MOON LANDING is a lie ?

237 views
Skip to first unread message

Walter Baeck

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 12:47:58 AM2/17/95
to
Hi there!

I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story
about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is
a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of
other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?
That's what I thought too - but Mark Peeters seems to have built a complete,
more or less consistent theory to explain all possible counterexamples.
He just won't listen to reason, even though the scientific side of his
theories looks doubtful to me, to say the least.

So I'd like to know about your thoughts, remarks, on this subject, and
maybe someone even could prove him wrong undeniably ?...
Please feel free to post a reply, in this group or to me personally -
that's to ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck) -
and I'll report back to him. Mark Peeters has no direct Net access, you see,
and even if he had, he'd probably not want to use it; in fact, he's quite
paranoid about this!

You'll probably want to know more about these theories of his, before you
react. Mark Peeters has been organizing regular meetings here in Leuven,
which have entertained a faithful but, alas, small public. Those meetings
are meant as discussions about the landing on the moon, but till now the
situation is still as it was at the beginning: M.P. doesn't 'believe',
and all the rest of us do. I'll try to summon up a few of the most
frequently used agumentations against Mark Peeters' theories;
these have shown up regularly at the meetings, but the - sometimes quite
disappointing - answer has always been the same.

Q. - What about the T.V. pictures of the landing on the moon ?
They looked pretty realistic and convincing; and so did the
pictures that show the whole Earth, or the dark side of the moon.
A. - All of these images are forgeries; everyone knows that pictures are
easy to fake. You could call this 'Virtual Reality' if you want.
Note that the landing on the moon was not broadcast "live" on T.V.,
although this was only admitted afterwards.
Mark Peeters has even brought a picture of the 'greeting of the Flag' on the
moon, which -as he claims- supports his case, because the shadows are visibly
inconsistent, and therefore indicate manipulation.

Q. - What about satellites ? Who transmits all our T.V.channels, telephone &
computer links, etc ?
A. - Human-made satellites don't exist, because flying into space to launch
them is impossible. Believe it or not, all the data transmission that
is now being allegedly done by satellites, actually happens with the
aid of AWACS airplanes, which cover the whole Earth surface in a
network of dozens of planes. They stay up in the air for 24 hours a day,
and get a tank fill regularly from a special aircraft.

Q. - Why organise such a complicated conspiracy, which involves the coopera-
tion of thousands of people all over the world, and costs millions of
dollars. Who profits from this massive lie ?
A. - The Catholic Church has been arguing for 2000 years now, that Maria gave
birth to Jesus without losing her virginity. We all know that's biolo-
gically impossible - and yet so many people have been thrown onto the
arena throughout the ages, to maintain this lie.
There's no directly visible profit here either - in fact, it just pays
to keep people dumb and blind, bound to your authority. That's the
motivation for the lunar landing conspiracy too.
REM sings "If you believe they've put a man on the moon,
then nothing is cool".

One of the basic elements of Mark Peeters theory is the impossibility of
'breaking through the sound barrier', leave alone flying to the moon.
His scientific explanation on this is rather fuzzy (as is most of what he
says..), but he remains convinced of it until an experiment will prove him
wrong.

Q. - What about supersonic flight ? Not only fighter jets, but even Concordes
fly faster than sound nowadays; and they're accessible to everybody
who'll pay....
A. - A plane can never fly faster than 340 m/s or 1200 km/h at sea level.
(All of you AngloSaxons, please convert these figures to the appropriate
units..). You'll find out when asking an air company about flight times
Europe - U.S. The air at the Earth surface rotates along with the ground
(that's one full tour in 24 hrs). But higher air layers move slower,
and eventually the top layers hang perfectly still. This means there's
a constant "draft" high above the ground; an aeroplane can take advan-
tage from this by climbing high enough. Then, it still flies no faster
than the speed of sound, relative to the air surrounding it. But to
an observer at sea level, it does seem to break the barrier....
Note that this effect will only work in one direction - and that's why
a transatlantic flight can take substantially more time in one direction
than the other.

Some people have contacted air companies (here in Belgium, that's Sabena :
02/723.23.23). A Concorde of British Airways flies from London (Heathrow)
to New York (JFK Airport) in 3h50, and back in 3h40, twice a day.
Unfortunately, the price is 2,642 ś for single flight and 4,367 ś for retour.
This means 1550 km/h - but Mark Peeters didn't find these figures convincing.
As you notice, some of us take this real seriously indeed !

Q. - So all these sympathetic scientists and astronauts are ruthless liars?
A. - Not necessarily; some might have some integrity left, but they're just
scared too much to let the truth out. All scientists undergo pressure
from higher cicles in society, and get threatened by secret services.
At this point, Mark Peeters referred to the rector of the University of
Brussels. This charming, tolerant man had murdered his wife for obscure
reasons, and had tried to make it look like a car accident, out of which
he miraculously escaped himself. Police were not very convinced, and even-
tually the rector confessed. The news caused quite a sensation here in little
Belgium! Mark Peeters : "Who says they didn't kill the Rectors wife,
arranging it to make him look guilty, and threatening to kill him too, if
he didn't give up some scientifical meanings that were not 100% compliant
with mainstream opinion ?" Well, who says..... Therefore,

Q. - Why don't you get lost ?
A. - Mind you, I just might !! If that happens, don't trust any accident/
suicide/illness explanation given to it. They're after me too, because
I'm a threat to the whole lunar landing conspiracy. There's too much
at stake.

Mark Peeters claims that when he was a student himself (that must have been
sometime ago, but he refuses to tell his real age - of course !), some
professor of his confessed to him about the forgery, but asked not to spread
this news any further, and certainly not to mention his name.
He has been bothering the engineering students' organisation, and even some
current professors, with his questions. Most people are willing to admit
that the lunar landing might not actually have taken place, but say it is
surely technically possible.
Another quote : Pres. JFK seems to have said in some year preceding the
lunar landing itself "If I say we're going to put a man on the moon,
then I speak bold".......

So let me ask a question now, particularly towards the Americans.
Mark Peeters says a lot of U.S. citizens don't believe themselves that NASA
actually succeeded in landing on the moon. Somebody called the P.R. service
of NASA, and found out they admitted 20 % of the American people shares
this opinion !! The official added that this was due to <<mistrust in
government>>, which seems to be widely spread in the U.S. I'm personally
quite amazed by these figures : how do you Americans expect us, the rest of
the world, to believe you guys landed on the moon, if you don't even believe
that yourselves ?! My impression is the doubt here in Europe is much smaller;
in fact, Mark Peeters was the first person I heard questioning the lunar
landing in my life.

Well, I think that's about all. I hereby wellcome all reactions; if possible,
I'll get all of them through to Mark Peeters himself. So long,

Walter.
(ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be)


"A small step for one man, a giant leap for mankind" - Neil Armstrong

Carl Warnell

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 2:40:27 PM2/17/95
to
I think somebody's been watching Capricorn One again... :-)
--
_____ . . <|
Carl Warnell ' o/ FORE! . . |
b...@bogart.demon.co.uk | . . . . |
/| . . ...o

Pete Finlay

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 6:42:20 PM2/17/95
to
In article: <3i1dae$k...@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be> ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck) writes:
>
> Hi there!
>
> I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
> Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
> himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story
> about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is
> a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of
> other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?

Walter, there's absolutely nothing *pseudo* about Mark Peeters. He's a full-blown, Grade-A, certifiable lunatic.

> {large bit cut out}

I spent 10 years in the Royal Air Force here in Britain. I've flown supersonic aircraft . I've spent the last 15 years working for
British airlines, flying Boeing 707, DC-10, and Boeing 747 aircraft as a Flight Engineer. I have flown in Concorde as a
passenger, and it does go supersonic. I have used Satellite communications.

Peeters theory of AWACS aircraft relaying all the messages instead of satellites is so funny <g>

let me know when he goes back to his planet.

cheers
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Finlay e-mail: pe...@meads.demon.co.uk
Bexhill on Sea 7204...@compuserve.com
in the South of England fax: +44 01424 846860
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Dahlstrom

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 8:08:16 PM2/17/95
to
Obviously I am convinced that the Moon landings were real.
(I'm afraid I don't have as much personal evidence for the
existence of Belgium, though. I visited Belgium once, but it
could have been faked. :-)

It can be surprisingly difficult to prove something like the
Moon landing if you cannot agree on some basic assumptions
and what will be valid evidence. I am sure there is nothing
I could type into this computer that would convince that fellow.

THE EARTH IS INSIDE OUT
Another interesting example was the cult in the late 1800's to
early 1900's that believed the Earth was inside out, and that
we lived on the inside of a hollow Earth. Apparently, some
physicists tried to counter their arguments - but they could
not win. All evidence (like the horizon, the sun, stars) was
"just an optical effect caused by the atmosphere". How do you
win an argument like that?

These crazy ideas are good for amusement. But they can also
make us think about how we decide what to believe.

CONSPIRACY IS COMPLEX
Conspiracy theories are always more complex in that they require
the appearance of all the other activity, plus extra coordinated
activity kept secret by large numbers of people. You could
apply a kind of 'Occam's razor' to say that the simpler theory
(no conspiracy) is probably right. There have been some big
conspiracies, but they also did not last too long before they
were exposed.

FAITH IN SCIENCE
I think there are many areas where we rely on some kind of faith
in the scientific process. In theory, scientists base their
ideas on direct evidence - but who has time to check everything?
In most scientific studies we cannot check the results ourselves.

E.g. many of us are happy to accept statements like 'the age of
this star cluster is 5 billion years' but how many of us can
check the stellar evolution theory - or take the time to do so?

COMPETITION IN SCIENCE
To support our faith in generally accepted views, I think we rely
on the existence of competition and a kind of scientific 'market
system'. If something important is incorrect, we need to believe
that someone would benefit by pointing this out.

RADICAL IDEAS
I think the free and open discussion of ideas - no matter how
radical - is very important to our society. More important than
we realize. If we suppress radical views, we can end up losing
the mechanisms that help us make progress.

There have been cases of long lasting incorrect theories when
dissent was suppressed. For example, politically based genetic
theory in the 1950's Soviet Union contributed to many crop
disasters.

But even if we encourage discussion, that still doesn't mean we
have to believe the crazy ideas. The burden of proof is on the
person with the radical idea. Good luck with the lunatic.

- Eric

* E.L.Da...@LaRC.NASA.GOV * +1 804-766-9635 * ISU'91 USA *
* Lockheed Eng & Sci Co, 144 Research Drive, Hampton, VA 23666 *
* home: 6314 Auburn Lane, Hampton, VA 23666 * +1 804-838-4797 *

Carl J Lydick

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 11:43:13 PM2/20/95
to
In article <3i1dae$k...@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>, ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck) writes:
=Q. - What about satellites ? Who transmits all our T.V.channels, telephone &
= computer links, etc ?
=A. - Human-made satellites don't exist, because flying into space to launch
= them is impossible. Believe it or not, all the data transmission that
= is now being allegedly done by satellites, actually happens with the
= aid of AWACS airplanes, which cover the whole Earth surface in a
= network of dozens of planes. They stay up in the air for 24 hours a day,
= and get a tank fill regularly from a special aircraft.

Dozens of planes would be far from sufficient, unless, of course, they were
flying at geosynchronous altitude, or there's a world-wide conspiracy
involving everybody who's ever installed a satellite dish. You see, those
dishes are disigned and aimed so that they point at geostationary orbit. Which
causes a problem if you've got two or more dishes a fair distance away from
each other. Consider an airplane flying at an altitude of 20 miles. If it's
directly over one dish, it'll be 45 degrees away from overhead for another dish
20 miles away. That's a rather noticeable difference, when you consider the
fact that misaiming the dish by less than two degrees generally causes you to
lose the signal. That means you'd need to have a grid of planes spaced less
than a mile apart flying over any area with satellite dishes, if the planes
were flying at an altitude of 20 miles. Each of these planes would have to be
flying in tight circles. But it gets worse than that: Each of these planes
would appear to be in the appropriate position for different satellites,
depending on which ground station you're looking from. So each plan would have
to carry a repeater and dish for each alleged satellite, and these dishes would
have to be continuously reaimed as the plane changes course. So we're talking
about millions of such planes, each equipped with all the electronics and
ancillary equipment for several satellites just to service the United States.
Then you have to consider the problem of overlapping footprints for the dishes
on the assorted planes.

="A small step for one man, a giant leap for mankind" - Neil Armstrong

No, he said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Frances Teagle

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 11:34:19 AM2/21/95
to
In article <3i1dae$k...@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>,

Walter Baeck <ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>Hi there!
>
>I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
>Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
>himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story
>about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is
>a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of
>other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?

Hm... I believe the Flat Earth Society is still in existence. Peeters
might find some soulmates there.

FT

Gary and Jean Peach

unread,
Feb 22, 1995, 3:02:15 PM2/22/95
to

> Subject: Re: MOON LANDING is a lie ?
> Date: 21 Feb 1995 16:34:19 GMT
Quote :-

> >I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven,
> Belgium. >Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this
> pseudo-lunatic who calls >himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an
> alias). He claims the whole story >about space flight, satellites and
> particularly the landing on the moon is >a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by
> governments, scientists and a whole lot of >other public
> personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?
>
> Hm... I believe the Flat Earth Society is still in existence. Peeters
> might find some soulmates there.
>
> FT
End Quote

Yeah perhaps they would bury him.

One of the conspirators
Gary Peach G7SLL Jean Peach
Wisdom to perceive, Lace the Ultimate thread
Grace to acknowledge Choice innocuous, flameproof
Ex DSS 42 Project Apollo

GuiCli

unread,
Feb 22, 1995, 5:02:56 AM2/22/95
to
There was an interesting article in WIRED about this "lie" some time ago
. I believe itwas issue 2.10

GuiCli

T.E.Thack...@lesueloc.com

unread,
Feb 23, 1995, 8:40:46 PM2/23/95
to ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be
writes:

> Hi there!
>
> I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
> Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
> himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story
> about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is
> a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of
> other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?
> That's what I thought too - but Mark Peeters seems to have built a complete,
> more or less consistent theory to explain all possible counterexamples.
> He just won't listen to reason, even though the scientific side of his
> theories looks doubtful to me, to say the least.
>
> So I'd like to know about your thoughts, remarks, on this subject, and
> maybe someone even could prove him wrong undeniably ?...
> Please feel free to post a reply, in this group or to me personally -
> that's to ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck) -
> and I'll report back to him. Mark Peeters has no direct Net access, you see,
> and even if he had, he'd probably not want to use it; in fact, he's quite
> paranoid about this!
>

Firstly, I am a personal witness to three shuttle launches beginning
with STS-26 after the Challenger accident.

Secondly, I have observed (over the years) overhead passes by Skylab,
the Hubble Space Telescope, and various shuttles.

Thirdly, there is a program called STSPLUS which plots satellite ground
paths onto a world globe. It even allows you to choose a primary
satellite to track and it will sound an audible warning when a visible
satellite comes up over the horizon. I have used this program to track
the MIR station, Hubble, and the various shuttles. It can also project
forward and show you the exact time and direction od passage. I have been
able to go outside and see MIR come up over the horizon exactly when
predicted.

I am going to E-mail you a separate attachment with my copy of STS-Plus
along with the last Two Line Element (TLE) file I got out of the news-
group SCI.SPACE.NEWS that is posted there by T.S.Kelso. STSPlus is an
MS-Dos based program that will run on a 386 or higher. The results are
better if you get the most recent TLE file (less than 72 hours old).

I suggest you run the program and get good at predicting and viewing
various satellites. Then take him outside and let him view them as they
pass overhead. (Get good yourself first, otherwise he's liable to say
'I told you so'!). If he balks and claims them to be airplanes, then set
up a theodolite baseline of 1000 to 2000 feet and show him how you can
triangulate airplane's altitudes (Using phones to synchronize your
tracking altitudes and azimuths). Then show him how the same readings
for the MIR are *much* higher than airplanes. Then move the trackers
a mile apart & try airplanes & the MIR again. If he's still not convinced
then go to 5 miles and then even 10 miles apart. 10 miles should just
barely give you the 225 mile MIR altitude. Also, by plotting the distance
covered in "X" number of seconds you can show him that MIR is covering
300 miles per minute. Sonic speed is 12.35 miles per minute. You can also
point out that if the atmosphere stood still at altitude the fastest you
would gain would be 1040.4 mph at the equater - about 17.34 miles per
minute.

The best viewing for MIR is just after sunset or just before sunrise
when MIR is in sunlight and you are in shadow viewing MIR's sunlit side.
The usual practice is for the object to "suddenly" disappear as your
view passes from sunlit to shadow side.

If he's still not convinced perhaps a bunch of you could cough up the
$6000 for a ride on a MiG-25 Foxbat at Mach 2.5

You can also demonstrate with high power rifles how the bullet travels
up to 6 times the speed of sound. (Get 1000 yards away. Make a loud noise
which takes 3 seconds to get to you. Shoot at a target to your side &
show him how the bullet takes only 1/2 second.)
go outside at the time it predicted and observed

Ulf Lindroth

unread,
Feb 26, 1995, 11:31:25 PM2/26/95
to

>From: ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck)


>Hi there!
>
>I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
>Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
>himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story
>about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is
>a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of
>other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ?
>That's what I thought too - but Mark Peeters seems to have built a complete,
>more or less consistent theory to explain all possible counterexamples.
>He just won't listen to reason, even though the scientific side of his
>theories looks doubtful to me, to say the least.
>
>So I'd like to know about your thoughts, remarks, on this subject, and
>maybe someone even could prove him wrong undeniably ?

Get real Walter. I'll take as much time on this as it takes to suggest that
Mark Peeters is Walter Baeck.

Ulf Lindroth

vanh...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 1:58:52 PM2/28/95
to

In article <lindroth.2...@tpa.cent.com>, <lind...@tpa.cent.com>
writes:

> >From: ba...@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck)
>
> >Hi there!
> >
> >I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
> >Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls
> >himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). ...

>
> Get real Walter. I'll take as much time on this as it takes to suggest that
> Mark Peeters is Walter Baeck.
>
> Ulf Lindroth


Well, I can testify, Marc Peeters is not Walter Baeck,
and Walter Baeck is not Marc Peeters.
Walter really means this serious.

But it's not worth it to try to convince Marc Peeters,
a scizofrenic-paranoid.


Erwin Van Hoof
ESAT
K.U.Leuven

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages