Moon Hoax?
Ian Goddard
FOX television network recently aired a program promoting
the conspiracy theory that NASA's Apollo Moon missions were
actually a hoax staged on Earth -- man never really set foot
on the Moon. This theory was largely supported by allegations
of "anomalies" in Apollo photographs indicating fakery. A new
Goddard's Journal report subjects these allegations of photo
anomalies to experimental investigation with a series of
tests, the results of which provide decisive answers
to questions raised by FOX's Moon-Hoax program:
Moon Hoax? http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
Andrew Carol
igod...@erols.mom (Ian Goddard) wrote:
Excellent work!
--- Andy
Kouros
"Ian Goddard" <igod...@erols.mom> wrote in message
news:3a9a453d...@news.erols.com...
Ian,
I tried to contact you about my site a few weeks back, but I couldn't, no
matter what address I tried.
I'm sure you've seen the site, but I run Quiche.Org.Uk
Last month I was trying to put together a Moon Hoax focused edition,
following the Fox show, and tried to contact you to talk about a
collaboration, if you'd be interested. Eventually, as I couldn't get through
to you, I had to give up on that idea (for that month).
If you'd still be interested, however, please don't fail to contact me.
I do have a moon hoax article up at the moment. It's at
http://www.quiche.org.uk/Feb01/moon.html
--
Cheers,
Peter Bancroft
http://www.quiche.org.uk
Charles Packer
>on the Moon. This theory was largely supported by allegations
>of "anomalies" in Apollo photographs indicating fakery. A new
>Goddard's Journal report subjects these allegations of photo
But don't some of NASA's public relations practices incite
skeptics? I recall that there's a little more to this Apollo
pic story: that NASA at some point had released photos of
the lunar module that were actually of an earthbound prototype
in a realistic-looking setting without identifying them as
such.
Indeed, just last week NASA released a "NASA photo illustration"
of a hugely inflated metoeor supposed to represent the Permian
impactor. I posted about this in alt.journalism and sci.astro
under the title "How about that Permian asteroid?" Or just
see
http://www.clark.net/~packer/a1.jpg
And what about lifting teenagers on wires in a TV segment many
years ago about space camp? I know at least one young woman
who became convinced that NASA had an "anti-gravity room" and
retained the notion for twenty years until I tracked down
the origins of her conviction.
--
pac...@clark.net (Charles Packer)
http://www.clark.net/~whatnews
Brian
Brian Short
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:05:55 GMT, igod...@erols.mom (Ian Goddard)
wrote:
Kouros
"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:t9kn3fn...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
<snip>
> I do have a moon hoax article up at the moment. It's at
>
> http://www.quiche.org.uk/Feb01/moon.html
Sorry, should have mentioned that this article was written by Jim Wright
T...@sky.net
Excellent job! VERY well done. Thanks to the author!
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:05:55 GMT, igod...@erols.mom (Ian Goddard)
wrote:
>
tim gueguen
"Geir Bjerke" <geir....@kongsberg.com> wrote in message
news:3A9BDC7...@kongsberg.com...
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > I'm sorry, given the history of space flight since
> > the alleged moon landings, no sensible person could
> > conclude that they were real. In Science, claims
> > are tested by replication. NASA could prove that
> > we went to the Moon, by going to the Moon. It's
> > too bad that FOX's piece didn't focus on posing
> > exactly that challenge to NASA.
>
> (At least) one man has broken the sound barrier in a car, but
> I'm still waiting for a car with Mach instead of kph/mph on
> the speedometer.
>
Ah, but that was obviously a fake too. :-)
tim gueguen 101867
Alan Morgan
Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>Fox TV's Moon Hoax piece reviewed a lot of trivia
>that had already been debunked. I am amazed they
>aired the piece; nobody likes yesterday's garbage.
>
>Yet, they barely hinted at the essential question:
>
> If we went to the Moon, can we go to the Moon?
>
>NASA's answer is apparently no. After going
>~250,000 miles from Earth to the moon, NASA spent
>ten years and HUGE sums of money to build the
>space shuttle, which can only go roughly one
>thousandth of the distance from the surface of
>the Earth. (Pre-Challenger disaster, the limit
>was about 400 miles, with most flights staying
>well below that limit. I can't find a published
>ceiling for the shuttle today.
I think it ranges from about 100 to 250 miles.
>I would presume
>that it is less because of the weight of the
>additional safety systems added after Challenger.)
>
>After Lindbergh crossed 3,000 miles of ocean in a
>airplane, did airplane manufactures limit all their
>designs to units that could only fly 3 miles?
Nope. However, not all airplanes can make that trip even
today.
>I'm sorry, given the history of space flight since
>the alleged moon landings, no sensible person could
>conclude that they were real. In Science, claims
>are tested by replication. NASA could prove that
>we went to the Moon, by going to the Moon.
They did. What do you think Apollo 12 was? They
did it again with Apollo's 14, 15, 16, and 17. You
think they have an obligation to do it all over again
just because you weren't paying attention the first
time?
Next time NASA does something cool, pay attention! Write
your congresscritter and inform them of how cool NASA is
and how you'd like them to get more money so that they can
do more cool stuff.
Alan
Roger Coppock
>
> In article <3A9BB405...@adnc.com>,
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >Fox TV's Moon Hoax piece reviewed a lot of trivia
> >that had already been debunked. I am amazed they
> >aired the piece; nobody likes yesterday's garbage.
> >
> >Yet, they barely hinted at the essential question:
> >
> > If we went to the Moon, can we go to the Moon?
> >
> >I'm sorry, given the history of space flight since
> >the alleged moon landings, no sensible person could
> >conclude that they were real. In Science, claims
> >are tested by replication. NASA could prove that
> >we went to the Moon, by going to the Moon.
>
> They did. What do you think Apollo 12 was? They
> did it again with Apollo's 14, 15, 16, and 17. You
> think they have an obligation to do it all over again
> just because you weren't paying attention the first
> time?
>
7 episodes because of bad direction and poor acting.
Though the clever plot twist in Apollo 13 sparked
some interest and a later movie spin-off.
If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
capability to go there today. A return trip should
be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
building another Saturn V/Apollo. The aerospace
industry often rebuilds working copies of old hardware
for third world countries and museums. Here in
Southern California we have build working copies of old
Polaris SLBMs and entire airplanes from the WWII and
early cold war eras. The Polaris was contracted by
the British government. One of the best known modern
copies of an old aircraft was a U2; done at the
request of NASA, I believe.
One little exercise you might try is to ask NASA where
the blueprints for Saturn V/Appolo are and how complete
they are. In telephone calls a decade ago, I've was
told that there is no central archive. I predict you
will find that historic WWII aircraft, even the Titanic,
have better engineering documentation that a moon trip
ready Saturn V/Apollo.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
If we had faked a moon trip we would we should have the
capability to fake a moon trip today. We do have a
capability to fake space fights today; boy-oh-boy do
we have the capability! We have a whole space flight
faking industry, Star Trek™ and its billions and
billions of clones, all seeded ~30-years ago by a cold
war propaganda stunt.
>
> Next time NASA does something cool, pay attention! Write
> your congresscritter and inform them of how cool NASA is
> and how you'd like them to get more money so that they can
> do more cool stuff.
>
Why? If we had gone to the moon thirty years ago. People
would be making tons of money selling tickets today.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
Every time the space flight faking industry does something
cool, they do get well paid. I don't have to write my
'congresscritter' (LOL) to ask him to send my tax money to
Hollywood! It is one of the richest neighborhoods in the
world.
Andrew Carol
Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
> capability to go there today. A return trip should
> be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
> building another Saturn V/Apollo.
Using what assembly lines?
Using which trained engineers?
Using what which factories?
Using what components that have not been manufactured in 20 or more
years?
> The aerospace
> industry often rebuilds working copies of old hardware
> for third world countries and museums. Here in
> Southern California we have build working copies of old
> Polaris SLBMs and entire airplanes from the WWII and
> early cold war eras. The Polaris was contracted by
> the British government. One of the best known modern
> copies of an old aircraft was a U2; done at the
> request of NASA, I believe.
Is that Polaris expected to actually fly? If you say yes, then PROVE IT.
Building replicas, even very good ones is MUCH easier than building a
machine which must be trusted to carry men into space.
BTW, who is going to pay the several billion dollars it would cost to
secure the manfucturing capacity, parts supplies, trained technicions,
and launch operations and mission execution costs?
>
> One little exercise you might try is to ask NASA where
> the blueprints for Saturn V/Appolo are and how complete
> they are.
The Saturn V/Apollo is not a thing. It is a system composed of hundreds
and hundreds of sub systems each with their own design and engineering
plans.
>In telephone calls a decade ago, I've was
> told that there is no central archive.
Wow, did you talk to operator #3 or did you ask for her supervisor?
>
> Why? If we had gone to the moon thirty years ago. People
> would be making tons of money selling tickets today.
How does that follow? We've been going into orbit for a decade LONGER
than we went to the moon. Yet I don't see people selling tickets to go
into space. (There is that one rich guy trying to buy his way onto Mir,
but he STILL hasn't flown yet).
Do you doubt that we routinly launch huge payloads (with people) into
Earth orbit? If so, what is that space station I see fly over every
once in a while? Where is my Brother in Law getting his DirectTV signal
from?
Troll....
Oh well...
Ken Cox
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
> > capability to go there today. A return trip should
> > be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
> > building another Saturn V/Apollo.
> Using what assembly lines?
> Using what components that have not been manufactured in 20 or more
> years?
Finding the magnetic core memories should be fun.
Is it just me, or are there some similarities here with
the pyramidologists? Specifically, the ones who say
that we couldn't build the pyramids today. That's wrong;
we *could* build them, it's just that no one *wants* to
build them.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Andrew Carol
Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> Is it just me, or are there some similarities here with
> the pyramidologists? Specifically, the ones who say
> that we couldn't build the pyramids today. That's wrong;
> we *could* build them, it's just that no one *wants* to
> build them.
Almost. No one want to *PAY* to build them. I'd LOVE to see new
pyramids being built. That's why it's good that I'm not in charge.
--- Andy
Stephane David
Roger Coppock wrote:
.. and as simple as getting enough cash to do it, and also justifying
doing it..
> The aerospace
> industry often rebuilds working copies of old hardware
> for third world countries and museums. Here in
> Southern California we have build working copies of old
> Polaris SLBMs and entire airplanes from the WWII and
> early cold war eras.
They cost peanuts...
> The Polaris was contracted by
> the British government. One of the best known modern
> copies of an old aircraft was a U2; done at the
> request of NASA, I believe.
>
> One little exercise you might try is to ask NASA where
> the blueprints for Saturn V/Appolo are and how complete
> they are. In telephone calls a decade ago, I've was
> told that there is no central archive. I predict you
> will find that historic WWII aircraft, even the Titanic,
> have better engineering documentation that a moon trip
> ready Saturn V/Apollo.
>
No central archive does not mean no archive.
It just means it's not central.. Is that laid out easy enough for you to
understand ?
a WW2 plane or even the titanic are nowehere near the complexity of the
apollo program.
Gosh, i just caught myself talking to a morron..
Ok, instead of shouting HOAX !, please give indication of being half
able in the field.
It's easy to say conspiracy, it's harder to expose it !(especially when
there isn't any..)
so please get back in line, propose your theory, and watch it being
destroyed.
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND:
>
> If we had faked a moon trip we would we should have the
> capability to fake a moon trip today. We do have a
> capability to fake space fights today; boy-oh-boy do
> we have the capability! We have a whole space flight
> faking industry, Star Trek™ and its billions and
> billions of clones, all seeded ~30-years ago by a cold
> war propaganda stunt.
>
> >
> > Next time NASA does something cool, pay attention! Write
> > your congresscritter and inform them of how cool NASA is
> > and how you'd like them to get more money so that they can
> > do more cool stuff.
> >
>
> Why? If we had gone to the moon thirty years ago. People
> would be making tons of money selling tickets today.
>
This has been replied to before..
Stephane David
Roger Coppock wrote:
Here is a thought...
Why don't we rebuild titanic...I mean, it had to be an hoax if nothing
as large and luxurious has been built since ! Besides, it is probably
better documented than the apollo program !!
We could even offer the first cruise for free to all the conspiracy
theory morons !
Andrew Carol
cas...@sherrill.kiva.net (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
> There's always the Luxor in Las Vegas.
>
> It's eye boggling to stand in the middle of it, inside, and look
> straight up 13 stories. You just *feel* like it's supposed to
> all come tumbling down on you.
That's a neat building, but it was thrown up in a year and is mostly
glass and steel.
There is still something more amazing about millions of multi ton blocks
of stone in a nice stack.
Oh to dream...
-- Andy
Lauren A. Colby
>
>>I'm sorry, given the history of space flight since
>>the alleged moon landings, no sensible person could
>>conclude that they were real. In Science, claims
>>are tested by replication. NASA could prove that
>>we went to the Moon, by going to the Moon.
>
>They did. What do you think Apollo 12 was? They
>did it again with Apollo's 14, 15, 16, and 17. You
>think they have an obligation to do it all over again
>just because you weren't paying attention the first
>time?
>
But this is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the moon
landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30 years? And NO
trips ever by the Russians (other than unmanned trips), the Japanese, the
British, etc.
As I've written before, the moon would seem to be the ideal space station. It
has gravity so food particles and dirt won't float around the cabin and
astronauts' muscles won't atrophy. Furthermore, unlike the creaky Mir and
international space stations, the moon will stay up indefinitely. It doesn't
have to be put back in orbit every two or three years. And, moreover, the moon
is BIG - big enough to build all sorts of structures, including telescopes,
rocket launchers, biospheres, observation stations, etc., all held nicely in
place by 1/6th gravity. Also, the moon would seem to be an ideal place to
construct a launching pad for trips, manned or otherwise, to places like Mars
and Venus.
Why spend billions on the space shuttle to just take little joy rides in low
earth orbit when it's possible to build a space station on the moon? The expense
argument just doesn't cut it with me. Our national GDP is much, much larger than
it was when the Apollo missions took place. Yet, the Apollo program didn't
bankrupt us - if anything, it was good for the economy.
Maybe, someday, we, or some other nation, will return to the moon and find the
rover and the American flag still sitting there. But I find it strange, indeed,
that no nation is even planning or contemplating a future moon mission.
Larry
Foobar T. Clown
>
> Here is a thought... Why don't we rebuild titanic...I mean, it had to
> be an hoax if nothing as large and luxurious has been built since!
Be careful with your arguments. They may come back to bite you.
http://204.202.137.113/sections/world/DailyNews/titanic980406.html
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/040798/fea_124-3305.shtml
http://www.euronet.nl/users/keesree/replica.htm
-- Foo!
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> But this is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the moon
> landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30 years? And NO
> trips ever by the Russians (other than unmanned trips), the Japanese, the
> British, etc.
Going to the moon was more of a political endevar then a scientific one.
Sure we couched it in terms of "In peace for all mankind", and we
learned a lot doing it, but it was really to beat the Russians.
Once that was done, and there will little left but the "boring"
scientific parts left the public lost much interest and the politicions
found more popular ways to spend the billions.
The rest of the post has details which can be summarized in the
following truth:
Putting 100 pounds on the surface of the moon costs two orders of
magnitude more than putting 100 pounds in earth orbit.
The rest is details...
> As I've written before, the moon would seem to be the ideal space station. It
> has gravity so food particles and dirt won't float around the cabin and
> astronauts' muscles won't atrophy. Furthermore, unlike the creaky Mir and
> international space stations, the moon will stay up indefinitely. It doesn't
> have to be put back in orbit every two or three years.
Those are the things that make the moon BAD for a station. Much of what
they do is done because it's in zero G.
> And, moreover, the
> moon
> is BIG - big enough to build all sorts of structures, including telescopes,
> rocket launchers, biospheres, observation stations, etc., all held nicely in
> place by 1/6th gravity. Also, the moon would seem to be an ideal place to
> construct a launching pad for trips, manned or otherwise, to places like Mars
> and Venus.
Telescopes yea. Radio telescopes would have to be put on the far side.
Everything else would be HARDER from the moon. Why bother sending all
that heavy material DOWN the moons gravity well, only to have to lift it
out later. And lift it out with fuel you had to send from earth?
Part of the appeal of a space station in earth orbit is that it is
"close". It's can be reached in a single day. (Take off, sync orbits,
dock). Rescue can be carried out. Escape is possible by getting in an
escape capsule and simply landing. No need to take off from the moon,
leave lunar orbit, then have a much harder (higher speed) reentry.
--- Andy
Foobar T. Clown
>
> This is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the
> moon landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30
> years?
I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine that the incremental costs of
Apollo 12-17 were trivial compared to the cost of setting up all of the
infrastructure that was necessary to get to Apollo 11. That infrastruc-
ture is all gone now. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of
people who all went off to find different employment after the program
was cancelled. We're talking about machines and tools and manufacturing
facilities which are all either gone, or being used for some other
purpose.
Since the Gummint let all that stuff go, the cost of the NEXT mission
will be more like the cost of the first mission all over again. So,
why'd they let it all go? I don't know. Maybe they thought they had
more samples of dust and rocks and pictures of dust and rocks than the
scientists and the publicists knew what to do with. There's not much
else there besides dust and rocks.
> As I've written before, the moon would seem to be the ideal space
> station.
Assuming that a space station is a GOOD thing, go on...
> It has gravity
Making it expensive to land there, and expensive to leave.
> [...] Furthermore, unlike the creaky Mir and international space
> stations, the moon will stay up indefinitely.
Because it is so far away that it takes a week just to get there, and
another week to get home.
> The moon is BIG - big enough to build all sorts of structures,
> including telescopes, rocket launchers, biospheres, observation
> stations, etc.
None of which would be big, because they would all built from materials
which would be hauled up from earth at phenomenal cost. I admit that
much of that cost is getting stuff up to LEO, but the additional kicks
to transfer orbit, then to lunar orbit, and then finally down to a soft
landing don't exactly come for free.
> Also, the moon would seem to be an ideal place to construct a
> launching pad for trips, manned or otherwise, to places like Mars
> and Venus.
Even better would be LEO, where the cost of sending up materials and men
would be less. Does anybody happen to know the cost of escaping the
earth/moon system from the lunar surface vs. the cost of escaping from
LEO? Even if it cost less to depart from the moon, the total cost of
earth->LEO->escape will always be less than earth->LEO->moon->escape.
That's not even accounting for the likelihood that there will be many
trips between the earth and the assembly point before the final escape.
> Why spend billions on the space shuttle to just take little joy rides
> in low earth orbit when it's possible to build a space station on the
> moon?
Cause it's cheaper to get to LEO. A lot cheaper. The real question is,
why spend billions on the space shuttle when unmanned scientific
missions are more cost effective? Only reason I can think of is that
unmanned PUBLICITY missions don't work at all anymore.
> The expense argument just doesn't cut it with me.
If you have the money, feel free to spend it. Otherwise, send your
opinions to the people with the money. (Hint: People who control that
much money probably don't spend much time reading UseNet.)
> I find it strange, indeed, that no nation is even planning or contem-
> plating a future moon mission.
RadioShack is planning a moon mission.
Not manned tho. Bummer.
-- Foo!
Lauren A. Colby
These are all excellent points, many of which I had never considered. If,
however, the purpose of the moon missions was entirely political, a strong
motive would have existed to fudge the facts a little, to demonstrate that we'd
beaten the Russians. It really wouldn't have made any difference if we actually
went there so long as we could convince the Russians and the rest of the world
that we did. I've never had any serious doubt that we sent something up there,
seven times (including Apollo XIII). But there'll always be a little nagging
doubt about the scope of the activities which took place on the surface. I
contrast, for example, the pictures of astronauts on the moon, hitting golf
balls and engaging in heavy physical labor in space suits and gloves which don't
balloon, with the pictures of the shuttle astronauts doing work during EVA's,
straining to do even the simplest tasks in suits which look like characters in a
Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Makes me wonder why, in 30 years, space suit
design has gone backwards instead of forwards.
Larry
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> These are all excellent points, many of which I had never considered. If,
> however, the purpose of the moon missions was entirely political, a strong
> motive would have existed to fudge the facts a little, to demonstrate that
> we'd
> beaten the Russians.
This was a case where we really DID have to go.
1 - The Russians could have know and would have shamed us politically in
front of the rest of the world. Remember they had FULLY penetrated our
nuclear program and we KNEW it. Why could they not figure that out.
2 - We gained so much by actually going. What if WE faked it, and they
(a little later) REALLY went! We'd have our "First" bumper sticker, but
then they'd get the high tech spin offs. They'd also wonder why they
would not find our LM's on the surface.
3 - We knew we would gain so many side benefits which would help our
military etc.
> I
> contrast, for example, the pictures of astronauts on the moon, hitting golf
> balls and engaging in heavy physical labor in space suits and gloves which
> don't
> balloon, with the pictures of the shuttle astronauts doing work during EVA's,
> straining to do even the simplest tasks in suits which look like characters
> in a
> Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Makes me wonder why, in 30 years, space suit
> design has gone backwards instead of forwards.
The space suit of today is FAR more advanced and allows MUCH more
freedom of movement. The endurance is longer, and they are easier to
get into and out of.
I'm not sure why you have this opinion, but remember the delicate work
they are trying to do now (working with hands) is far more advanced than
the basic grab, lift, move type stuff they were doing in Apollo.
--- Andy
Robert Templeton
news:97jq0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> These are all excellent points, many of which I had never considered. If,
> however, the purpose of the moon missions was entirely political, a strong
> motive would have existed to fudge the facts a little, to demonstrate that
we'd
> beaten the Russians. It really wouldn't have made any difference if we
actually
> went there so long as we could convince the Russians and the rest of the
world
> that we did. I've never had any serious doubt that we sent something up
there,
> seven times (including Apollo XIII). But there'll always be a little
nagging
> doubt about the scope of the activities which took place on the surface. I
> contrast, for example, the pictures of astronauts on the moon, hitting
golf
> balls and engaging in heavy physical labor in space suits and gloves which
don't
> balloon, with the pictures of the shuttle astronauts doing work during
EVA's,
> straining to do even the simplest tasks in suits which look like
characters in a
> Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Makes me wonder why, in 30 years, space
suit
> design has gone backwards instead of forwards.
Actually, space suite design has made astounding progress (as has the
equipment the astronauts use). The problem is that you are comparing an
astronaut doing an hour's work in 1/6 Earth gravity on a solid surface,
gravity and less of it to boot (considering the weight of the suit), to an
astronaut doing several hour's work in continual free-fall, virtually no
gravity (thus the terminology, microgravity), with very little support.
When you turn a screw with a screwdriver to advance it into an object on
Earth, the Moon, or any other body that exerts a relatively good amount of
gravitational pull, the object receiving the screw doesn't tend to turn due
to the rotational torque because friction and its weight caused by gravity,
mainly, outweigh (eh hem) the force involved. In a continual free-fall, a
kilotonne orbitting satellite or spacecraft may start to rotate. If not it,
then the astronaut. Push a kilotonne boulder on Earth, does it budge? Not
unless you are Superman. Put you and the boulder in orbit about Earth, and
every time you touch it, you will go one direction alot and it will go the
other a little. There is one simple rule to follow that is especially true
in continual free-fall: for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
To make a long story short, this is the reason why astronautical EVA's are
so much more difficult for the shuttle crews than EVA's on the lunar surface
for the Apollo crews.
Robert Templeton
T...@sky.net
Cashman) wrote:
>Ah, so since the blueprints don't exist all the Saturn V
>launches that people witnessed were faked?
>
>-Geoff
The blueprints DO exist. Absolutely.
T...@sky.net
wrote:
It's called lack of money and public interest. Simple. We'll go back
someday.
Wally Anglesea™
<aaec...@coastside.net> wrote:
>In article <3A9D27B7...@adnc.com>,
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
>> capability to go there today. A return trip should
>> be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
>> building another Saturn V/Apollo.
>
>Using what assembly lines?
>Using which trained engineers?
>Using what which factories?
>Using what components that have not been manufactured in 20 or more
>years?
And why would anyone want to go back with 1960's technology anyway?
It's not exactly like building a 1964 mustang out of spare parts.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Hit1Hard
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:59:49 -0800, Andrew Carol
> <aaec...@coastside.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3A9D27B7...@adnc.com>,
> > Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
> >> capability to go there today. A return trip should
> >> be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
> >> building another Saturn V/Apollo.
> >
> >Using what assembly lines?
> >Using which trained engineers?
> >Using what which factories?
> >Using what components that have not been manufactured in 20 or more
> >years?
>
> And why would anyone want to go back with 1960's technology anyway?
> It's not exactly like building a 1964 mustang out of spare parts.
>
> --
Ah, you mean the lighter, faster, better, stronger and cheaper
technology from these days ?
Isn't a 67.. the most wanted model..
Hit1Hard mailto:Hit.1...@iaehv.nl 1 = One
==================================================================
| I Think, I don't believe. What is your reason ? |
==================================================================
Xcott Craver
>
>But don't some of NASA's public relations practices incite skeptics? I
>recall that there's a little more to this Apollo pic story: that NASA
>at some point had released photos of the lunar module that were
>actually of an earthbound prototype in a realistic-looking setting
>without identifying them as such.
Well, I wouldn't call moon hoax types "skeptics," as
skepticism implies doubt to a reasonable degree (just as
"open mindedness" also implies a reasonable degree of
consideration, rather than blind faith.)
Anyways, the best thing NASA can do PR-wise is, IMHO,
provide a link to the Bad Astronomy site, although this
new one is really cool.
>Indeed, just last week NASA released a "NASA photo illustration"
>of a hugely inflated metoeor supposed to represent the Permian
>impactor.
Yeah, that's a pretty dippy artist's conception. They
really should make them as correct as possible, since we
now know conspiracy theorists will use them as evidence!
FOX wants to know why there weren't craters like there
were in the artist's conceptions!
>pac...@clark.net (Charles Packer)
-S
Douglas Berry
<fu...@gazonk.del> wrote:
>Since the Gummint let all that stuff go, the cost of the NEXT mission
>will be more like the cost of the first mission all over again. So,
>why'd they let it all go? I don't know.
Simple. The economy was starting to tank, and the space program was
an easy target for budget curtting.
>Maybe they thought they had
>more samples of dust and rocks and pictures of dust and rocks than the
>scientists and the publicists knew what to do with. There's not much
>else there besides dust and rocks.
The problem there was we kept sending test pilots! It wasn't until
Apollo 15 that the astronauts got any real training as field
geologists, and the only real scientist to go up went on Apollo 17.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
.sigs under construction, pardon our dust
Xcott Craver
>
>Moon Hoax? http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
This is a great site!
There are those who harumph when told the explanation for
apparently obscured crosshairs, thinking that it's too far-fetched.
Some people just won't buy any wordy technical explanation.
A picture, however, does a great job of showing how these
anomalous mysterious things are neither anomalous nor mysterious,
despite the say-so of Fox.
-S
Xcott Craver
>
>I watched the moon trip show. It failed after only
>7 episodes because of bad direction and poor acting.
>Though the clever plot twist in Apollo 13 sparked
>some interest and a later movie spin-off.
You realize that eventually you'll have to back up this claim
with actual valid arguments. What evidence do you have that
the moon landings were fake?
No, the fact that we stopped sending people to the moon is
not evidence. It's not even remotely suspicious. Any idiot
can see that this is a matter of money and politics, versus
the benefits of yet another moon mission.
By this logic ("if we really did it back then, why aren't
we doing it today?") many historical events have to be hoaxes.
Why can't we build a Great Pyramid using only ancient
technology? Isn't it mysterious? Humans allegedly built a
bunch of them then just stopped! For thousands of years!
New ones are made with cranes and power tools, and materials
that are easy to machine! They're cheating!
>If we had actually gone to the moon we should have the
>capability to go there today. A return trip should
>be as simple as returning to the archived plans and
>building another Saturn V/Apollo.
Oh, that sounds _really_ easy. The folks at NASA could just
have a bake sale.
Your argument would make sense if NASA had a big budget
and a reason to spend that budget on manned moon missions
instead of other space missions.
>The aerospace industry often rebuilds working copies of old hardware
>for third world countries and museums.
This is a fallacy of scale.
The moon landing is considered by many to be the greatest
engineering feat since the Great Pyramid of Giza; it is not a
matter of just slapping together another one on a budget and
lighting the fuse.
>Why? If we had gone to the moon thirty years ago. People
>would be making tons of money selling tickets today.
Prove it. Provide actual numbers showing that someone could
profit from such an incredibly costly trip, with any reasonable
ticket price.
I think this assertion is just plain silly. Sending people
to the moon is still going to be unbelievably expensive per
passenger.
Furthermore, your argument is self-refuting: shouldn't you
also be able to make a ton of money selling tickets into
orbit? See the Earth from orbit? Yes? Why aren't we?
Yet, you don't seem to think the shuttle missions are faked.
-S
Stephane David
Dougie McKinnon
"Lauren A. Colby" wrote:
> But this is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the moon
> landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30 years? And NO
> trips ever by the Russians (other than unmanned trips), the Japanese, the
> British, etc.
Given the economic situation in Russia, could they even begin to attempt such a
venture? Can't speak for the Japanese, but living in the UK, the first thing that
would arise were Britain to announce an attempt to do such a thing (on their own or
as part of the EC) would be the question of "who pays the bills?" I can't see
anyone voting for it.
Washuu-chan
Xcott Craver wrote:
I have to admit. My father who has no scientific ability, and very little
understanding of conspiracies as a whole gave me a simple answer as to weather
there was a moon hoax or not. The Russians. Its been proved for years now
that the Russians and Americans have been spying on each other and watching
each other on radar for years. Hell we still do today. Don't you think the
Russians would have been monitoring the launch of the Apollo missions. If
these were faked then there would have been a stink a mile wide by the
Russians. They would have went to the UN and numerous news organizations
saying that there was a grandiose hoax played by the Capitalist government on
the world and its own people. We would have been laughing stocks.
--
If I was any better I wouldn't be able to stand myself. -- Uncle William
Douglas "Pete" Peake
ALL YOUR BASE NOW BELONG TO US!!!!!
Welcome to your life...there's no turning back
If we were made in His image then call us by our names. Most intellects do not
believe in God but they fear us just the same.
Well...look at the bright side. We'll all have high schools named after us. --
Deep Impact
ChocoZell wrote:
How the hell did a Web tver manage to post on Usenet anyway? At
least AOHellers have to turn on a pc, even if they do think the
cd drive is a cupholder. . .
Hey, wtf? The site you mentioned DOES NOT WORK, YOU STUPID ...
Dear god, you better be joking. I'd really hate to think anyone
could be *that* stupid.....
There is. . . and the saddest part of it is we keep responding to
him. . .
--ChocoZell
My favorite (For no particular reason.) was the lady with the brand new
$4000 MAC Powerbook who was ABSOLUTELY positive she was running
'Windows 97'.
--Denjiro
Lauren A. Colby
threads!
>
>The space suit of today is FAR more advanced and allows MUCH more
>freedom of movement. The endurance is longer, and they are easier to
>get into and out of.
>
>I'm not sure why you have this opinion, but remember the delicate work
>they are trying to do now (working with hands) is far more advanced than
>the basic grab, lift, move type stuff they were doing in Apollo.
>
>--- Andy
The reason for my opinion is the appearance of the suits, especially the gloves.
The shuttle astronauts' gloves appear bulbous, with hinged joints. Why don't the
gloves of the lunar astronauts also appear bulbous, if they are pressurized in a
vacuum? How did they manage to manipulate their hands in the pressurized gloves,
unless they were hinged (maybe they were)?
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
Now we are in an area where I have considerable expertise: politics and
lobbying!
Many different individuals and companies would benefit, substantially, from a
renewed Apollo program - all sorts of contractors would be manufacturing the
rockets, computers, spaces suits, software, hardware, etc. The program should be
sold to the public not as a "cost" but rather as a benefit, to stimulate the
economy. I don't know how it would be done in the UK but in the US the lobbyists
for the beneficiaries of the program would start talking up the benefits (real
and imaginary), both at the legislative level and with the executive branch.
Reasons would be supplied (or, perhaps, invented) why we need to go back to the
moon.
A trivial example: About thirty years ago, radio broadcasters would order
telephone lines to broadcast ballgames. If we wanted to cover a ball game in a
place thirty miles or so from our station, we'd call up the telephone company
and, for $15 or $20, they'd come out and install a pair of wires at the ball
field, connected directly to our studio through the telephone system.
Suddenly, a great hue and cry arose. It was claimed that these leased lines were
being installed below cost and that poor, ordinary telephone users were being
forced to subsidize rich, fat broadcasting companies. Responding to the public
outcry, the FCC required the telephone companies to jack up the rates for leased
lines. Suddenly, a line that had cost $15 cost $200.
But the "public outcry" didn't really come from the public. No, it was cleverly
instigated by the manufacturers of microwave communications equipment, designed
to replace the telephone lines. And sure enough, once the cost of telephone
lines was made prohibitive, the microwave manufacturers did, in fact, prosper
mightily.
Larry
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Now we are in an area where I have considerable expertise: politics and
> lobbying!
>
> Many different individuals and companies would benefit, substantially, from a
> renewed Apollo program - all sorts of contractors would be manufacturing the
> rockets, computers, spaces suits, software, hardware, etc. The program should
> be
> sold to the public not as a "cost" but rather as a benefit, to stimulate the
> economy. I don't know how it would be done in the UK but in the US the
> lobbyists
> for the beneficiaries of the program would start talking up the benefits
> (real
> and imaginary), both at the legislative level and with the executive branch.
> Reasons would be supplied (or, perhaps, invented) why we need to go back to
> the
> moon.
The difference though is that we are not talking a billion here or
there, but in amounts of 20 or 30 billion.
While we know all about the risks and dangers and have a better feel for
what we can do (which we had to pay to learn those things in the 60's),
we still would have to develop new machines to go to the moon, land, and
return.
This is akin to developing a new jet fighter. We've developed plane
after plane in the past, but it always costs a few billion dollars for a
new design.
This is money that there are many competing interests for. There are
health care, homeless, environmental, and educational lobbies that all
want those very same dollars spent DIRECTLY for their causes and they
have lots of vocal members who vote.
There simply is no vocal voting block for going to the moon, and the
contractors who would benefit are happy to make money building
submarines and other "defense" things which people area already
accepting.
--- Andy
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> The reason for my opinion is the appearance of the suits, especially the
> gloves.
> The shuttle astronauts' gloves appear bulbous, with hinged joints. Why don't
> the
> gloves of the lunar astronauts also appear bulbous, if they are pressurized
> in a
> vacuum? How did they manage to manipulate their hands in the pressurized
> gloves,
> unless they were hinged (maybe they were)?
The gloves are a very different design.
There is an enourmous amount of technical literature dealing specificly
with space suit design. The problem is to contain an atmosphere at
about 1/3 of standard pressure which will also allow movement and even
better permit tactile use of the fingers. This has proven to be very
hard.
It works to varying degrees.
-- Andy
Lauren A. Colby
Were the lunar space suits tested on earth, using actual human beings and a
vacuum chamber? Or was it simply assumed that they would work OK in space?
Larry
Foobar T. Clown
>
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >Why? If we had gone to the moon thirty years ago. People
> >would be making tons of money selling tickets today.
>
> into orbit? See the Earth from orbit? Yes? Why aren't we?
The Russians almost sold a ticket last year. I forget the name of the
passenger or precisely how many millions of dollars he was willing to
pay. The only reason he didn't go was because he was too tall to ride
in a Soyuz capsule. (He was also overweight, but the Russians would
have been more than willing to help him slim down.)
-- Foo!
Lauren A. Colby
>
>In article <97m10...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>Were the lunar space suits tested on earth, using actual human beings and a
>>vacuum chamber? Or was it simply assumed that they would work OK in space?
>>
>
>
>Do you honestly think that anything upon which the astronauts depend
>on their lives for would go into space untested?
>
>-Geoff
>
>
No, but there are various types of testing. For example, a test pilot could have
been sent up to 60,000 feet to test the suit. But at that altitude, there still
would have been quite a bit of atmosphere.
I'm wondering if the suits weren't simply the suits used by test pilots in
aircraft like the U-2? Maybe that's how they were tested. I was hoping that
somebody like Andy would know.
Larry
Foobar T. Clown
>
> Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.mom> wrote:
> >
> >Moon Hoax? http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
>
> This is a great site!
>
> There are those who harumph when told the explanation for
> apparently obscured crosshairs, thinking that it's too far-fetched.
> Some people just won't buy any wordy technical explanation.
Somebody said this before me, but it's worth repeating. If there is
*ANY* evidence of forgery (and I do not believe there is any), it will
not be found in the still photos. The technology to fake convincing
still photos of just about anything would have been well within NASA's
budget. If those photos were faked, the consequences of getting caught
would have been unimaginable. There would not be even the tiniest
detail that had not been scrutinized by panels of experts before the
photos were released to the public.
Does anyone really believe that sometime after sending off a batch of
photos to the press, somebody would suddenly say, "Oh Jeez! we forgot
the STARS!" or, "Oh Jeez! We forgot to blow the dust away from around
the LEM!" or, "I *TOLD* you we should have hired a real artist to draw
those cross hairs."
They had a lot of time. They had a lot of money. They knew what
conditions are like in space. They had photos from the Ranger missions
and photos from the Soviet Luna missions. They *KNEW* what photos from
the moon should look like.
Anybody who would claim that there is glaring evidence of a hoax in the
still photos must first explain why such "defective" photos would have
been released to the public by the conspirators.
-- Foo!
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> No, but there are various types of testing. For example, a test pilot could
> have
> been sent up to 60,000 feet to test the suit. But at that altitude, there
> still
> would have been quite a bit of atmosphere.
>
> I'm wondering if the suits weren't simply the suits used by test pilots in
> aircraft like the U-2? Maybe that's how they were tested. I was hoping that
> somebody like Andy would know.
I really don't know how they were tested.
I would imagine in a vacuum chamber and probably under overpressure in
various low pressure atmospheres.
--- Andy
Bob Myers
"Lauren A. Colby" wrote:
> But this is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the
moon
> landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30 years? And
NO
> trips ever by the Russians (other than unmanned trips), the Japanese, the
> British, etc.
This is again simply because the moon program was not really
about exploration; it was to a great extent a politically-driven
program, intended to "beat the Russians". Once the landing
was achieved, look at how quickly public interest turned to
other things. Had it not been for the accident, Apollo 13 would
have received practically no coverage - and as it was, Apollos
15-17 were barely followed by the press, at least in comparison
to 7-14. (14 got the attention it did only through a combination of
the "gee, I wonder if THIS one is gonna blow up?" factor, and
having Alan Shepard as commander.) And who even remembers
at this point that NASA had PLANNED moon landing missions
out to Apollo 20 - missions that were scrapped after the public
interest waned, and the hardware used to cut the costs of other
efforts (Skylab) or perform other political stunts (Apollo-Soyuz,
which had essentially zero scientific value and certainly wasn't
needed just to verify the compatibility of the docking systems).
You also forget that exploration of the moon did NOT end
with the last Apollo; it just shifted to unmanned missions.
(Which, to some extent, are much more cost-effective AND
scientifically valuable, since about the only thing they haven't
done is to bring back lunar samples.) Consider, for example,
the Clementine mission of 1994, or the Lunar Prospector of
1997. They happened, but got basically no popular press
coverage.
The big-ticket, "star" programs since Apollo - the ones that
DID get the attention - weren't further moon exploration
missions, since that was "been there, done that." In the
1970s, 80s, and 90s, we instead saw Pioneer, Viking,
Voyager, the Shuttle, and recently the joint U.S./Russian
Mir missions and the start of the ISS program.
Bob M.
James Wright
c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud wrote on 3/1/01 2:56 PM:
> Are you a paid CIA shill, Ian??? :)
>
> Sorry, but I couldn't resist throwing that one back.
Don't you know EVERYONE here is CIA! Except the ones that aren't, of course.
:)
Jim
T...@sky.net
Greg
<aaec...@coastside.net> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if the suits weren't simply the suits used by test pilots in
>> aircraft like the U-2? Maybe that's how they were tested. I was hoping that
>> somebody like Andy would know.
>
>I really don't know how they were tested.
>
>I would imagine in a vacuum chamber and probably under overpressure in
>various low pressure atmospheres.
I've got a book somewhere that talked about how they tested the
various pieces of equipment in a vacuum chamber. Of course now I'll
have to go read all my books about the Apollo program again and find
it :)
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Foobar T. Clown"
<fu...@gazonk.del>:
That's what they *want* you to think...
;-)
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Lauren A. Colby
It is, indeed, very interesting.
As I think about it, the U-2 spyplane flew at 60,000 feet. In the absence of
pressurization, human blood would begin to boil at that altitude. The U-2 wasn't
pressurized, so Gary Powers and the other U-2 pilots would have had to have some
sort of pressurized suits, even back in those days (the 1950's).
Larry
Greg
wrote:
>It is, indeed, very interesting.
>
>As I think about it, the U-2 spyplane flew at 60,000 feet. In the absence of
>pressurization, human blood would begin to boil at that altitude. The U-2 wasn't
>pressurized, so Gary Powers and the other U-2 pilots would have had to have some
>sort of pressurized suits, even back in those days (the 1950's).
>
>Larry
I believe the Early suits used in the Gemini program were pretty
similar to the suits worn aboard U2s
THE MAN THEY COULD NOT HANG
>
> Here's something you folks might find interesting...
>
>http://pages.prodigy.net/skipperja/photo7.html
>
These photos are BULLSHIT!!!!!
First, you show a "hard vacuum" test at "-300" degrees with
some guy wearing a short sleeve shirt and an open helmet. Ridiculous!
Second, the NASA logo on the photo WAS NOT IN USE IN 1964!!!!
Explain THAT, Mr. Poopy Pants! You are so BUSTED!
THE MAN THEY COULD NOT HANG
> Here's something you folks might find interesting...
>
>http://pages.prodigy.net/skipperja/photo7.html
>
HAH!
The photos on this site are FAKE, and you know it, Mr. Poopy
Pants!!!
How can you conduct a "hard vacuum" test at "-300 degrees"
(never stating C or F) on some guy wearing a crash helmet, oxygen mask
and SHORT SLEEVE SHIRT?? HUH?? HUH??
And that NASA logo on the photograph wasn't used in 1964!!
You are SO busted!
Andrew Carol
You must have problems reading because the document CLEARLY says...
"All these photographs were taken during the "dry run" or practice of
the procedure for the test. Closed circuit TV was used to monitor the
test itself"
The document also CLEARLY says 1965 NOT 1964.
You are soooooooo busted. BTW, I hope that explains that.
Oh well....
John C. Randolph
"Lauren A. Colby" wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> >
> >>I'm sorry, given the history of space flight since
> >>the alleged moon landings, no sensible person could
> >>conclude that they were real. In Science, claims
> >>are tested by replication. NASA could prove that
> >>we went to the Moon, by going to the Moon.
> >
> >They did. What do you think Apollo 12 was? They
> >did it again with Apollo's 14, 15, 16, and 17. You
> >think they have an obligation to do it all over again
> >just because you weren't paying attention the first
> >time?
> >
>
> But this is the very reason why some of us are a bit skeptical about the moon
> landings! Six trips in three years but NO trips for the last 30 years?
Congress cut the funding. No big mystery there.
-jcr
T...@sky.net
Dear douchbag,
I did a search for info on spacesuits. I provided the URL. You are
wrong moron. Nice try though, albeit weak.
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
>> Moon Hoax? http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
>
>Are you a paid CIA shill, Ian??? :)
>
>Sorry, but I couldn't resist throwing that one back.
Some time ago, I had visited the above URL and the MoonHoax part was
entirely different than it appears now, which is apparently a complete
about-face.
Eric Hocking
>As I think about it, the U-2 spyplane flew at 60,000 feet. In the absence
of
>pressurization, human blood would begin to boil at that altitude.
Cite? This seems (from what I have read) to be a popular misconception.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" - P.J. O'Rourke.
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Lauren A. Colby
Well, simple physics tells us that the lower the atmospheric pressure, the lower
the boiling point of water. That's why it's difficult to get a really hot cup of
coffee in Denver. But I have simply accepted a common legend as true. Do you
have information that it's not?
Larry
Andrew Carol
Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
Here's what NASA says on the subject:
www.dfrc.nasa.gov/airsci/er-2/pshis.html
..."At altitudes above 50,000 man requires a pressurized suit to be safe
in this near space environment. At 55,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is
so low that water vapor in the body appears to boil causing the skin to
inflate like a balloon. At 63,000 feet blood at normal body temperature
(98 F) appears to boil. Just as your ears pop while traveling through
the mountains or flying on an airplane, reduced atmospheric pressure at
these high altitudes allow the gases in your body to expand to the point
where they appear to boil off. At altitudes above 65,000 feet
atmospheric pressure approaches that of space, that is the
pressurization factors for protective equipment to be used at 65,000
feet are essentially the same as would be required for survival in a
vacuum."...
--- Andy
Bob Myers
"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:97ll1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> The reason for my opinion is the appearance of the suits, especially the
gloves.
> The shuttle astronauts' gloves appear bulbous, with hinged joints. Why
don't the
> gloves of the lunar astronauts also appear bulbous, if they are
pressurized in a
> vacuum? How did they manage to manipulate their hands in the pressurized
gloves,
> unless they were hinged (maybe they were)?
My recollection is that the Apollo moon suits used a separate
"overglove" to protect the inner pressurized glove (I hope
someone else will correct this if I'm misremembering).
Therefore, what you see in the pictures would not itself appear
"pressurized", as it didn't fit that tightly.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hinged". The problem with
any joint in a pressure suit is how to make it bend without
changing the volume of the suit significantly (otherwise,
obviously, the pressure within the suit works against you).
Making the joint hard (a series of rotating hard seals, for
instance) is one way to do this, but not the
only way. Consider including an "accordion" pleat
around the joint...
Bob M.
Ian Goddard
>>> Moon Hoax? http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
>>
>>Are you a paid CIA shill, Ian??? :)
>>
>>Sorry, but I couldn't resist throwing that one back.
>
>Some time ago, I had visited the above URL and the MoonHoax part was
>entirely different than it appears now, which is apparently a complete
>about-face.
IAN: That's false. It's the first page I've had about the
Moon-hoax issue and it did not exist before last Monday.
--------------------------------------------------------------
GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
______________________________________________________________
Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
>>Some time ago, I had visited the above URL and the MoonHoax part was
>>entirely different than it appears now, which is apparently a complete
>>about-face.
>
> IAN: That's false. It's the first page I've had about the
> Moon-hoax issue and it did not exist before last Monday.
Okay, if you say so. But I recall bookmarking your site because of
some Apollo-related matter quite some time before that FOX show.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
>______________________________________________________________
> Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story
Apparently except for the Apollo Caper.
----------------------------------
*** F R E E D O M F I R S T ! ***
----------------------------------
Eric Hocking
> Lauren A. Colby <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > In article <97op4s$o7d$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>, "Eric says...
> > >Lauren A. Colby wrote in message <97mkq...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >>As I think about it, the U-2 spyplane flew at 60,000 feet. In the absence
> > >of
> > >>pressurization, human blood would begin to boil at that altitude.
> > >Cite? This seems (from what I have read) to be a popular misconception.
> > lower
> > ...But I have simply accepted a common legend as true. Do you
> > have information that it's not?
> www.dfrc.nasa.gov/airsci/er-2/pshis.html
> ..."At altitudes above 50,000 man requires a pressurized suit to be safe
> in this near space environment. At 55,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is
> so low that water vapor in the body appears to boil causing the skin to
> inflate like a balloon. At 63,000 feet blood at normal body temperature
> (98 F) appears to boil. Just as your ears pop while traveling through
> the mountains or flying on an airplane, reduced atmospheric pressure at
> these high altitudes allow the gases in your body to expand to the point
> where they appear to boil off. At altitudes above 65,000 feet
> atmospheric pressure approaches that of space, that is the
> pressurization factors for protective equipment to be used at 65,000
> feet are essentially the same as would be required for survival in a
> vacuum."...
And just to confuse matters (this is what prompted my "cite?"):
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
Q.How long can a human live unprotected in space?
A. From the now extinct page
http://medlib/jsc.nasa.gov/intro/vacuum.html :
...Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
[mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
you're dying. The limits are not really known.
You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the
containing effect of your skin and circulatory system.
And this one, which appears to be oriented towards younger students,:
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/teachers/liftoff/eva.html
...In space, the pressure is nearly zero. Under virtually no pressure
from the outside, dissolved gases in body fluids expand, pushing solids
and liquids apart. The skin expands much like an inflating balloon.
Bubbles that form in the bloodstream render blood ineffective to
transport oxygen and nutrients to the body's cells. Furthermore, the
sudden absence of external pressure, which balances the internal
pressure of body fluids and gases, can rupture fragile tissues such as
eardrums and capillaries. The net effect on the body is swelling, tissue
damage, and a deprivation of oxygen to the brain that results in
unconsciousness in less than 15 seconds.
The last may be from the account of the Soviet astronaut deaths on a
Soyez flight in 1971] given at an Urban Legends site (and probably what
pinged my memory).
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_147.html
...
"The Soviets had to give a detailed report on the accident to NASA in
preparation for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, during which they said
that the
amount of tissue damage to the cosmonauts' bodies caused by the boiling
of their blood during the 11.5 minutes of exposure to vacuum could at
first have
been misinterpreted as being the result of a catastrophic and
instantantaneous decompression. The cause of death was pulmonary
embolism."
Although a google search yields multiple hits on this quote
(originally?) from Britannica.com, "It provides a pressurized interior,
without which an astronaut's blood would boil in the vacuum of space. In
addition, the space suit ...
And lastly
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/m2mreview.html
"But your skin and vascular system would contain your blood fairly well,
protecting it against the vacuum, so your blood would not boil."
OK, an opinion, but it also quotes the NASA link above.
So, from what I have read, uncontained fluid probably would "boil" off a
surface (again from the NASA info site above),
"At NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (now renamed Johnson Space Center)
we had a test subject accidentally exposed to a near vacuum (less than 1
psi) in an incident involving a leaking space suit in a vacuum chamber
back in '65... He remained concious for about 14 seconds, ... The
subject later reported that he could feel and hear the air leaking out,
and his last concious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to
boil",
but it seems that the "pressure suit" of muscle and skin is sufficient
to prevent blood "boiling". That is not to say that gas bubbles may not
form in the blood stream (embolism)
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Fre...@liberty.com
Cashman) posted:
>And we're supposed to believe you, a person who thinks that
>earthquakes happen on purpose?
When did I Ever say that?
Ian Goddard
>>>Some time ago, I had visited the above URL and the MoonHoax part was
>>>entirely different than it appears now, which is apparently a complete
>>>about-face.
>>
>> IAN: That's false. It's the first page I've had about the
>> Moon-hoax issue and it did not exist before last Monday.
>
>Okay, if you say so. But I recall bookmarking your site because of
>some Apollo-related matter quite some time before that FOX show.
IAN: I can tell you that imagination is leaking into
the part of your brain where real information should be.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
>>______________________________________________________________
>> Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story
>
>Apparently except for the Apollo Caper.
IAN: Wait a minute, you just said I had been questioning
the Apollo missions, you claim I had a page saying it was
a hoax, and yet now you imply I've not questioned Apollo.
I did question the Apollo missions, but the answers
were so rapidly found I never published any questions.
When I saw the identical backgrounds on FOX, that was
when I jumped up and started looking into this, for I
thought if that was true and it could be shown that a
fake background was used, it must be a hoax. Alas, the
evidence for the missions being a hoax is all nonsense,
and having seen that I feel it appropriate to show that.
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
> IAN: I can tell you that imagination is leaking into
> the part of your brain where real information should be.
Did you not have some Apollo-related stuff on your site before that
Fox show?
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
>>>______________________________________________________________
>>> Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story
>>
>>Apparently except for the Apollo Caper.
>
>
> IAN: Wait a minute, you just said I had been questioning
> the Apollo missions, you claim I had a page saying it was
> a hoax, and yet now you imply I've not questioned Apollo.
It appeared that you had questioned, then withdrew it.
> I did question the Apollo missions, but the answers
> were so rapidly found I never published any questions.
> When I saw the identical backgrounds on FOX, that was
> when I jumped up and started looking into this, for I
> thought if that was true and it could be shown that a
> fake background was used, it must be a hoax. Alas, the
> evidence for the missions being a hoax is all nonsense,
> and having seen that I feel it appropriate to show that.
May we therefore also soon expect the content of your pages regarding
the Waco Massacre, OKC Bombing, and the TWA flight 800 Shoot-Down to
take on a similar Alignment, with the Official Claims of the De Facto
Regime?
Andrew Carol
wrote:
> May we therefore also soon expect the content of your pages regarding
> the Waco Massacre, OKC Bombing, and the TWA flight 800 Shoot-Down to
> take on a similar Alignment, with the Official Claims of the De Facto
> Regime?
Where do your draw the line in what you can belive when they say
something?
If the defacto regime cliams the sun will rise tomorrow and you belive
them does that make you a collaborator?
If the defacto regime claims that, amongst other things, our taxes pay
for a standing army, is beliving them a sign of mental weakness?
--- Andy
Fre...@liberty.com
<aaec...@coastside.net> posted:
>Where do your draw the line in what you can belive when they say
>something?
I draw that line at Corruption. ANYthing past that point canNOT and
Should NOT be trusted without Personal Verification.
>If the defacto regime cliams the sun will rise tomorrow and you belive
>them does that make you a collaborator?
I've Personally Verified that the sun Indeed rises every day, Totally
Regardless of the True, or False statements of others.
>If the defacto regime claims that, amongst other things, our taxes pay
>for a standing army, is beliving them a sign of mental weakness?
That can be, and has been Personally Verified...at least in regards to
*some* taxes.
Andrea Chen
>
> Now THAT would prove that the titanic wasn't an hoax !
>
So if Disney recreates the Garden of Eden that proves it's real? The
fact that some people are claiming to build a mythical ship based on a
movie doesn't prove the Titanic ever existed. You must watch too much
television. I bet you think Vanna White is able to read those letters
all by herself.
Think about it, if the Titanic had really existed why were there no
reports of penguins? Doesn't make sense does it?
> "Foobar T. Clown" wrote:
>
> > Stephane David wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a thought... Why don't we rebuild titanic...I mean, it had to
> > > be an hoax if nothing as large and luxurious has been built since!
> >
> > Be careful with your arguments. They may come back to bite you.
> >
> > http://204.202.137.113/sections/world/DailyNews/titanic980406.html
> > http://augustachronicle.com/stories/040798/fea_124-3305.shtml
> > http://www.euronet.nl/users/keesree/replica.htm
> >
> > -- Foo!
Dougie McKinnon
Andrea Chen wrote:
> Think about it, if the Titanic had really existed why were there no
> reports of penguins? Doesn't make sense does it?
Only if Titanic sunk around Antartica.
Fre...@liberty.com
Cashman) posted:
>So, anything that you can not prove yourself is a creation of
>the defacto regime?
Anything Claimed by the Corrupt De Facto Regime, which cannot be
Verified is best, as in most Safely, to be regarded as a Lie...whether
they actually created it or not.
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
>So, therefore, if he cannot prove that he exists...
You might try First asking yourself the question; "WHAT AGENDA is
Served IF you DO believe it, Versus IF you do NOT?"
------------------------------------------------------------
OUR AGENDA: * FREEDOM * LIBERTY * INDEPENDENCE * SOVEREIGNTY
*************************
F U L L Y <<< R E S T O R E D ! >>>
~~~~~~~~~ *************************
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Carol
wrote:
The Corrupt De Facto Regime claims we fought and won WW-II. I have seen
no "proof" of this.
The monuments mean nothing. The photo's could have been faked. I've
only spoken to a few old men who claim otherwise but they may well have
been dupes of the government.
Yea, that's it. WW-II was a fraud simply because the government claims
we fought and won it. That's the safest view. Just a fraud.
--- Andy
Andrea Chen
So now you believe that old line about Antartica? You sure are
gullible. No wonder you think we went to the moon and that there was a
boat named Titanic. You'll believe anything. But if you look at the
facts you'll see that there were tuxedos long before the media started
talking about Antartica. So where did the penguins get them? Think
about that.
Eric Hocking
There are, of course, penguins that live in the northern hemisphere.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
Andrew Carol
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Dougie McKinnon wrote in message <3AA89BE6...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> >Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> >> Think about it, if the Titanic had really existed why were there no
> >> reports of penguins? Doesn't make sense does it?
> >
> >Only if Titanic sunk around Antartica.
>
> There are, of course, penguins that live in the northern hemisphere.
Andrea Chen is an instrument of the NADA (New Age Disinformation Agency).
Her futile attempts to use penguins to distract from the real cause of
the titanic sinking are falling apart. There were reports Lee Harvey
Oswalds father booked late passage the morning the Titanic sailed. That
fact has been carefully covered up by sinister forces at the highest
levels of more than one government.
They cunningly changed booking records, tampered with surviver accounts,
and even "got" to the HMS Carpathia crew and threatened them with death
if they revealed that fact.
What was LBJ's granfather doing on the N.Y. docks the morning the
survivers were brought to shore? Why are the whereabouts of the
patriarch of the Kennedy clan unexplained the day the news of the
sinking reached the United Stated? FDR left his office "early" the day
before the sinking, and yet not a word from him on this issue before his
mysterious only 30 short years later.
The truth is out there...
-- Andy
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen is an instrument of the NADA (New Age Disinformation Agency).
>
> Her futile attempts to use penguins to distract from the real cause of
> the titanic sinking are falling apart. There were reports Lee Harvey
> Oswalds father booked late passage the morning the Titanic sailed. That
> fact has been carefully covered up by sinister forces at the highest
> levels of more than one government.
>
<snip>
Mr. Carol is engaged in a coverup at a highlevel trying to convince us
that the Titanic (and thus by implication Antartica) do exist thus
getting us to believe all that we are told such as reports that we
landed on the moon whch doesn't even exist but is a holographic
projection by Hollywood which is clarly beyond the whole thing which is
why they foster myths to market their movies.
However if you hold nto reality and remember if you see it in the mass
media it can't be true, you will see through this deception.
Andrew Carol
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mr. Carol is engaged in a coverup at a highlevel trying to convince us
> that the Titanic (and thus by implication Antartica) do exist thus
> getting us to believe all that we are told such as reports that we
> landed on the moon whch doesn't even exist but is a holographic
> projection by Hollywood which is clarly beyond the whole thing which is
> why they foster myths to market their movies.
Andrea Chen asks us to belive that Hollywood exists with no more
evidence presented than her word for it. If there were a place as
fantastic as this "Hollywodd" I think we would have heard about it.
There would be movies and TV shows about it.
This "Hollywood" of hers is alleged to have created a moon hoax in order
to convince us of the Titanic and Anarctica.
It is quite clear that there was a Titanic and that this good ship did
strike Antartica and thereby sink. What Andrea so cleverly avoids
mentioning is why was Antartica there on that fateful day? Are we to
belive that the trade winds simply blew Antarctica so far north without
any "help" from her friends at NADA?
She knows the truth. She is trying to hide that truth.
The murder of JFK was to silence him. He was about to expose this
Hollywood myth and blow the lid off the Lincoln murder. NADA knew he
would do this and staged this Titanic sinking in order to set up the
American politcal structure that their target could be elevated to the
Presidency of the United States so that they might better control him.
-- Andy
Douglas Berry
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> warmed at our
fire and told this tale:
>There are, of course, penguins that live in the northern hemisphere.
Species? I'm not aware of any that nest in the Northern hemisphere.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
Dougie McKinnon <weedou...@hotmail.com> warmed at our fire and
told this tale:
>
>
Or if it was really sunk by a crack team of Tsarist Penguin Commandos!
--
Douglas "Penguin Boy" Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were.
-Chicago reader, 10/15/82
tim gueguen
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0giat8moqggidtvi...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:01:26 +0000, a wanderer, known to us only as
> Dougie McKinnon <weedou...@hotmail.com> warmed at our fire and
> told this tale:
>
> >
> >
> >Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> >> Think about it, if the Titanic had really existed why were there no
> >> reports of penguins? Doesn't make sense does it?
> >
> >Only if Titanic sunk around Antartica.
>
> Or if it was really sunk by a crack team of Tsarist Penguin Commandos!
>
> --
This time its actually going to be written by someone who speaks Russian.
tim gueguen 101867
Marcus S. Turner
Andrew Carol <aaec...@coastside.net> wrote in message
news:aaecaroll-A44BD...@corp.supernews.com...
damn. winston was right.
Andy Walton
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:01:26 +0000, a wanderer, known to us only as
:Dougie McKinnon <weedou...@hotmail.com> warmed at our fire and
:told this tale:
:
:>
:>
:>Andrea Chen wrote:
:>
:>> Think about it, if the Titanic had really existed why were there no
:>> reports of penguins? Doesn't make sense does it?
:>
:>Only if Titanic sunk around Antartica.
:
:Or if it was really sunk by a crack team of Tsarist Penguin Commandos!
Oh, come on. Titanic was sink by Special Sputnik Forces that used their
mind control lasers to convince Rockefeller Rich Man's Mafia that there
was an iceburg. And Penguins. And Jesus.
--
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity"
-- Harlan Ellison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Eric Hocking
>On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:08:09 -0000, a wanderer, known to us only as
>"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> warmed at our
>fire and told this tale:
>
>>There are, of course, penguins that live in the northern hemisphere.
>Species? I'm not aware of any that nest in the Northern hemisphere.
Well I was expecting to land a different Doug, but:
http://www.capu.net/~kwelch/penguins
Fre...@liberty.com
<aaec...@coastside.net> posted:
>> Anything Claimed by the Corrupt De Facto Regime, which cannot be
>> Verified is best, as in most Safely, to be regarded as a Lie...whether
>> they actually created it or not.
>
>The Corrupt De Facto Regime claims we fought and won WW-II. I have seen
>no "proof" of this.
Congratulations! The reason why you've seen no proof is because we
haven't REALLY "won" that war insomuch as it's Entire Scope is
concerned, but we did LOSE more Freedom and Liberty as a Direct
Result, Exactly as that Dialectic Manipulation Intended.
>The monuments mean nothing. The photo's could have been faked. I've
>only spoken to a few old men who claim otherwise but they may well have
>been dupes of the government.
There are more than enough artifacts alone attesting to the United
States' Participation in that war, Winning it is quite another matter,
however.
>Yea, that's it. WW-II was a fraud simply because the government claims
>we fought and won it. That's the safest view. Just a fraud.
It sure was a Fraud all right. But for those who Claime that "we"
'won' it, I have yet to hear Exactly WHAT it was that we Allegedly
'won'.
tim gueguen
<Fre...@Liberty.com> wrote in message
news:3aa8db6a...@news2.ripco.com...
> On 08 Mar 2001 21:08:28 GMT, CJS <c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud>
> posted:
>
> >So, therefore, if he cannot prove that he exists...
>
> You might try First asking yourself the question; "WHAT AGENDA is
> Served IF you DO believe it, Versus IF you do NOT?"
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> OUR AGENDA: * FREEDOM * LIBERTY * INDEPENDENCE * SOVEREIGNTY
> *************************
> F U L L Y <<< R E S T O R E D ! >>>
> ~~~~~~~~~ *************************
Your agenda should also be to learn the proper use of capitalisation.
tim gueguen 101867
Andrew Carol
wrote:
>
> You might try First asking yourself the question; "WHAT AGENDA is
> Served IF you DO believe it, Versus IF you do NOT?"
This is the mantra since the JFK movie. See who profits if something is
done or belived.
That's about as useless as any advice I've heard.
A rich man is killed on the street; who profits?
1 - His mistress because she is left a large home?
2 - His wife angry at the mistress and not wanting the risk of divorce?
3 - His son who gets the bulk of the insurance settlement?
4 - His business partner knowing that his stealing from the pension plan
will never be leaked because the only man who knew is dead?
All have motive. All profit. Who can say one profited more than the
other. In the end he might have been mugged for his watch and the
killer profited less than all the others who were 100% innocent.
Looking for who comes out ahead is valuable, but only to gather a pool
of people worthy of further research.
Who profited by going to the moon? The Tang corporation was behind it
all....
--- Andy
Andrew Carol
wrote:
> There are more than enough artifacts alone attesting to the United
> States' Participation in that war, Winning it is quite another matter,
> however.
Nonsense.
I am convinced the war never happend. You could not have been fooled by
those poor attempts at artifacts could you?
Those photos you've seen were made on a sound stage in California
designed to look like a European battlefield. I notice most have no
color. This is obviously done to hide problemns with shadows. Did they
think we'd not notice the pictures have no color?
Those testemonials hardly matter. I'm led to belive that there's not
really that many people who claim to have been in the war. They
probably cooperate because their families have been threatened.
Some might say that other nations would expose our fraud but I think
they gained just as much as our government did in keeping their people
down.
Lots of people saw troop ships leaving port but do we really know they
went all the way to far away Europe? Why didn't the soldiers do
something overthere so we would not have this debate?
WW-II? Never happened.
--- Andy
Fre...@liberty.com
<aaec...@coastside.net> posted:
>Who profited by going to the moon? The Tang corporation was behind it
>all....
Think Bigger, Much Bigger. Here's a Clue:
-----------------------------------------------------
"Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the
nations on this globe would be an attack from some
other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy,
people would respond with a sense of their unity of
interest and purpose."
--- John Dewey 1917
"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we
often forget how much unites all the members of
humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal
threat to make us realize this common bond. I
occasionally think how quickly our differences would
vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside
this world."
--- President Ronald Reagan,
in a speech made to the 42nd General Assembly of the
United Nations, Sept. 21, 1987
He inserted it in eight speeches during his time in
office.
-----------------------------------------------------
Fre...@liberty.com
<aaec...@coastside.net> posted:
>I am convinced the war never happend. You could not have been fooled by
>those poor attempts at artifacts could you?
I indicated that there's more evidence than artifacts. There are still
the survivors of that War, millions of them, around the world.
>Those photos you've seen were made on a sound stage in California
>designed to look like a European battlefield.
There Defenitely were Faked photographs, Produced for Propaganda
Purposes.
>I notice most have no
>color. This is obviously done to hide problemns with shadows. Did they
>think we'd not notice the pictures have no color?
Panchromatic (color) film, while originally becoming available in the
1930s, was very expensive and relative difficult, and time-consuming
to process, which is why black and white photos were so common for
most pictures. And black and white photos bring out shadows the best.
But that's not generally the problem with the Faked photos, Cropping
is, if one looks very carefully and applies some Photogrammetry.
>Those testemonials hardly matter. I'm led to belive that there's not
>really that many people who claim to have been in the war.
I wonder where they got all those people for all those VFW and
American Legion halls then. And I wonder where the Warbirds of America
and the Confederate Air Force got all those 50+ year old military
planes, which they fly around at air shows. Cold war? It would have
been if not for ALL that Spilled warm Blood.
>They
>probably cooperate because their families have been threatened.
What about the ones without families? A lot of them are pretty old and
have nobody except their drinking buddies, comrades in arms, fellow
Victims of Dialectic Manipulative Wars. And what about the disabled
ones who have had it with the VA?
And what about the lack of WWII monuments? Sounds like there are
plenty of people out there who already know what a SCAM it was. Only
recently have some Abject Fools, or perhaps they're Damage Control
Agents, or both, been insisting on such a monument. Welll, I have just
THE idea, which could support not only a monument to the Dialectic
Manipulation known as WWII, but the one before that, WWI. Two
monuments, to the LAST Dialectic Manipulations in which the United
States Lawfully Declared War, could be built as two enormous geodesic
(or similar) domes constructed on either side of the Washington
Monument. That way that enormous, 555 foot tall PENIS of the Pagan god
of the DEAD and the UNDERWORLD, of the Mystery Schools, Osiris, could
finaly be completed with both TESTICLES, one for WWI, the other for
WWII. How Appropriate for our "Christian" Nation, huh?
And think of the promotional possibilities - like a new slogan;
"America's World War Veterans Got BALLS!" That one alone ought to
really make the booze flow!
>Some might say that other nations would expose our fraud but I think
>they gained just as much as our government did in keeping their people
>down.
They kept, and are STILL keeping the SHEOPLE down by convincing them
that that Dialectic Manipulation (WWII) was for a 'worthy' cause.
>Lots of people saw troop ships leaving port but do we really know they
>went all the way to far away Europe?
How easy would it have been to do it in Secret, considering that many
other vessels also shared the shipping lanes?
>Why didn't the soldiers do
>something overthere so we would not have this debate?
NOT GOING in the first place would have been the Best thing to do.
Those Sacrificial Victims (American soldiers) could have and Should
have simply REFUSED to sign and/or swear ANY conscription-related
loyalty Oath, which by LAW, Constitutes a Contract, which itself by
LAW, as with ANY other Contract, canNOT be in ANY WAY entered into
through DURESS and/or other COERCION, and/or through DECEPTION, and/or
ANY way other than Totally VOLUNTARILY, VOLITIONALLY, and
KNOWLEDGEABLY, lest the Contract be INVALED and thus NUL AND VOID. But
Alas, they were DUPED into Throwing their lives away for a New World
Order...an UNLAWFUL 'contract' to be sure, but they DIED anyway, which
is most likely why excessive drinking is the primary activity at those
VFW and American Legion halls.
>WW-II? Never happened.
At least NOT Exactly as presented by the Criminal Class who Concocted
that Dialectic Manipulation, and Many others including the Moon Hoax.
Andrew Carol
wrote:
> I wonder where they got all those people for all those VFW and
> American Legion halls then. And I wonder where the Warbirds of America
> and the Confederate Air Force got all those 50+ year old military
> planes, which they fly around at air shows. Cold war? It would have
> been if not for ALL that Spilled warm Blood.
SNIP
> What about the ones without families? A lot of them are pretty old and
> have nobody except their drinking buddies, comrades in arms, fellow
> Victims of Dialectic Manipulative Wars. And what about the disabled
> ones who have had it with the VA?
SNIP
> How easy would it have been to do it in Secret, considering that many
> other vessels also shared the shipping lanes?
Why those are the same answers I gave you and that you poo-poo'd about
faking the moon missions.
How ironic.... ;-)
--- Andy
Matt Kriebel
<c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud> wrote:
> > "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we
> > often forget how much unites all the members of
> > humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal
> > threat to make us realize this common bond. I
> > occasionally think how quickly our differences would
> > vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside
> > this world."
> > --- President Ronald Reagan,
> > in a speech made to the 42nd General Assembly of the
> > United Nations, Sept. 21, 1987
> > He inserted it in eight speeches during his time in
> > office.
>
> Well, then, this flies in the face of the conspiracy
> theories which state that the government is hiding UFOs from
> us, doesn't it? According to this, the government should be
> trumpeting the fact that UFOs are a threat, not hiding them.
Methinks this guy should read the last couple of chapters of 'The
Forever War'.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
Previous .sig removed to potentially painful ironic revelation.
Alan Morgan
CJS <c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud> wrote:
>theories which state that the government is hiding UFOs from
>us, doesn't it? According to this, the government should be
>trumpeting the fact that UFOs are a threat, not hiding them.
Ah, but that assumes that the governments *want* to be united.
The US knows that, were it to release this information, we would
form some kind of icky new world order and we want no part of
it. Europe would, 'cause they are all friggin' Socialists, but
we have convinced them no to blow the whistle (by, in case you
are interested, spraying chemtrails over the US to threaten what
we might do to Europe).
Alan
Fre...@liberty.com
<aaec...@coastside.net> posted:
>Why those are the same answers I gave you and that you poo-poo'd about
>faking the moon missions.
SNIP
Like HELL they are.
Andrew Carol
wrote:
Nonsense, I said too many people participated directly in the moon
program. You said they could have been threatened into cooperation. I
simply mentioned the same idea for these so called "veterans".
I said we saw the rockets take off and you said we never saw where they
went. Then when I asked where the troop ships went you were dumbfounded
at the idea that I could claim they did not go to Europe.
You're level of denial changes depending on what coverup we are talking
about.
I am saying that I belive that WW-II never happened. The photo's are a
poor attempt of the Army's to convince the gullible public otherwise.
They were taken out in California.
I've been to Europe, it's full of color and vibrance, yet most of the
photos have little or no color. Did they think we were too stupid to
notice?
I never saw any destruction or bombed out buildings there.
Americans saw troop ships leave but we never saw them arrive. It was
too dangerous to use those ships anyway. We had much more advanced
vessels but they are hidden from the public. Everyone knows ships
crossing the ocean could sink.
All you have are some obviously faked photos and the stories of men who
were either "in on it" or who were dupped into thinking it was all real.
--- Andy
Fre...@liberty.com
Cashman) posted:
>In article <3aae19cb...@news2.ripco.com>, <Fre...@Liberty.com> wrote:
>>I indicated that there's more evidence than artifacts. There are still
>>the survivors of that War, millions of them, around the world.
>
>Now wait a minute...you say they prove the war happened, but you
>say they are all liars for saying the Axis lost? Am I missing
>something?
The very existence of the United Nations Proves the Dialectic
Manipulation known as WWII, as it was its Synthesis.
>>And what about the lack of WWII monuments? Sounds like there are
>>plenty of people out there who already know what a SCAM it was.
>
>One only need to go to any of thousands of small town America
>villages and communities. WWII monuments are all OVER the place.
>There's even one right here in my very own town that I can think
>off of the top of my head, featuring AA guns of a type identical
>to that found on a WWII cruiser of some fame.
Sure, there's the "Local Yokel" little stuff, from the little minds
who are Still DUPED to this very day into actually believing that they
were fighting for 'freedom' when in Reality, they were fighting
Against Freedom, and FOR a New World Order.
>>recently have some Abject Fools, or perhaps they're Damage Control
>>Agents, or both, been insisting on such a monument.
>
>So, if a WWII monument exists it proves we won WWII?
I didn't say such a thing.
>>Monument. That way that enormous, 555 foot tall PENIS of the Pagan god
>>of the DEAD and the UNDERWORLD, of the Mystery Schools, Osiris, could
>>finaly be completed with both TESTICLES, one for WWI, the other for
>>WWII.
>
>Oh brother. So, I guess any tall, vertical object is a phallic symbol?
If it's an OBELISK, it Sure as HELL Is a phallic symbol of
Osiris...That's WHY the Adepts of the Mystery Schools put it there.
>Quite a number of cities have them you know. Seattle. Toronto. Sydney.
>They all have rather tall phallic symbols.
Yep, they're all over, and that includes the Vatican as well.
>>>WW-II? Never happened.
>>
>>At least NOT Exactly as presented by the Criminal Class who Concocted
>>that Dialectic Manipulation, and Many others including the Moon Hoax.
>
>Laugh. You have absolutely no proof, either of the Axis actually
>winning WWII or us not landing on the moon.
Try thinking of "winning" in terms of applying to THAT WHICH SURVIVES,
the Proof thereof being that Fascism, Naziism, and Communism SURVIVE
to this very day in the Form of CommuNaziism, via the Very Same
Philosophy, NIHILISM, under the Control and Manipulation of Change
Agents, who Ruthlessly, Relentlessly, and Shamelessly Exploit the Very
Worst and Most Vulnerable Shortcomings Inherent in the FALLEN FLESH of
human nature whereby they Obtain CONSENT for the Next Holocaust.
Solution: WITHDRAW that CONSENT!!!
----------------------
THINK L I B E R T Y !
----------------------
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>Well, then, this flies in the face of the conspiracy
>theories which state that the government is hiding UFOs from
>us, doesn't it?
How so? Nothing in the above quotations states anything about UFOs,
secret or otherwise. It only mentions the BASIS for a Contrived
Scenario.
>According to this, the government should be
>trumpeting the fact that UFOs are a threat, not hiding them.
I wish they would, it would SINK them that much more quickly! Thanks
to American Patriots, they're being Exposed from ALL angles already
and their Damage Control Agents are going nuts just trying to 'patch'
the Gaping Holes now Clear Visible to ALL except the Totally Blind!
This Nation is DUE to be Restored, UFO Hoaxes or not, and the Enemy
Knows it!
----------------------------
THE RESTORATION IS UNDERWAY!
----------------------------
Fre...@liberty.com
<got...@UNSPAMunspamnetaxs.com> posted:
>In article <3AAE86B9...@kellogg.northwestern.eud>, CJS
><c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud> wrote:
>
>> > "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we
>> > often forget how much unites all the members of
>> > humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal
>> > threat to make us realize this common bond. I
>> > occasionally think how quickly our differences would
>> > vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside
>> > this world."
>> > --- President Ronald Reagan,
>> > in a speech made to the 42nd General Assembly of the
>> > United Nations, Sept. 21, 1987
>> > He inserted it in eight speeches during his time in
>> > office.
>>
>> Well, then, this flies in the face of the conspiracy
>> theories which state that the government is hiding UFOs from
>> us, doesn't it? According to this, the government should be
>> trumpeting the fact that UFOs are a threat, not hiding them.
>
>Methinks this guy should read the last couple of chapters of 'The
>Forever War'.
Nah, the Wizard of Oz dramatized it Much better, particularly in: "Pay
no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Bob Myers
"CJS" <c-sh...@kellogg.northwestern.eud> wrote in message
news:3AAFBA1C...@kellogg.northwestern.eud...
> > This Nation is DUE to be Restored, UFO Hoaxes or not, and the Enemy
> > Knows it!
>
>
> ...Craig
Haven't been around this group long, Craig? Stick around,
we get this stuff ALL THE TIME. By the way, you're up next
to by a round of drinks and popcorn...
Bob M.
Cary Kittrell
<
<Fre...@Liberty.com wrote:
<>
{...}
<>
<> I wish they would, it would SINK them that much more quickly! Thanks
<> to American Patriots, they're being Exposed from ALL angles already
<> and their Damage Control Agents are going nuts just trying to 'patch'
<> the Gaping Holes now Clear Visible to ALL except the Totally Blind!
<
Um, CJ? Excuse me, but you should be aware that you're talking
to the boy who also told us that the entire Y2K business was a hoax
deliberately designed to throw the public into a blind and vulnerable
panic, and that the only reason it didn't succeed was that "millions"
of undercover Patriots got the word out in time.
In other words, you aren't going to make any headway here. You're
arguing with a guy who has millions of Invisible Playmates.
Not a one of them a charming tipsy lapin, either.