Searching \ for '[OT]: Moon landings hoaxes ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=moon+landings+hoaxes
Search entire site for: 'Moon landings hoaxes ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Moon landings hoaxes ?'
2001\09\01@083029 by Jinx

face picon face
I saw a program tonight called "Conspiracy Theory - Did
We Land On The Moon ?", and I have to say it was quite
convincing

A man called Bill Kaysing (many references to him found with
Google, eg http://www.okneoac.com/kaysing.html) claims that
so-called Moon landings by NASA were in fact filmed in the high
deserts of Nevada. He cites such discrepancies as

- shadows that indicate multiple light sources
- persons and craft details well-lit even in the darkest shadows
- movement not consistent with 1/6th gravity
- no blast crater by the LEM, despite the force of its engine
- instability of the LEM in testing, and the minute chance
 of it making so many Moon landings perfectly
- no background stars
- no disturbed dust settling on LEM footpads
- flags appeared to wave in a breeze
- the same background appearing in different missions
- no radiation sickness of astronauts passing through the
 Van Allen belt, particularly as there was an enormous
 solar flare at the time of Neil Armstrong's mission (and
 a possible reason why the Soviets did not attempt a
 lunar mission)
- photographic crosshairs sometimes partly obscured by
 foreground objects, when crosshairs must be on top of
 anything in the photos
- a string of untimely deaths of astronauts (25% of NASA's
 squad) considered to be potential whistleblowers

He claims the whole hoax exercise was Cold War politicking
after the Russians gave the US Govt a dose of the green apple
splatters by getting Sputnick in orbit, possibly paving the way
for sub-space missile trajectories

The NASA representative gave the weakest of defences to
these claims, such as "this is all baloney, for the simple fact
there are human footprints on the Moon". Duh, who's word
have we got for that ? And simply dismissing any claim as
"wrong" without any argumentative evidence

I did see Capricorn One many years ago, but never realised
many many people actually believe the US Govt perpetrated
such a huge hoodwink

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@095741 by Russell McMahon

picon face
> I saw a program tonight called "Conspiracy Theory - Did
> We Land On The Moon ?", and I have to say it was quite
> convincing
>
> A man called Bill Kaysing (many references to him found with
> Google, eg http://www.okneoac.com/kaysing.html) claims that
> so-called Moon landings by NASA were in fact filmed in the high
> deserts of Nevada. He cites such discrepancies as
>
> - shadows that indicate multiple light sources
> - persons and craft details well-lit even in the darkest shadows


I missed the program but my wife MAY have recorded it. This has been well
addressed in the past  on the ARocket list to which I subscribe and I
believe there is also very substantial rebuttal available of all points.
Some quite capable space people who are quite independent of NASA reject
these cklaims utterly (as can be imagined). The easily made points that seem
hardest to refute to me are the laser retro-reflectors left on the moon -
you can target these any day you want given the right equipment. Of course
the conspiracy theorists will say that those with such equipment are in on
the hoax.

Anyone who wants an 80 odd email thread on this just ask (offlist) and I'll
send them to you :-)
I met Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) a few years ago and (for reasons that would
upset some people if I shared them here) I believe his story.

Here's part of the email exchange on this
Henry Spencer is well known as a space and C guru and is ALWAYS right
(almost :-) ).


RM

____________________________________________

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, John Dom wrote:
> Isn't the laser reflector put on Luna working anymore?

Several of the Apollo missions emplaced laser retroreflectors as part of
their surface-experiment packages.  Those are still working, although it
takes professional equipment and serious effort to demonstrate this (you
get an average of just one photon back per laser pulse).

>That 'd be proof, no?

No.  It just proves that a soft landing was made, not that it was manned.
One or two of the Soviet unmanned landers also had reflectors.

It's a religion.  The Apollo-never-happened believers just reinterpret or
ignore any conflicting evidence.

                                                         Henry Spencer
                                                      spam_OUThenryTakeThisOuTspamspsystems.net

__________________________________________________

and

____________________________

A fellow in a cafe overheard a friend and me talking about this stuff
and commented about the retroreflector being proof of landing to which I
replied that it takes specialised equipment to see it and "THEY" are the
ones with the equipment, to which he replied that he had seen it himself
in his Dad's lab in Boulder (I think it was Boulder).
Whew!
Looking forward:
Alan Shinn
_____________________________


PR people definitely altered Apollo fotos for release, tragic in light of
current questions. This is a universal practice in PR, it should not
surprise anyone.

Earthlight is very bright and was always present on the Apollo sites. In
addition there were reflections from equipment and from the spacesuits
themselves to offer some fill light. Note that the dust settles very
rapidly and there is no diffusion or spreading, difficult to take an
entire sound stage and evacuate it.

BC

_________________________________________________

Connie Steiert wrote:

> > There were several other funny things that they pointed out. Such as
> > being able to clearly see subjects that were in deep shadow (as though
> > they used photofloods),
>

The moon's surface is somewhat retroreflective.  A portion of the sunlight
tends to be sent back toward the sun.  Some of the pictures of an
astronaut's
shadow shows a bright "halo", or enhanced brightness right around the
shadow.
This concentration of light (relative to that for a Lambertian reflector)
should provide the back lighting.

The retroflecting property is due to the presence in regolith of many tiny
glass beads, which work like 3M projector screens (which are covered with
glass beads).

Charles
______________________________________________

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Jake Anderson wrote:
> in the 70's (I think) there was a TV show about astronauts on the moon
> and the way they got the people to "bounce" around was to tie them to big
> helium balloons that correctly offset their weight
> apparently it looked "right"

The real trick is how you make the *dust* behave right.  Dust in vacuum
at 1/6G behaves very differently from dust in atmosphere at 1G.

                                                         Henry Spencer
                                                      .....henryKILLspamspam@spam@spsystems.net
___________________________________________________

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@105113 by Jeff DeMaagd

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell McMahon <apptechspamKILLspamCLEAR.NET.NZ>


> I missed the program but my wife MAY have recorded it. This has been
well
> addressed in the past  on the ARocket list to which I subscribe and I
> believe there is also very substantial rebuttal available of all
points.
> Some quite capable space people who are quite independent of NASA
reject
> these cklaims utterly (as can be imagined). The easily made points
that seem
> hardest to refute to me are the laser retro-reflectors left on the
moon -
> you can target these any day you want given the right equipment. Of
course
> the conspiracy theorists will say that those with such equipment are
in on
> the hoax.

I think another refutation would be the moon rocks returned.  Something
had to bring them back, and geologists would say by the composition that
such rocks could not have been formed anywhere but there.  Still not a
problem with people that perform better at religion (or pseudo religion)
than they do at science.

Here is the refutation concerning the program Fox perpetrated:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Here is an interesting argument concluding that to properly fake it all
you'd have to do just as much work as actually going there.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11921&cid=260165

Jeff

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@105624 by Al Williams

flavicon
face
I've seen that show and it is largely misleading. (Disclaimer: I used to
work for Nasa as a contractor and my wife still actually works for Nasa
itself, so perhaps I'm still "in" on the conspiracy). However, many of the
anomalies have simple explanations. For example:

LEM is in front on a mountain in one shot and not in front of the same
mountain in another shot:
 Mountain is far away. One shot is taken in front of LEM and the other was
taken behind LEM.

No disturbed dust when LEM lands.
 The actual velocity (and thrust) of the LEM as it lands is quite low. If
you plot the velocity vs distance from surface, ideally the velocity will be
0 when distance is 0. As the velocity approaches zero, the thrust approaches
zero. Otherwise you'd take off again, or slam into the surface depending on
the vector component.

LEM instability.
 The LEM was never shown to be unstable. The flight dynamic simulator that
Armstrong and others crashed was a giant hovercraft that was made to "fly"
like the LEM under 1G. Obviously, that wasn't a very good idea.

Background stars and crosshairs.
 Some of the star issues are simply a matter of dynamic range of the
cameras in use. When the sun hits the relatively high albedo surface light
scatters (in many directions). When light is all around on Earth you can't
see the stars either. The cameras were mounted on the astronaut's chests
which were a bad place for them. Photographic post processing (and not even
digital post processing) to make the images look better caused some
distortions and other anomalies.

If you knew the internal structure of Nasa, you'd know there is no way they
are organized enough to put on a conspiracy of this scope.

When I first saw the show, I found it rather convincing too until I looked
into it, and thought about it some more. There are several refuting Web
sites:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html

http://www.websciencenews.com/article1005.html

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

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

Plenty more.

Regards,

Al Williams
AWC
* Control 8 servos at once
http://www.al-williams.com/awce/pak8.htm

> {Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@120605 by Jim

flavicon
face
Am I the only one on this list to have witnessed
every minute (or most of) of live TV originating
from the moon?

I was around 13 at the time and remember that period
pretty vividly. I was also into radio at that time - had
bought my *first* shortwave receiver at the age of 10 ...

The radio traffic, as we say in the telecom business now,
exhibited certain 'channel abnormalities' that would have
been beyond the imaginations of all producers - both then
*and* now.

What I would call 'squelch' noise bursts, occasional audio
break-up, the restricted audio bandwidth - the at times just
plain 'bad' audio due to clippers and limiters in various audio
chains in the systems they used in that day and age would have
been pretty difficult to have 'faked' with the randomness and
authenticity that did ocurr.

Not to mention the 'live' action broadcasts - nothing that I could
note at the time - nor now looking back from memory - appeared
out of the ordinary and you just know that *if* if had been staged
at least ONCE in awhile some 'things' would have gone snafu and
been caught by the public - it happens now in movies and other live,
and even taped events! I was a big fan of Sci Fi at the time -and kids
*can* discern between 'fakery' and and the real McCoy in fairly
short order ...

There also exists an independent 'witness' to these events, if
you will, in the form of the old Soviet Union - do you think that
just *possibly* they monitored every event, event bit of radio
traffic, every bit of radio-telemetry that originated from up there?

Of course they were listening! We and our propagandists were in
mortal combat with them and *their* propagandists! Had we been
'faking' it I suspect they would have blown the lid off that particular
conspiracy pronto!

IOW - we had to be genuine - the Ruskies were monitoring from
all around the world - including the Florida coast with their infamous
fleet of 'trawlers' ...

Of course, the conspiracy theorists, with books and video sales in
tow, can cite selected and selectively interpretated 'evidence' that
supports their contention - all the while leaving any 'proof' that these
missions were genuine on the cutting room floor. They are, if you
will forgive the analogy:  ==lawyers for the prosecution==.

Jim


{Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@125633 by rad0

picon face
Well, first of all what about tang? how do you explain that?

seriously,  I was thinking about the deadly radiation claim, that
the consiracy people say you would need four feet of lead just
to survive....

well, I was thinking about this, and to refute this, I thought that if
you calculated the time spent in the van allen belt, my numbers are
from memory, but I seem to remember that this radiation belt,
extends 25000 miles out from the earth,(I always remembered the
van allen belt as a magnetic field, not a radiation belt, but anyway)
if it is 25k miles, how long would you be in it anyway?  8 hours or so?

with the spacecraft and suits, for some shielding, this seems to me to
be manageable....

just a wag, don't have any definit numbers to use, just an estimate...


{Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@134531 by goflo

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> I missed the program but my wife MAY have recorded it.
> This has been well addressed in the past

Does'nt prove anything, but I was just down the road
when Apollo 11 lifted off  -  That piece of the hoax
was very convincing :)

regards, Jack

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@140308 by Randy Glenn

picon face
Is this the Fox special that you're talking about?

If so, what do you expect from the people behind "Who wants to marry a
millionaire"?

-Randy Glenn

Measure twice, cut once, curse, discard.
Repeat.=================================================
    .....PICxpertKILLspamspam.....home.com - EraseMEPICxpertspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com
          http://picxpert.dyndns.org
   Not that the site works yet, of course...
=================================================

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@141324 by Mike Kendall

flavicon
face
On the Van Allen belt.  Geo synchronous orbit is 24,000plus miles
approximately to my memory and classify as far earth orbit.  LEO is much
shorter of course.  What I'm getting at is the MEO (medium earth orbit) is
where the majority of the radiation occurs and hence one of the reasons
satellites are not common there.  I don't think there is 25,000 miles of
transited high radiation but much less and only most intense in the center.
I doubt they carried dosimeters but I'm certain if they did it would have
been very permissable for short term exposure.
Mike Kendall
{Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@163752 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
John Gardner wrote:
> Does'nt prove anything, but I was just down the road
> when Apollo 11 lifted off  -  That piece of the hoax
> was very convincing :)

Wish I had been there to see that.

Somebody needs to make and launch a Saturn V replica for those of us too
young to have seen (or remember) the original. That'll get the space
program back on track. :)

Any volunteers for an Open Engineering project to return to the moon? It
could be the first truly public space agency.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@173451 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>Any volunteers for an Open Engineering project to return to the moon? It
>could be the first truly public space agency.

Given the ISS ln LEO already, this looks like a much simpler job.
Most of that mass was just to get to LEO.
Hell, they could even recycle the landers!
All you need now, is a LEO-LLO shuttle, and a lander, and you even have a
hope in hell of a rescue!

--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org

I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@181130 by rad0

picon face
> Given the ISS ln LEO already, this looks like a much simpler job.
> Most of that mass was just to get to LEO.
> Hell, they could even recycle the landers!
> All you need now, is a LEO-LLO shuttle, and a lander, and you even have a
> hope in hell of a rescue!
>
they could load one on to a shuttle with some extra fuel ...heck they could
send a two ship!!!

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@181950 by Jinx

face picon face
> Is this the Fox special that you're talking about?
>
> If so, what do you expect from the people behind "Who
> wants to marry a millionaire"?
>
> -Randy Glenn

Dunno if it was originally broadcast on Fox. Made by Nash
Entertainment. Looking back, if it had been made in NZ
I think a complaint about unfair bias (10 theorists to one
pretty limp NASA refuter) would have been made to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority. The link I included with
the original post (Bill Kaysing's views) was OK until he
claimed that the Shuttle was destroyed to kill more whistle
blowers. A car crash would have been considerably cheaper.
Ditto for the capsule fire that killed Grissom

Another black mark was that he said the Weekly World News
had enthusiastically picked up his story. The WWN will pick
up ANY freakin' nutcase story enthusiastically. I'm surprised
they didn't ask why, if NASA went to the Moon, they didn't
bring back a piece of the double-decker bus someone
reckoned to be up there. Or was that the North Pole ?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@194622 by Tom Messenger

flavicon
face
It's pretty funny that many people have responded to this topic with
evidence that would indeed be fairly easy to fake. Moon rocks? Who says? Oh
yeah? Well, they must be in on the conspiracy also. And it doesn't take
much of this sort of thing to realize that if it WAS a conspiracy, there
must have been in the tens of thousands "in" on it.

Now maybe I'm naive (I am), but I don't know any two people who can keep a
secret let alone tens of thousands. Ground controllers around the planet
aiming radio telescopes at the moon, with staffs of dozens, contractors to
NASA, hams (many who aimed *their* antennas at the moon and received the
same signals), yada yada yada. It's mind bogling enough, the size of the
task to actually accomplish a moon landing let alone trying to fake one and
keep everyone quiet. And as someone else pointed out, it *was* a contest
against the USSR to see who could get there first and if they thought for a
moment that it had been faked, you can bet they would have gone way out of
their way to demonstrate the fact.

Finally, does anyone else notice a particular correlation regarding the
fact that the more easily one is convinced of the conspiracy, the lower
that the persons IQ is? Naw...

Yours in conspiracy,
Tom M.

I did some searching on the net by the way and found a photo I'm in that I
didn't know was there regarding Apollo 16.  There a picture at:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS16/10075883.jpg

of Apollo 16, just back from the moon, (or maybe just dropped from a '747)
with the USS Ticonderoga, CVS-14, recovery vehicle,  in the background with
yet another 5000 people on the deck being fooled. I'm in the center of the
group of squids with the funny white costumes on.

Must be my 15 minutes of fame, I guess.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@200929 by rad0

picon face
I don't know about your IQ theory...I think the more complex a persons' mind
becomes, the more it may be vulnerable to certain types of mind games...

I just started paying attention to conspiracies within the last year...and
if you do
any research at all, you'll find that they are prolific...they're
everywhere...and you've got
to ask why, if you're interested at all.

If you notice, along side the conspiracy crowd, in general, there are the
astrology crowd,
the psychic hot line crowd, you name it...the junk science crowd, the home
medicine
crowd, the mystic this or that crowd, finally leading to the religious
crowd..

the one thing in common to them all is an outright disdain for reason and
logic...

and in my opinion, the louder that the conspiracy crowd, along with the
others,
get...is just an indication of the distance the general culture is from
reason, facts, logic,
science and everything that come from these things...proof, truth,
observation...
mean nothing to these crowds....

but not to be dark about this, we still are marching forward with pics,
something to
be proud of...and biotech, nanotech, and other things to look forward to...

there just happens to be a hoard of people who choose not to focus, who
want to be clueless, the mass media is very much like a powerful drug...you
have
to be very careful when you plug yourself into it, but most people are
not...

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\01@204506 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:
>
> >
> >Any volunteers for an Open Engineering project to return to the moon? It
> >could be the first truly public space agency.
>
> Given the ISS ln LEO already, this looks like a much simpler job.
> Most of that mass was just to get to LEO.
> Hell, they could even recycle the landers!
> All you need now, is a LEO-LLO shuttle, and a lander, and you even have a
> hope in hell of a rescue!

Funny, thats exactly what I was thinking. Trying to do the entire flight
in one shot just isn't feasible in the long term.

I keep meaning to start a web page and see if I can get any serious
interest, I even registered terranspaceagency.[com org net]. Maybe once
I graduate.

I'd be a little concerned about using any of the old technology without
some significant upgrades. Sure, the old stuff worked, but it barely
worked. I've been reading a lot of the books and interviews and memoirs
and stuff about those days and one of the common threads seems to be
that we're lucky we didn't loose more people than we did. Increasing the
overall margin of safety should be the first priority.

Besides, just upgrading the electronics would probably double the
performance of the whole system. The LM electronics had to be water
cooled. A functionally equivalent upgrade wouldn't generate nearly as
much heat and could probably be air cooled. Think of how much mass could
be saved just from switching to air cooled electronics.

I wonder if we could fit the Apollo Guidance Computer in a PIC...
(assuming we could get a rad-hard PIC)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\01@205003 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
rad0 wrote:
>
> > Given the ISS ln LEO already, this looks like a much simpler job.
> > Most of that mass was just to get to LEO.
> > Hell, they could even recycle the landers!
> > All you need now, is a LEO-LLO shuttle, and a lander, and you even have a
> > hope in hell of a rescue!
> >
> they could load one on to a shuttle with some extra fuel ...heck they could
> send a two ship!!!

If only shuttle payload didn't cost $10K per pound. It would probably be
better to leave the lunar vehicles in Earth orbit and just use the
shuttle as, well, a shuttle. That way you're not hauling the lunar ships
up and down every time.

But you're right, STS could probably haul at least two LM/CM/SM sets up
to LEO. I think mass wise it should be able to do 3 or 4. Anybody know
the payload mass for the Saturn V? I know Endeavour can do somewhere
around 60,000lb. The other shuttles are closer to 50,000lb. The cargo
bays are 15ft x 60ft, I think.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\02@114913 by Randy A.

picon face
I guess I will put my two cents into the hoax thing.  I am 54 years old and I
actually worked on the end of the Gemini program and on the Apollo program
until 1969 shortly after the first moon landing.  If there was a hoax then
someone kept it a secret from those of us that ACTUALLY did the design and
fabrication of all that FAKE hardware.  It was my pleasure to actually meet a
number of the Astronauts personally and they sure did think they had been in
space.

The person that pointed out how difficult it would be to keep something like
that a secret is right on the money.  There were near to 100,000 people
involved if not over that number counting the subcontractors and people in
other friendly countries that helped monitor the space flights and moon
landings.

I was a the Georgia Nuclear Laboratory in Dawsonville, GA during the Apollo
project and we developed special Nuclear based measuring equipment for NASA.
There was no major radiation exposure to the Astronauts


Randy

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\02@131230 by Quentin

flavicon
face
My speck of moon dust:
As it has been pointed out here, there is no way that such an "hoax"
could have been kept secret.
I think the photo's are staged photo's that somehow slipped out and
somebody thought they were the real thing. Maybe those photo's were
taken with all good intentions for the media or promotion or what ever
they were for in the Apollo time.

Look at all the staged photo's going around of the Mars rover to show
people how it is (or going to be like) on Mars, you have to look twice
to make sure that they are not real.

I have a conspiracy theory about ... conspiracy.
Quentin

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\02@153746 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>
>I have a conspiracy theory about ... conspiracy.
>Quentin

Are you paranoid if you think everyone else thinks that you think that they
are out to get you?
:)
--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org

I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\02@174419 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> I don't know about your IQ theory...I think the more complex a persons'
> mind becomes, the more it may be vulnerable to certain types of mind
> games...

In general average people comprehend the world around them (or they
pretend successfully most of the time, esp. vs. their kids). The freaks
don't, and show it. That inlucdes both too low *and* too high IQs imho.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\02@182751 by Bob Barr

picon face
David VanHorn wrote:
>
>Are you paranoid if you think everyone else thinks that you think that they
>are out to get you?
>:)
>--

Don't forget: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're *not*
out to get you.

:=)



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\02@193156 by Ian Hynes

flavicon
face
"Randy A." wrote:
>
>
> The person that pointed out how difficult it would be to keep something like
> that a secret is right on the money.  There were near to 100,000 people
> involved if not over that number counting the subcontractors and people in
> other friendly countries that helped monitor the space flights and moon
> landings.
>
> Randy
>

There's an Aussie movie called "The Dish" that's well worth a look.
It's a
fictional comedy about the Parkes Radio Observatory in NSW when it was
used to relay TV transmissions of Armstrong & Aldrin's moonwalk. The
movie has these three stooges-type characters bumblimg around when the
US ambassador shows up at the telescope to listen firsthand to the
astronauts on the moon. Little does he know that the chuckle heads
have just wiped the computer and consequently have "lost" Apollo 11.
So
they rig up their own "lunar connection" to Armstrong et al to gull
the ambassador. Trouble is the intellectually challenged security
guard picks up the Tx on his walkie talkie and thinks _he's_ talking
to Niel & Buzz. Quite funny.

Er  .. I better mention that Parkes has a blurb about the movie in
their display room and in fact there was a team of about 80 Australian
& American engineers on the job, you're _not_ allowed to play cricket
on the dish and the US ambassador never visited Parkes anyway.

Jus' my 2c worth,  Ian.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\03@010448 by Quentin

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

> Are you paranoid if you think everyone else thinks that you think that they
> are out to get you?
> :)
No, that is called noidpara. It is also when you walk behind somebody
and you think that guy is getting paranoid that you are following him.
:)

Quentin

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\09\03@014743 by Jeff DeMaagd

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: Quentin <qscEraseMEspam.....ICON.CO.ZA>

> David VanHorn wrote:
>
> > Are you paranoid if you think everyone else thinks that you think
that they
> > are out to get you?
> > :)
> No, that is called noidpara. It is also when you walk behind somebody
> and you think that guy is getting paranoid that you are following him.
> :)

Let me get that straight - trying to get people thinking that you are up
to something evil or fearsome when you are not, or is it the fear that
other people already know what evil conspiracies you have planned
against them?  Or is it thinking that everyone thinks you are a spook?

Jeff

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\09\03@124828 by Quentin

flavicon
face
Jeff DeMaagd wrote:

> Let me get that straight - trying to get people thinking that you are up
> to something evil or fearsome when you are not, or is it the fear that
> other people already know what evil conspiracies you have planned
> against them?  Or is it thinking that everyone thinks you are a spook?
>
I'm not trying anything. It just is. Noidpara is a word me and my
friends coined one evening many years ago when we  had a discussion on
how paranoid people can be. So much so that even you get paranoid that
the other person will get paranoid on what you might or might not do,
thus: noidpara.

"I have a conspiracy theory about ... conspiracy."
That, if I am not mistaken, is a Stephen Wright gem. Still makes you
think though.

Quentin

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu


2001\09\04@102821 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
These hoaxes have been around a long time, and have been well debunked.
Here's a few:

>
> - shadows that indicate multiple light sources
On a planet covered with white titanium dioxide dust, it's bright.

> - persons and craft details well-lit even in the darkest shadows
See number 1

> - movement not consistent with 1/6th gravity
Bull
> - instability of the LEM in testing, and the minute chance
>   of it making so many Moon landings perfectly
It was a well engineered craft, and did so well in testing that the backup
LEM is sitting in the Smithsonian, never used since the first LEM put into
orbit passed it's tests with flying colors.

> - no background stars
They are much less bright than the glaring surface of the moon in full sun

> - flags appeared to wave in a breeze
Flags were on sticks to keep them out.  Without the sticks, the just hung
there.  They don't appear to wave in the breeze unless one is a hoaxmeister.


A closeup of an astronouts footprint and space-suit boots stepping down
reveals not a small dust cloud, but a perfectly spaced crater of small
impacts, where dust was launched into a tiny ballistic trajectory.  Stepping
into dust on Planet Earth produces a dust cloud around the foot.  This,
folks, is something that CANNOT be duplicated on any planet with an
atmosphere.   And how do you explain the one mile golf ball shot?

Of couse, the counter-argument is always "It was all faked, to the last
detail".    Assuming your conclusion is correct and making all the facts fit
is a standard junk science ploy.

I just LOVE hoaxes.  They make great dartboards.  Maybe this should have a
[JOKE]: tag?
--Lawrence

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@115758 by Douglas Butler

flavicon
face
We have much better footage of a Klingon Warbird landing in a San
Francisco park than any lunar landing... ;-)

But really, why would there be dust on the feet of the LEM?  If the
thrusters kicked up dust on landing it would have to bounce off of
something to get on top of the LEM feet.  Dust in a vacuum will travel
in a balistic line, not "settle".

Sherpa Doug

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@123239 by rad0

picon face
there is gravity on the moon...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Butler" <RemoveMEdbutlerspam_OUTspamKILLspamIMETRIX.COM>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Moon landings hoaxes ?


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@123314 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
Douglas Butler wrote:
>
> We have much better footage of a Klingon Warbird landing in a San
> Francisco park than any lunar landing... ;-)

That was so terribly fake. But then, I can't say that I really know how
Klingon propulsion systems work. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason
why the grass wasn't burnt to a crisp. :)

> But really, why would there be dust on the feet of the LEM?  If the
> thrusters kicked up dust on landing it would have to bounce off of
> something to get on top of the LEM feet.  Dust in a vacuum will travel
> in a balistic line, not "settle".

The engine that's blowing all the dust around is between the LM's legs.
So a lot of dust is being blown from the engine area outward past the
legs. The legs got in the way and collected some dust in the process.
You could also figure some dust bounced up off the bottom of the LM and
then onto the feet. A lot of dust apparently went upwards as all of the
pilots noted being engulfed in flying dust during the last few meters.
What goes up, must come down.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@125024 by Douglas Butler

flavicon
face
I read an article a few years ago in Invention & Technology magazine
about a 1950's plan  for moon shots from the Babcock & Wilcox company.
They were looking for a way to support a lunar military base with cargo
flights every week or two.
Their idea was to get the initial boost from a cannon dug into a
mountain side.  They would use natural gas for fuel to boil groundwater
and store the steam underground.  Due to speed of sound limitations they
would crack the natural gas into hydrogen for the working fluid in the
gun.  Steam at low velocity would push on the hydrogen, which has a very
high speed of sound.  The hydrogen would be accelerated by the channel
shape to high velocity to push the spacecraft out of the barrel.
At the end of the article it was noted that the spacecraft would be
followed by a muzzle flash of many tons of white hot hydrogen shooting
out into the atmosphere.  It would have been quite a sight!

Sherpa Doug

> {Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@134122 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Yes, but no atmosphere. Douglas said "dust in a vacuum" not "weightless
dust". The point is that the dust blasted out from the landing did not
"circulate" or was not restricted in its movement in such a way as to return
and "settle" on to the pads. It just flew on out in a ballistic arc
(affected only by the moons gravitational force) past the pads.

I watched a space opera animation with my step son this weekend where a guy
"floated" a lit cigarette though a weightless cabin over to another guy who
then held it and watched the smoke rise up...  I asked the kid what was
wrong with that picture and he said "Nothing burns in space since there is
no oxygen." Product of the great American school system. Sheesh.

---
James Newton, Admin #3 EraseMEjamesnewtonspamspamspamBeGonepiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 VM 1-208-279-8767 FAX
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@140817 by Jim Paul

picon face
This is true to a point, but wouldn't the dust settle at some short
time in the future?   The Moons gravity is about 1/9th that of the
earth's, so would the dust particle go 81 time further than on earth
before settling?   After all, if the is dust on the Moon to stir up,
it obviously must settle there too.

But, I know the point you are trying to make, and I would agree that
dust wouldn't necessarily settle on the top of the feet immediately
after being stirred up, and especially in the near vicinity.

                                             Regards,

                                               Jim




{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@142235 by SkinTech

flavicon
face
Well, the 1/6 gravity means that the dust accelerates toward the surface at
1/6 times the acceleration rate on earth. How FAR it goes depends on the
horizontal speed component, which remains approx constant during the dust's
'flight time' as there is no atmosphere to provide friction.
In fact, the absence of friction probably means that dust settles on the
moon a lot quicker then on earth, despite the lower gravity.

Jan Didden

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@151019 by John Ferrell

flavicon
face
AND without the damping of an atmosphere, it will come down with the same
force that drove it up.

John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"



{Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@163035 by Jinx

face picon face
> Product of the great American school system. Sheesh.

"In space no one can hear you sigh"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@163238 by Jinx

face picon face
> Their idea was to get the initial boost from a cannon dug into a
> mountain side

OK, you debunkers have been busy with the hoax. And doing a
bang-up job too. You're all in on it, right ? How about the lack of
an exhaust plume as the LEM left the moon's surface ?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@164320 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 08:34 AM 9/5/01 +1200, Jinx wrote:
> > Their idea was to get the initial boost from a cannon dug into a
> > mountain side
>
>OK, you debunkers have been busy with the hoax. And doing a
>bang-up job too. You're all in on it, right ? How about the lack of
>an exhaust plume as the LEM left the moon's surface ?

Is water vapour at that temperature visible in a vaccum?
I saw debris go flying, in a much flatter curve than I expected (no air)
and pieces of foil seemed to be going about as fast as pieces of other stuff.


--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org

I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@164858 by Giles Honeycutt

picon face
Forgive me if this has been covered.
What about looking at the lunar lander with a telescope.  Why can't we do
that?
I am not for or against this hoax, or hoax of a hoax.  Just trying to
understand the parts I can't figure out.

Best regards,
Giles


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@165534 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Fire in space (Zero G atmopshere) is actually very wierd.  A fire can often
burn in a sphere.  A candle flame, instead of rising, expands in a sphere,
eventually uses up all the available oxygen, and sputters out.  No
convection currents to drive O2 back into it.  Apparently there were some
fire experiments carried out on the space shuttle after the fire on Mir,
they had no idea what a fire would actually do.    The smoke may simply fill
the available cabin space, choking the poor buggers to death.


--Lawrence

> I watched a space opera animation with my step son this weekend where a
guy
> "floated" a lit cigarette though a weightless cabin over to another guy
who
> then held it and watched the smoke rise up...  I asked the kid what was
> wrong with that picture and he said "Nothing burns in space since there is
> no oxygen." Product of the great American school system. Sheesh.
>
> ---
> James Newton, Admin #3 RemoveMEjamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com
> 1-619-652-0593 VM 1-208-279-8767 FAX
> PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org
>
> {Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@165543 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
I'm in on the hoax.  It was actually my idea.  How bout you other guys -
wanna come clean after all these years?

--Lawrence ;-)
{Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@165753 by rad0

picon face
let it go buddy...just kidding...

there were particles flying about when the lem blasted off,
I remember that...from watching as a kid...

the web sites that put out the hoax-moon landing stuff are very convincing
when you follow allong with them, at least I thought so too, when I looked
at them...I'm not sure why this is so, it may be because the moon is such
an out of the normal realm, that it is just strange normally...no
atmosphere,
different lighting, gravity etc...


I think the hoax sites are either america haters or people trying to make
money
from tapes and so forth...

I just saw on pay cable, the 1992 richard hoagland show about the face on
mars...this
guy is a professional showman and nothing more, and even after nasa puts out
high
res pictures of the face, showing it to be nothing more than an unusually
eroded hill,
this guy just changes flavor and starts in talking about angles between the
adjacent hills
and other drivel.

So, these guys are trying to make a living...and I think they have plenty of
customers...


{Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@165915 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:
> OK, you debunkers have been busy with the hoax. And doing a
> bang-up job too. You're all in on it, right ? How about the lack of
> an exhaust plume as the LEM left the moon's surface ?

I asume by "exhaust plume" you mean the big billowing white stuff seen
on shuttle launches and other terrestrial launches. Its a result of the
exhaust interacting with the atmosphere. No atmosphere, no plume.

Well, not as much anyway. You can still see plumes from the shutte RCS
thrusters, but it depends on lighting angle. They're hard to capture on
video because they're so faint. (See the previous discussion on cameras
and lighting conditions) Of course, having never personally flown on the
shuttle I only know this second hand. (Some consiparcy nut asked an
astronaut about that when he came to give a talk on campus a few years
ago)

If you watch the Delta launch videos that are on the web you can usually
pick out a darkish halo trailing the vehicle. I assume this is an
exhaust plume, but I don't know why it can be seen at high altitudes or
why its so dark (maybe because the camera is picking up back-scatter and
not forward-scatter?).

Their apparent absense on the moon is probably both lighting angle and
the fact that the ground is too bright for the faint plume to show up in
the video. If you look at some of the videos of the LM lift-offs, you
will actually see small rocks flying by the camera.

Being in on the conspiracy is turning out to be a bum deal. I'm not
getting paid one cent for this. What's the pay like on the other side?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@171955 by Don Hyde

flavicon
face
The plumes have a lot to do with the chemistry of the rocket fuel.

The big glowing flames come from fuels that have carbon in them (like the
kerosene in the Saturn first stage, or the solid boosters on the shuttle).

The LEM ran on hydrogen and oxygen, which makes a flame that's hard to see
here on earth.

> {Original Message removed}

2001\09\04@174511 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
Giles Honeycutt wrote:
>
> Forgive me if this has been covered.
> What about looking at the lunar lander with a telescope.  Why can't we do
> that?

I've been wondering that too. Since you mentioned it I decided to break
out my trusty calculator and try some numbers.

Assuming we can get by with 1 meter resolution (the lander would only be
a few pixels across, but this is just for discussion), and the moon is
roughly 450,000km away, we'd need a telescope with a resolution of 2 *
tan (0.05/450,000,000) = 3.878 x 10^-11 degrees per pixel, which is 1.39
x 10^-7 arcseconds per pixel.

According to:
http://www.skypub.com/news/special/hst.html

Hubble's resolution after upgrades is 0.05 arcsecond. Thats about
360,000 times to low. I'm not sure how HST stacks up against other
telescopes.

Can somebody check my math? I didn't think it would turn out this bad.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@180540 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Brandon Fosdick <PICLISTSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> > What about looking at the lunar lander with a telescope.  Why can't
> > we do that?
> ....
> Hubble's resolution after upgrades is 0.05 arcsecond. Thats about
> 360,000 times to low. I'm not sure how HST stacks up against other
> telescopes.
>
> Can somebody check my math? I didn't think it would turn out this bad.

Guys:

You might find this interesting...

   http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions
         /apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html

You'll have to cut-and-paste that into one URL.

-Andy


=== Andrew Warren --- spamBeGoneaiwSTOPspamspamEraseMEcypress.com
=== Principal Systems Engineer, IPDSD
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@224355 by myke predko

flavicon
face
Don wrote:
> The LEM ran on hydrogen and oxygen, which makes a flame that's hard to see
> here on earth.

Actually, the LM's ascent and descent rocket fuel was 50% unsymmetrical
dimethyl hydrazine and 50% nitrogen tetroxide.  I believe the thrusters were
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide (same fuel as for the Me-163).

There was no liquid hydrogen in the LM at all (it used batteries instead of
fuel cells used in the CSM).


Regardless of the fuel used - why do you assume that you will be able to see
the flame in any case?  The flame for most high performance liquid rocket
engines is brightest in the ultra-violet region, not in the visible range of
the human eye - this is why missile launch monitoring satellites (the US
"DSP" Satellites) look down on earth with wide angle UV cameras for initial
launch detection and focus IR cameras to determine the precise point of
launch/missile trajectory.


Most of the arguments for the "moon hoax" theory is largely based on
assumptions that real rockets work like the ones in Hollywood movies and TV
shows.  All of the "facts" uncovered by the "experts" can be debunked by
either thirty seconds of thinking about it (like why you can't see the
landers on the moon) or by actually asking some questions that challenge the
notion that things in space work exactly like you would expect on Earth.


What I hate most about the "moon hoax" theorists is that they make it
difficult for people like me to be treated seriously when we try to prove
that JFK was killed by Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe to prevent him from
meeting space aliens.

myke

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@224404 by Giles Honeycutt

picon face
Brandon,
So, from what you are saying, a telescope can not make out a 1 meter object
on the moon?  I guess I will quit looking through my 15X :)

Also, if you are talking about the Hubble, does it get close to the moon
from time to time?

Does anyone know the max magnification from the Earth's surface?  I would
think their would be a limitation due to air.

Best regards,
Giles




{Quote hidden}

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@234332 by Randy A.

picon face
Would be sort of hard to breathe without suits on.  Were the guys in the
picture wearing space suits?  If not, then there was definitely oxygen there
or they wouldn't have been passing anything to each other.  :-)

Randy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\04@234957 by Randy A.

picon face
Dave:

You are correct.  When I was working in the project, I was told that a lot of
the flame, etc., that one would see from an exhaust is actually caused by
what is in our atmosphere and that if there is no atmosphere with oxygen,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen, well you get the picture, then there would be
little in the way of noticeable flames since most of the fuels we used
generated mostly water vapor.

Randy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\09\05@065407 by Martin Hill

picon face
From what I heard, there is a Chinese mission to map the moon in the next
few years.  This should prove it one way or the other.  I believe it's not
possible to see any evidence from the earth.

Martin

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\05@072004 by Alexandre Domingos F. Souza

flavicon
face
>Any volunteers for an Open Engineering project to return to the moon? It
>could be the first truly public space agency.

       Don't you remember a tv series called 'Savage'? :o)



---8<---Corte aqui---8<----

Alexandre Souza
KILLspamtaitospamBeGonespamterra.com.br
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/pinball/

---8<---Corte aqui---8<----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@073301 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>From what I heard, there is a Chinese mission to map the moon in the next
>few years.  This should prove it one way or the other.  I believe it's not
>possible to see any evidence from the earth.

One of my colleagues is working on an X-Ray scintillation camera which is
going on a demonstration mission to orbit the moon and map its minerals. I
guess it will find large lumps of very pure metal where the base of each LEM
has been left behind. As this is an ESA mission I guess it should be well
enough separated from NASA to silence the doubters.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@074129 by uter van ooijen & floortje hanneman

picon face
> As this is an ESA mission I guess it should be well
> enough separated from NASA to silence the doubters.

I have worked (indirectly) for ESA an I must admit that they too are in the
conspiracy (and so am I, so don't trust me).

Wouter van Ooijen

Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
Jal compiler for PIC uC's:  http://www.xs4all.nl/~wf/wouter/pic/jal

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@081302 by Walter Banks

picon face
Moon hoaxes and why we can't see the lander is the
subject of astronomy groups about every 3 or 4 months.
Earth based telescopes can exceed the resolution of
Hubble but are not able to resolve the lander on the moon
(even theoretically) There are limits to how much
magnification is possible with any given aperture

W..

Giles Honeycutt wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@090518 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
I suppose a fire expands as a sphere until the fuel runs out, or becomes so
thinly dispersed that it is below the combustible concentration, or cools
because of the increased surface area of the sphere.  A fire fed by a
spewing fuel source, such as the Mir disaster, could concievably fill the
entire capsule - yikes.  The American who was on the capsule at the time
said the fire was intense near the outer wall, a thin layer of aluminum
alloy between life and death.

Sailors on wooden ships used to be afraid of shipboard fires more than
anything else.  I'd assume astronauts would have the same qualms.

--Lawrence Lile

{Original Message removed}

2001\09\05@091937 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
Hi,

Not sure if this has been covered but what about the radiaton belts
surrounding the earth? I seem to remember that only the Apollo missions
ever traversed the belts which are very hostile to life. I know that the
Saturn V was big.......but big enough to dump a few hundred tons of lead
shielding into space?

While it would be nice to think that there were moon landings, I think that
the pressure of the cold war maybe got a little bit too much - especially
seeing as the USSR were the first to put a man in space.

Of course, I'd like to think that they did go so as not to detract from the
heroism and engineering feat that must have occurred if it is true.

Dan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@092639 by Bob Barr

picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
<snip>
>
>As this is an ESA mission I guess it should be well
>enough separated from NASA to silence the doubters.
>

I'm fairly certain that *someone* will be able to find 'proof' of some link
between the two agencies. This will therefore 'prove' that ESA is just one
more part of the conspiracy.

I don't believe that some doubters will ever be silenced.

Regards, Bob



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@101456 by Brandon Fosdick

flavicon
face
D Lloyd wrote:
> Not sure if this has been covered but what about the radiaton belts
> surrounding the earth? I seem to remember that only the Apollo missions
> ever traversed the belts which are very hostile to life. I know that the
> Saturn V was big.......but big enough to dump a few hundred tons of lead
> shielding into space?

Didn't we cover this one already?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@102414 by uter van ooijen & floortje hanneman

picon face
> > Not sure if this has been covered but what about the radiaton belts
> > surrounding the earth? I seem to remember that only the Apollo missions
> > ever traversed the belts which are very hostile to life. I know that the
> > Saturn V was big.......but big enough to dump a few hundred tons of lead
> > shielding into space?
>
> Didn't we cover this one already?

Sure, but we are all in the conspiracy, so what does it prove ;)

Wouter van Ooijen

Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
Jal compiler for PIC uC's:  http://www.xs4all.nl/~wf/wouter/pic/jal

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@111204 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
"Didn't we cover this one already?"

Probably....hence the "Not sure if this has been covered"....What was the
conclusion? I managed to delete a chunk of PICLIST mail during a
post-holiday cleanout frenzy.

Dan

To: EraseMEPICLISTspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:
From: Brandon Fosdick <@spam@bfoz@spam@spamspam_OUTGLUE.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT]: Moon landings hoaxes ?



D Lloyd wrote:
> Not sure if this has been covered but what about the radiaton belts
> surrounding the earth? I seem to remember that only the Apollo missions
> ever traversed the belts which are very hostile to life. I know that the
> Saturn V was big.......but big enough to dump a few hundred tons of lead
> shielding into space?

Didn't we cover this one already?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@123717 by nrad Labuschagne

flavicon
face
OK here is my 10c worth, I must admit I am no scientist:

1. Ive stared at the moon lots of times through my binocs. And is it not
true that the moon always shows the same side to earth? This means that the
dark side is never visible from earth. If so, the dark side of the moon
could very well have an enormous station with thousands of people living and
working there who have "died" and gone "missing" or were "transferred". So
what if the first space landing was there ? Off course it will not visible
from earth. Think of it this way, space race-get to the moon, land on the
dark side to scout a base location. And then, why are there no more frequent
trips to the moon ? because of a secret base or just no interest afterall ?
I think the moon will make a very safe place to be, considering earth is
really dangerous and volatile with us on it. Heh ???

2. Then, you can see some real camera shots of the moon and mars on some
websites. I haven't checked, but I don't know of satelite images showing
where the lunar landing was. Anyone know ?

I have considered both the "truth" and the "hoax" and I can't make up my
mind which is real. Maybe being is believing, not seeing.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@131749 by gacrowell

flavicon
face
I was ROTFL the other day when some program had this Kaysing guy debating
Richard Hoagland about the moon hoax.  Kaysing, was promoting his mindless
moon landing hoax junk, while Hoagland was saying the landings couldn't have
been a hoax because they brought back (covered-up) photos of the alien
cities on the moon.  It was a riot.

Maybe we could get all the conspiracy theorists debating each other like
this and they'll just go off and implode somewhere.

GC

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@155534 by Barry Gershenfeld

picon face
>> What about looking at the lunar lander with a telescope.  Why can't we do
>> that?

> 1.39 x 10^-7 arcseconds per pixel.

>Hubble's resolution after upgrades is 0.05 arcsecond. Thats about
>360,000 times to low. I'm not sure how HST stacks up against other
>telescopes.

Ooh, but Hubble's a hoax, too.  ;-)  Even the mistakes were faked :-o

Barry

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@183000 by Jinx

face picon face
Synchronicity - from this morning's Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/06/national/national22.html

"Practice" they say. Ha !!

(Alice - what was that you were say off-list about faking a
Martian background :-)  )

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@195332 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>Ooh, but Hubble's a hoax, too.  ;-)  Even the mistakes were faked :-o

Otherwise, it would have been too believable!

Grissom, Chaffee, and White were about to blow the whistle on the whole thing!
(not! Actually, true heroes.)
--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org

I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\05@210652 by Randy A.

picon face
In a message dated 9/5/01 9:27:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spamBeGonebob_barrspamKILLspamHOTMAIL.COM writes:


{Quote hidden}

There are some people that still think the earth is flat, they are called the
Flat Earth Society.  You just can't convince some people.

Randy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\09\06@013026 by Jinx

face picon face
18 years ago, I wrote

> Synchronicity - from this morning's Sydney Morning Herald
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/06/national/national22.html
>
> "Practice" they say. Ha !!

Happy 25th Birthday PIClist !!!!

Last night's Channel 219 cortex download was a documentary
entitled "Mars Landing - Did We Really Bother ?". It was a very
convincing argument for the case that there have been no manned
Mars landings, and that all film and released NASA information is
a hoax. Some of the points raised by the program were -

- what seemed to be a kangaroo paw print next to George Y
 Bush's bootprint in the "Martian" dust
- huge clouds on the horizon not a "Martian dust storm" but in
 fact a grass fire
- involuntary arm movements by the astronauts. NASA claims
 these were caused by some slight radiation sickness  Conspiracy
 theorists contend the movements very reminiscent of "the great
 Aussie wave", citing
- corks hanging from the astronaut's helmets to ward off flies
- Industrial Light And Magic logos on space suits
- views inside lander showed what looked to be rows of small
 dinosaurs and sci-fi action figures. Theorists - cynical product
 placement. NASA - astronauts personalising work space
- claims that static was over-dubbed onto the film to mask someone
 saying "chuck us a tinnie Barry"
- what appears to be a poorly disguised NSW number plate on the
 Martian rover. And that the rover has mag wheels. And bucket seats
- despite the CO2-laden atmosphere, astronauts have no problem
 starting a fire under a billy can to heat meals
- astronauts shouldn't smoke roll-your-owns or wear shorts
- mission control ends each transmission with "over". Astronauts
 end each transmission with "mate"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\09\07@011909 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> Can somebody check my math? I didn't think it would turn out this bad.

Your math is probably right but I think that a scheme could be devised to
look at the shade of the lander instead, which would be significantly
larger at times and might project some details. I do not know where the
lander lies but a shadow of at least 50 meters could be counted on I
think. Also the lander is probably shiny metal and its reflectance is high
enough that it can be picked up in a blurred pixel or by some other means.

Of course you could use the retro reflectors if you had a big enough
laser.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\07@012001 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> Fire in space (Zero G atmopshere) is actually very wierd.  A fire can
> often burn in a sphere.  A candle flame, instead of rising, expands in a
> sphere, eventually uses up all the available oxygen, and sputters out.
> No convection currents to drive O2 back into it.  Apparently there were
> some ...

Afaik all zero g habitats take special care of air circulation and
exchange because it is not just fires that can go out, apparently you can
suffocate in your own CO2 if you stay in one place and these systems do
not work. This could make f.ex. sleeping a final (or impossible) activity.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistserv.....spamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\07@170430 by Vispanathan Naicker

flavicon
face
My little bit ....
some of you are defending it about the amount of people involved in the
whole mission etc ....about how they all  could not be on a conspiracy
without something slipping out ...

But when those guys got high they took a trip around the moon
.... and ...
- 0. easily could have come back WITHOUT landing.

So we should concentrate on that bit and all the logistics that go with it:
a) Therefore it  doesn't need THAT many people to be on it.( all the real
technology -read evidence - were neccesary for up to orbitting Moon )
..... ) add more here , you nuts

and my speculations and disbeliefs :

-1. how many more astronauts have been through such radiation and anything
as prolonged since ?

-2.Have they ( all cosmosnauts particulary ) any kids since ? funny looking
? have any of their kids all and only two nuts ? or have they (as_t's)  all
their intact ?

-3. despite the reports ( I have not yet examined the EvidEncE of both fact
, theory and practical science of the time ) I find it hard to believe that
we could sucessfully send 3 guys a zillion miles , ask them to SUCESSFULLY
land a pod on the moon , get out in thinner protection to more radiation
etc.and to SUCESSFULLY take off again ( weren't we landing in the sea during
that period ? ... I know ... Gravity is much weaker on moon  ... etc). Then
to Sucessfully to mate with the mothership to transfer our two guys back
with the third manning the main thingy all by himself and then to
SUCESSFULLY ( last time I promise ) get back towards earth and then landing
to the adoration of millions of earthlings.

-4. Three guys ? why not four ? or five ? whos to fully know... not a
thousand people need do. HOT one - Maybe we left someone behind who Really
did land/crash on
the moon. (don't shoot this one with these someones would be missed by
someone or that they wouldn't give up their lives or the audio evidence on
board)

-5. Everyweek we see our heroes being blasted off towards the moon a lot.
But I never have seen Wile Coyote , daffy duck , Timon , Phumba , the cow
etc EVER coming back.

Okay it boils down to my disbelief without looking at any evidence. A NASA
conspiracy cannot be  discounted as per  point 0.   And point 2 , together
with that PIC's came out only in the 80's is my PROOF. However , lets
discuss points 0 and 4

( ... er this is just a joke ... I am a crank ... see my tin foil hat ...
NASA MIB's do not try to trace me as I have been just messing around )


SUCESSFULLY  ;-)


> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
and etc

SUCESSFULLY  ;-)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservKILLspamspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\09\08@014852 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
This is just an example of a difference of opinion.

Many say "Unless you can prove beyond any doubt (nevermind reasonable
doubt), I will continue to believe that it didn't happen."

Whereas others believe that the burden of proof lies with the person
trying to disprove the act, sort of an "innocent 'till proven guilty" deal.

I'd say that NASA has more than proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that
they landed on the moon.  The burden of proof to disprove should now lie
with the naysayers.  Rather than saying, "Well, if you fulfill these
conditions, then they show that it /could/ have been faked."  They have
yet to show, however, that it /was/ faked.  ie, their evidence is
substantially weaker than NASA's, and is based on theories and what-if
scenarios.

I'd say, let lying dogs sleep... er, is it the other way around?  I'm
confused so easily...

-Adam

Randy A. wrote:

>There are some people that still think the earth is flat, they are called the
>Flat Earth Society.  You just can't convince some people.
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu


2001\09\08@101609 by Jeff DeMaagd

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy A. <RemoveMECnc002spamspamBeGoneAOL.COM>

> There are some people that still think the earth is flat, they are
called the
> Flat Earth Society.  You just can't convince some people.

They do have a web site.  I have seen it.  I don't know why it is that
people that fail science actually try to tell scientists what the world
is really like.  I know science as a field and scientists aren't perfect
but it really is rediculous to reject their findings off hand.

Jeff

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\09\08@231002 by Randy A.

picon face
In a message dated 9/8/01 10:17:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TakeThisOuTjeffspamspamDEMAAGD.COM
writes:


> They do have a web site.  I have seen it.  I don't know why it is that
> people that fail science actually try to tell scientists what the world
> is really like.  I know science as a field and scientists aren't perfect
> but it really is ridiculous to reject their findings off hand.
>
> Jeff
>
>

Jeff:

I didn't know they had a website but that doesn't surprise me.  I must take a
look to see what they are peddling now.

Randy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...