with respect
to how "hot" that object or environment actually is. The "hotness" of
an object or environment is determined by its temperature in combination
with the mechanisms of heat transfer (and efficiency of heat transfer)
possible. For example, air is much less dense and transfers heat much
less easily than water. If a person is in air at a temperature of 50
degrees C (120 F) they will be very hot but they won't be burned.
However, if a person was in water at the same temperature they would be
scalded and injured very rapidly. Similarly, a person in air at a
temperature of 0 degrees C (32 F) would feel cold but would not be in
grave danger, but a person in water at the same temperature would become
hypothermic quite rapidly and would lose conciousness within a few
minutes at most without protection (such as a wet suit). A vacuum (as
exists on the Moon's surface) is a very poor heat conductor and in
fact the only method of heat transfer in a vacuum is radiation. A
vacuum in fact makes a very good insulator. It is a vacuum in between
the outer and inner walls of a thermos bottle that allows the thermos
to keep hot coffee hot and cold iced tea cold for a long time. The
Apollo astronauts on the Moon only had two ways to transfer heat to and
from the lunar environment, radiation from their bodies (suits) and
conduction through their boots. Both of these methods are very
inneficient and transfering heat and with proper insulation and
temperature regulation systems (miniature air conditioners and heaters)
working on the lunar surface can actually be very survivable and quite
comfortable.

+
3.4 Why haven't any of the Apollo astronauts gotten ill (or died)
from their alleged exposure to large amounts of radiation on the
Moon?

This is a good question but it has a good answer. First, see sections
3.1 and 3.2 concerning the actual radiation doses received by the
Apollo astronauts and the dangers of different radiation doses. As you
can see, the radiation doses received by the Apollo astronauts would
not be expected to result in any long or short term ill health effects.
Second, keep in mind that only 24 people went to the Moon (and only 12
of them walked on the surface). Such small numbers make for poor
statistics. Similarly, if you have a friend or relative that smokes
several packs of cigarrettes every day but lives to be very old, that
doesn't say much about the dangers of cigarrettes _on_average_ since
you are dealing with a very small samples size.

+
3.5 Wouldn't the radiation and the temperature extremes of the Moon
damage or destroy equipment, especially vulnerable items like
photographic film?

See section 3.3 about temperature extremes and why they are a non-
issue. Most equipment (including photographic and television cameras)
was designed with special protective measures so as to allow them to
operate properly in the Moon's harsh environment. As for equipment
and photographic film, the radiation on the Moon was not high enough
to damage (or even fog) film to any perceptible degree, and most other
equipment is much more rugged than photographic film.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4: The Difficulty of Space Travel
+
4.1 Isn't it just too difficult to build a rocket that could travel
to the Moon?

It is difficult to build a large interplanetary rocket, but it is far
from impossible. Some people claim that the huge Saturn V rockets did
not in fact go to the Moon (although the fact that they were launched
seems hard to dispute considering how many spectators there were).
However, every stage of the Saturn V rockets were tested on the ground.
We know their size, their thrust, and their effeciency. We know how
much fuel was put into them at launch. From this we can determine that
those rockets _could_ in fact send the Apollo astronauts to the Moon.
Thousands (if not tens of thousands) of engineers were witness to these
tests. If the Saturn V rockets did not go to the Moon, then what did
they do? It seems rather unlikely that they went into low Earth orbit
and simply dumped their fuel. It seems even more unlikely that
countless thousands of engineers and contract workers were in on some
massive conspiracy to hide the true capabilities of each stage of the
Saturn V rocket and that _all_ of those people have maintained that
conspiracy for over 3 decades.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5: Coverups
+
5.1 Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?

In the 1960s and early 70s the technology to record (let alone
manipulate) images, audio, film, and television was very primitive.
I think it's safe to say that a program to try to attempt to fake
a Moon landing believably would be a much more ambitious and costly
program than the Apollo program was itself.

+
5.2 Why was the Apollo 1 crew (and others) killed? What was NASA
trying to hide?

[note yet complete]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6: Conclusive Evidence Apollo Was Real

+
6.1 Laser ranging retroreflectors.

[note yet complete]

+
6.2 The Lunar Environment is hard to fake.

[note yet complete]

+
6.3 Optical Tracking.

[note yet complete]

+
6.4 Radar tracking.

[note yet complete]

--
Gareth Slee (Spam proofed email)

S.A.A MugShots Page

\||||/
(0 0)
--oO-(_)-Oo---

http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/gareth.slee/SAAHome.htm

John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com...

[Geoffrey A. Landis]

Check the info on the Bad Astronomy web page:
<http://www.badastronomy.com/>

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
author of MARS CROSSING, available now from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

[David Findlay]

"John Beadles" <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com...

Sorry, don't have time to write out much and anyway the other guys have done
it already, but may I suggest this: Prove why it did happen, not why the
hoaxers are morons. Don't go into personal attacks on the guy and don't
argue with him, other wise it sounds like you have something to hide. Wait
for him to finish his arguement, then refute that from what you know to be
true(not what you just think). Otherwise he will win. What time is it on in
UTC and what frequency? I will see if I can pick it up on my radio rig from
Australia. Could someone record it in MP3?

Hope you win the conversation :-)

David

[Jim Scotti]

Good luck with your argument. It's probably a loosing cause and with the
hoax proponents, they have a way of making the skeptic look bad, so be
careful and don't get emotional. Try and maintain an even keel while
giving the facts and when Rene interrupts you (as they always do) and
tries to make you angry, resist the urge and make sure to give a clear
argument. Don't yell at Rene when he says something rediculous - just
give a reasoned counter argument - let your argument speak for itself. I
don't envy you, really, because these guys don't follow simple logic and
will not waiver from their beliefs - afterall they are religous about
them. You should not be out to change their minds - that won't happen,
but you want to provide a good example for those people out there who
might have been convinced by the arguments of the hoaxers if they aren't
presented with a balanced skeptical argument. Most people don't have the
skeptical tools to analyze an argument, so you should be trying to give
them enough information to doubt what the hoaxer is saying.

Here are my websites which provide rebuttals for most of the hoaxers
arguments.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

and for the FOX special in particular:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html

Good luck! I'll be interested to hear how it turns out.

Jim.

In sci.space.history John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote:
: All,

: Thanks all!

Jim Scotti
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory jsc...@pirl.lpl.arizona.edu
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/

[Gareth Slee]

Try this

Compiled by Christopher.M.Jones

--------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version 0.1 beta

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1: Photographic Evidence

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[note yet complete]

[note yet complete]

[note yet complete]

+
6.3 Optical Tracking.

[note yet complete]

+
6.4 Radar tracking.

[note yet complete]

S.A.A MugShots Page

\||||/
(0 0)
--oO-(_)-Oo---

http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/gareth.slee/SAAHome.htm

John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com...

--

Gareth Slee (Spam proofed email)

S.A.A MugShots Page

\||||/
(0 0)
--oO-(_)-Oo---

http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/gareth.slee/SAAHome.htm

John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com...

[Justin Wigg]

"John Beadles" <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com...

> I need links to all the moon-hoax debunking arguments and info on
> this guy I can get.

<http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html>
<http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/>

Good luck John!
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
..thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com

[Justin Wigg]

Forgot one. The "Bad Astronomy" web site has many links to debunk sites.
Look at <http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html>.

[Ken Glover]

John Beadles wrote in message:

> (http://www.mix1029.com/) was talking about the abominable FOX moon hoax
> show and how it made him doubt the moon landings.

This site deals specifically with the Fox show:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Ken

[Peter Smith]

John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote...

> Sorry to bring up the sore subject again, but it's important in a
minor
> way. Jeff, the morning guy on a local Dallas radio station
> (http://www.mix1029.com/)

<..>

> So, I'm looking for the argument of a lifetime tomorrow morning.

> Thanks all!

Think up some neat analogies. Solar radiation flares are like ocean
storms; sometimes they will sink ships, but mostly they are not too bad,
and mostly the 'weather' is calm. The astronauts were like the brave
sailors of old.

The flag 'fluttering'. It was not fluttering, it kept swinging like a
pendulum for some time because there is no air to slow it down.

Good luck.
That station has streaming for anybody interested in listening.
Where are you and what's the GMT of the broadcast?

- Peter

[John Beadles]

Jim,

Yep, found your website, printed it off as my main reference! Really
great stuff! Also got some original photos off of the ALSJ website.
Good advice. Will do my best to keep a level head. Agree that I can't
change Mr. Rene's mind, but if I can throw the radio announcer to
doubting Rene, I'll call that a win. Thanks for the reply!

[John Beadles]

Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Think up some neat analogies. Solar radiation flares are like ocean
> storms; sometimes they will sink ships, but mostly they are not too bad,
> and mostly the 'weather' is calm. The astronauts were like the brave
> sailors of old.

Yup. I like that.

> The flag 'fluttering'. It was not fluttering, it kept swinging like a
> pendulum for some time because there is no air to slow it down.

That's exactly the analogy I was thinking of!

> Good luck.
> That station has streaming for anybody interested in listening.
> Where are you and what's the GMT of the broadcast?

Dallas, TX. Broadcast is at 7am, time offset should be -6 GMT.

[Michael J Wise]

John Beadles wrote:

> The producer told me to call back in tomorrow morning and he'd put me
> on with this guy.

Find an astronaut.

Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."

[John Beadles]

All,

Well, I didn't get on the radio after all. Apparently the topic
infuriated a lot of people who had been calling in all day and all
night, so they didn't need another one. Darn it! All that preparation,
and getting up an hour early wasted! Well, it wasn't all bad. Ralph
Rene was interviewed over the phone. The interview was very short and
went over the same tired old photo issues. Afterward, the announcers
and callers have been trashing him right and left, though the announcer
(Jeff) was still wondering about the photos.

The producer did get my email full of reference info and promised to
look it over after the show today. They said they were putting several
of Rene's photos up on their website (www.mix1029.com), but the link is
actually to Rene's website that doesn't actually have the pics.

[Ryan Claycamp]

In article <3AB77FB3...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com>, John Beadles wrote:
>All,

>
>The producer told me to call back in tomorrow
>morning and he'd put me on with this guy.
>

Let us know how it went please.

[Peter Smith]

"John Beadles" <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> wrote...

> > Good luck.
> > That station has streaming for anybody interested in listening.
> > Where are you and what's the GMT of the broadcast?
>
> Dallas, TX. Broadcast is at 7am, time offset should be -6 GMT.

Go John!!
Check the streaming on http://www.mix1029.com/

Its on in a short while - 30 minutes

Hey tomorrow they have Buzz Aldrin on the air.
(OK so whats new, but theres the heads up.)

- Peter

[Thom Wilkerson]

I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned THE fool-proof response to
the so-called Moon-hoaxers:

If NASA really did pull off a 'fake' moon landing, don't you think the
Russians would have surely found out about it and made immense political
hay out of the 'fiction' that NASA had landed on the moon????

PRAVDA and the CPUSSR would have had a field day. Yet not one peep.
I mean, they had lost the space race, and had every reason to deny
NASA's 'claim to glory', yet still gave credit where credit was
due...to NASA.

[Michael J Wise]

Gareth Slee wrote:

> +
> 5.2 Why was the Apollo 1 crew (and others) killed? What was NASA
> trying to hide?
>
> [note yet complete]

Don't bother.
It's not worthy of being answered.
Or better yet, refer them to Mr. Mondale.

[Richard D. Latham]

John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> writes:

"Governments are not good at keeping secrets".

As him how it is that our former President couldn't get a &*^*& job in
the Oval Office without everyone eventually finding out, where there
were only 2 people on the planet that knew the truth, yet this massive
conspiracy of silence with literally thousands of scientists involved
has been successful for 30 years ...

--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com

[Richard Bell]

In article <u7l1if...@us.ibm.com>,

When we look at a verifiable conspiracy, we realise just how hard these
things are to keep a secret.

Who didn't fall for the discovery of minable deposits of manganese, in th
form of nodules littering the ocean floor. These deposits were so rich
that Howard Hughes funded the construction of a ship with a huge wetwell
to operate a massive harvester that could reach all of the way to the sea
floor and scoop up manganese nodules by the tonne. That was the
Glomar Explorer. The conspiracy and cover up was perfect, except that
one person blabbed the truth. In theory, the indiscreet crewman could have
been up on charges for treason and executed, but the USA is a free country
and the damage has been down.

The conspiracy to recover the sub should have worked, I doubt more than
two hundred people knew enough of truth to expose, and the secret still
got out. A conspiracy involving thousands should be unworkable.

[Columbus Irrigation]

> John Beadles <bea...@nortelnetworks.spamblock.com> writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Sorry to bring up the sore subject again, but it's important in a minor
> > way. Jeff, the morning guy on a local Dallas radio station
> > (http://www.mix1029.com/) was talking about the abominable FOX moon hoax
> > show and how it made him doubt the moon landings. I called in and threw
> > out some counter arguments. Apparently, this guy Ralph Rene
> > (http://www.rene-r.com/), who wrote the book "Nasa mooned america" will
> > be on tomorrow morning. The producer told me to call back in tomorrow
> > morning and he'd put me on with this guy.
> >
> > So, I'm looking for the argument of a lifetime tomorrow morning. I need
> > help. I need links to all the moon-hoax debunking arguments and info on
> > this guy I can get. I'd look up stuff in Deja, but at the risk of
> > sounding stupid, I've never been able to get deja to work for me. I'm
> > putting this mail up in the morning in the hopes that whovever can help
> > point me at information will post by 6pm central so I can collate it
> > tonight. Also, wasn't somebody working on a moon-hoax FAQ? I could
> > really use that.
> >
> > Thanks all!

A good website that shows how the people
who believe the moon landing was faked have
holes in their theories is:

www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

[John R. Campbell]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:19:44 -0600,
Columbus Irrigation <c...@megavision.com> wrote:
>A good website that shows how the people
>who believe the moon landing was faked have
>holes in their theories is:
>
>www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

I suspect that there are folks at Fox who want proof, so perhaps
we should find the producer, exec producer, etc, and re-build the
infrastructure to send men to the moon.

Of course, we'd neglect to fuel the ascent stage... :-)

--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of John Campbell alone and
do not reflect the opinions of his employer(s) or lackeys
thereof. Anyone who says differently is itching for a fight!

[Julian Bordas]

"John R. Campbell" wrote:
co.uk/moonhoax/
>
> I suspect that there are folks at Fox who want proof, so perhaps
> we should find the producer, exec producer, etc, and re-build the
> infrastructure to send men to the moon.
>
> Of course, we'd neglect to fuel the ascent stage... :-)
>

Oh I'd fuel it..... Just leave the firing wires disconnected :-)

--
Julian Bordas

Williamstown, Victoria, Australia.

To send email remove the full stop and the
country in which I live, from my email address.

[Doug...]

"Julian Bordas" <jbo...@bigpond.com.australia> wrote in message
news:3AC40846...@bigpond.com.australia...

> "John R. Campbell" wrote:
> co.uk/moonhoax/
> >
> > I suspect that there are folks at Fox who want proof, so perhaps
> > we should find the producer, exec producer, etc, and re-build
the
> > infrastructure to send men to the moon.
> >
> > Of course, we'd neglect to fuel the ascent stage... :-)
> >
>
> Oh I'd fuel it..... Just leave the firing wires disconnected :-)
>
> --
> Julian Bordas

Naw... just call it Lunar Survivor. Once they're up there, tell them that
the members of sci.space.history get to vote as to which (if any) of them
get to come back.

Doug

[John R. Campbell]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:15:02 +1000,
Julian Bordas <jbo...@bigpond.com.australia> wrote:

>"John R. Campbell" wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that there are folks at Fox who want proof, so perhaps
>> we should find the producer, exec producer, etc, and re-build the
>> infrastructure to send men to the moon.
>>
>> Of course, we'd neglect to fuel the ascent stage... :-)
>
>Oh I'd fuel it..... Just leave the firing wires disconnected :-)

I like that little hint of subtely, though I think the empty
ascent stage would give you enough mass advantage to carry more
than 2 people to the lunar surface.

And the problem is that someone delivered to the surface may
be too darn clever in routing some jumper cables...

[Ash Wyllie]

Extracted from the mind of John R. Campbell;

> And the problem is that someone delivered to the surface may
> be too darn clever in routing some jumper cables...

That would be a nice little intellegence test.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Julian Bordas]

"John R. Campbell" wrote:

> I like that little hint of subtely, though I think the empty
> ascent stage would give you enough mass advantage to carry more
> than 2 people to the lunar surface.
>

You could land about 5 without the ascent stage fuel. Remove the suits
and PLSS and then you could land another two or three. What else could
we remove?

[John R. Campbell]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:37:22 GMT, "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
>Extracted from the mind of John R. Campbell;
>
>> And the problem is that someone delivered to the surface may
>> be too darn clever in routing some jumper cables...
>
>That would be a nice little intellegence test.

Yes, but given the Fox specials, I don't think the candidates
for a free "yes, we can do it" flight (the Fox producers, etc)
can pass such a test; The problem is that someone may be just
barely cunning enough to figure it out. (This last strains my
limits of credulity.)

I wonder, though- while Hubble's optics would be fried (well,
the optical SENSORS) if it was pointed at either the earth or
the moon (during the day, at least), would an earth-lit lunar
surface still be too bright to look at the landing sites?

[Henry Spencer]

In article <slrn9ck57l....@eithernet.ibmus2.ibm.com>,

John R. Campbell <so...@jtan.com> wrote:
> I wonder, though- while Hubble's optics would be fried (well,
> the optical SENSORS) if it was pointed at either the earth or
> the moon (during the day, at least), would an earth-lit lunar
> surface still be too bright to look at the landing sites?

Hubble actually has looked at the daylit lunar surface a few times,
although it has to be done cautiously (and the Moon moves too quickly
for Hubble to track it properly!).

However, as has been noted repeatedly, Hubble simply does not have the
resolution to see anything interesting there.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

[John R. Campbell]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:32:05 +1000,
Julian Bordas <jbo...@bigpond.com.australia> wrote:
>"John R. Campbell" wrote:
>
>> I like that little hint of subtely, though I think the empty
>> ascent stage would give you enough mass advantage to carry more
>> than 2 people to the lunar surface.
>>
>
>You could land about 5 without the ascent stage fuel. Remove the suits
>and PLSS and then you could land another two or three. What else could
>we remove?

Maybe extra Lithium Hydroxide canisters. We wouldn't want to
give 'em too much time to think, now, would we?

Actually, thinking about it, maybe we do. We'll lose some payload
to allow them two-way TV so that we can play the hoax show over and
over again to them while they sit on the surface of the moon in
1/6th gee.