-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Hello Ed (Pellow). Thanks for your reply. I've inserted my answers and further info below. Most of the answers I have duplicated in my reply to Brian Thorn and Mike Dworetsky. Gavin, Thanks for your message. Having looked into this area, the 'research' of Kaysing, Percy and others is highly flawed and littered with errors. The recognised method of advancing scientific knowledge is to undertake reset and publish the results in an academic journal. Any assumptions made and any information used is well referenced to previously published works so that any reader can check it. From this point any inconsistencies or errors in conclusion can be openly debated and hence knowledge be moved forward. This is correct Ed with subjects that are not as highly controversial as questioning the validity of the Apollo missions. I have e-mailed the same message that I sent to you to at least 20 or so physicists/astronomers at various Colleges/University's across the US and so far have received only 1 "answer", in which he didn't answer any questions, he just blew the whole thing off. Scientists are for the most part extremely conservative and rely on government funding for their research and salaries, so they have a lot invested in the prevailing status quo, not to mention peer pressure. I doubt if you would ever find a respected scientific journal to publish anything questioning the validity of the Apollo missions, no matter how legitimate the questions are (afterwhich the journal would lose all credibility). That is one of the major problems when investigating this type of thing, very few people are willing to go on record even if they have doubts. I have very little faith in the integrity of mainstream scientists (and less in the mainstream media, in America at least) to honestly investigate subjects which are considered scientific "sacred cows." Ed Pellow says; I've not read the Ralph Rene book or seen the James Collier video so I can't comment directly on them. I have however read Percy's book 'Dark Moon' and seen a lot of Kaysing material on the web. This material is abysmally referenced. Both sources continually refer to 'data published in 1996' or 'geological expert Fred Bloggs' without giving anything but the vaguest (if any)reference to where the source material comes from. This alone makes me question the validity of their conclusions. You mention that David Percy is 'award winning' So? We're not told what award. Maybe he passed an exam in school.... This is perhaps a silly example, but I found from reading his book that most of the sources are dressed up in this way as to improve their perceived validity. Anyhow, on to your specific points: > Jim Collier went to a lot of trouble taking measurements of the module they > supposedly went in and came to a valid conclusion that, with all their bulky > breathing apparatus, they wouldn't have been able to get in and out of the > LM. The craft in the museum was different to the craft shown in supposedly > live B/W footage of the craft, and the pilots floating in and out of the > hatch. The hatch is obviously wider and the rivets are different. If the craft that Jim Collier measured was obviously different to the craft shown on the live footage - what validity do his measurements have? The fact that photos and footage exist of the astronauts existing the hatch shows that the hatch was wide enough. I don't quite understand your point here. Gavin: My point is that Jim went to the Washington Space museum to get measurements and videotape of an actual LM-2 on display (see below). In live NASA footage Jim shows on his video, James Lovell floats through the connecting tunnel from the CM to the LM. He has plenty of room and he goes down about 6 ft into the LM. In the LM in the Washington Space museum, there is a bell type metal object sticking up which would not allow the astronaut to come down 6 ft, he could only come down about 3 ft. In the NASA footage the bell is nonexistent. Jim says the tunnel on the LM is 27 inches across, but they only have 24 inches of clearance because of a latch (latches, we see one) for connecting to the droge (SP) which sticks out about 3 inches. It would be a very tight squeeze for a suited astronaut. The hatch on the LM opens from the left. In the footage it is hinged on the rear. His point is that the "live" footage is being shot in a simulator, not the real LM. <A HREF="http://www.nasm.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.am.lm.1.html">NASM--Apollo to the Moon--The Apollo Lunar Module</A> APOLLO LUNAR MODULE "This is an actual lunar module (designation LM-2), one of 12 built for Apollo. Engineers planned to use this craft in low Earth orbit to test the techniques of separation, rendezvous, and docking with the command and service module. The second of two such test vehicles, its orbital mission was cancelled after a successful flight in an earlier mission. The spacecraft subsequently was used for ground testing..." Gavin; > 1. The most surprising part of his investigation was the fact that when he > went to NASA to ask for all the documentation on one of the most important > events of the 20th century, they had destroyed it all. When he went to > Boeing, who made the LM, Apollo craft, they had destroyed all of the > documentation too. Pellow says; Not having seen the video, I can't comment directly. Does the video give any more evidence than his word for this destruction? Anyway NASA haven't destroyed the documentation by any means. If you look at the NASA web site there is masses of information on the missions including all the photos, transcripts of all communications, technical data etc. If Boeing were unwilling to give him detailed technical plans, then surely this is understandable? After all they are a commercial organisation. If you or I asked for detailed plans to enable us to build any of their products I'm sure we'd get turned down. Gavin; Apologies here, I made an error. After watching the video again I have cleared it up. Jim went to Grumman Airospace Corp who built the LM. He asked them for nuts and bolts technical details of how the LM was designed. The blueprints. Whose idea was it? The technical specs for how it works. He says they told him that the information had been destroyed. They just had some drawings. As he says, the person who thought of it and all the minute details of it's history and R & D should be proudly displayed in NASA books and museums everywhere. It is not. He then went to Boeing who built the Rover battery car. They also had destroyed the detailed specs and paperwork. He was very surprised to find out that important records of one of the most momentous, (maybe the most momentous) event in the 20 the Century would be destroyed when other far less important facts of history are recorded in their minutiae for generations. Thirty-billion of taxpayers money and they destroy important paperwork for future scientists and space historians to study and document? > 2. One of the reasons he wanted the LM's specs was because it had jets > mounted on the top of the craft on the left and right. These jets were > supposed to power the craft horizontally, while the main propulsion came from > below. He wanted to know the physics of how those two top jets could function > and the craft not flip around in circles, getting nowhere? Pellow says; Hopefully, I've answered that above. If you wanted technical specs for the operation of a 'Jump Jet' from Hawker - why should they give it you? Why would Coca Cola give you their 'secret' recipe? Gavin says; Not a very good analogy, comparing a public funded event of world importance to asking a private company for a secret recipe. All the data for the Apollo missions should be available to the public, and it would be had it not been destroyed. They didn't tell him that he couldn't have the paperwork, they told him it was destroyed. In the video you see the LM moving horizontal to the Lunar surface and slowing down to make some very precise corrections. With all that thrust coming from the top, the LM would flip in circles. Jim says they should have been on the bottom. > 3. The Rover, (battery car) that they ran around in on the moon, in one > famous scene they take it for a spin and it is kicking up dust from the rear > tires. The problem is the dust goes up at the most 8 feet, with no atmosphere > on the moon and 1/6 th the gravity, according to Jim, the dust should rise > about 60 feet and make a rainbow ark. It doesn't, it goes up eight feet and > abruptly stops. It hits atmosphere because it was a filmed somewhere in the > USA according to Jim. Pellow says; Have you ever seen a motorbike driven on dry sand dunes (this is the closest analogy I can think of)? The sand is kicked up a foot or so. The Rover was travelling much slower. Given the 1/6 gravity and the speed of the craft an 8 ft evaluation seems about right. What do you mean by "it hits the atmosphere at 8ft?" - if you can find me a place on earth where the atmosphere starts at 8ft up tell me - I'd like to visit! Does Jim explain his calculations as to why it should be 60 feet? Does he offer any way in which I can check his maths? Gavin says; Jim Collier paraphrases Einstein, a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless stopped. Jim asked Frank Hughes( he is in the video) of Space Center in Houston (who is Chief in Charge of Astronaut Training) what absolute proof he could provide that they went to the moon. Frank said the "Rooster Tail" kicked out of the back of the Rover as they take it for a spin was that proof. Jim says the laws of physics say that the soil/sand kicked out of the back should have gone upwards about 60 feet with no atmosphere to stop it. It goes up about 8 and it reacts as it would in an atmosphere. > 4. There isn't one star seen whilst they are on the moon. With no atmosphere > the stars should be incredibly clear and bright. I read the reason the NASA > didn't include the stars was because it would be extremely difficult to fool > Astronomers and get star placement correct. Pellow says; This one is really obvious and it suprises me that it's used so often by the 'hoax' theorists. It is practically impossible to capture a brightly and harshly lit object in the foreground (like an astronaut) and a dim object in the background (like a star) in the same exposure. Do a long exposure to capture the stars and you'll get a fuzzy overexposed blob in the foreground. Do a short exposure to capture the astronaut and the stars just won't appear. You can try this for yourself. On a starry night try taking a photo of a bright street light. Notice how many stars you don't get.... As far as being extremely difficult to fool astronomers - rubbish! If the photos were taken on a film set, any half decent planetarium projector could have been used to simulate the star patterns. Kaysing mentions (in the web interview that you gave me a link to): "No way, even with the most advanced computers, could they have created star pictures that would have been, let's say, acceptable to the astronomy buffs." This is nonsense. Given the fact that the moon is (in astronomical terms) virtually in the same place as us, the differences in star positions is minimal. The necessary adjustments could be worked out on the back of an envelope by any remotely capable amateur astronomer. The idea that NASA couldn't produce accurate enough star maps to 'fool' astronomers but thought that no experts would be suspicious by a total lack of stars is frankly ludicrous. Gavin says; I know as much about photography as I do about playing the banjo, bugger-all. Let me say this. Before watching this video I hadn't paid any attention at all to the Apollo missions.(except reading Bill's book a few years ago which was not convincing enough, by itself, as far as I was concerned) Watching the B/W and colour NASA film footage you see everything on the Lunar surface perfectly clearly. At different times of the day, when the sun is behind them, when they are in the Rover and going to collect samples, in the footage when the Rover has it's "Rooster Tail" the lighting is far less as it's a different time. In every shot you see a totally black sky. Nothing. No white star light at all. I do not understand how there would be no light whatsoever caught from stars with the sun behind them and no atmosphere. After watching the video again Jim mentions that the astronauts took a special camera specifically for photographing stars. Another point is the astronaut's comments about stars over the years are extremely confusing and contradictory, to say the least. In the book, Suppress ed Inventions & Other Discoveries by Jonathan Eisen, there is a chapter with excerpt's taken from Ralph Rene's book, NASA Mooned America. Later there is a 9 page review of Rene's book by Thomas J. Brown. On pages 401/403 of Suppresse d Inventions & other Discoveries, Brown says; "...Alan Sheppard, first American to be catapulted up reported seeing no stars, ditto for Virgil Grissom. John Glenn reported seeing some brighter stars only (and he saw [what NASA claimed were] "fireflies"). To quote some astronauts on the subject: Neil Armstrong: "The sky is black, you know." ; It's a very dark sky." Mike Collins on Gemini 10: "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady." This was written 14 years later, and remember that the Gemini 10 space walk photo shown here has now been proven a fake." (Gavin: Brown is referring to a photograph on page 399 which is taken from Rene's book) "Mike Collins on Apollo 11: "I can't see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena [ rocket ].... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds....";"What I see is disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it is difficult to recognize then when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars...." Gene Cernan on Apollo 17: "When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it's black. I didn't say it's dark, I said black. So black you can't conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn't strike on anything, so all you see is black." Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut: "Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows." "...I (Brown) later spoke with John Bartoe who was up on an early shuttle flight and he laughed at this , said he couldn't believe that anyone in NASA would say that because he was in space and the stars were brighter than they are on earth!..." On page 399 Brown also mentions the fact that "...NASA allegedly shot tens of thousands of pictures of the lunar landings, yet it is very difficult to procure even a decent percentage of these, and the same ones show up in most publications..." > 5. One shot shows an imprint of astronaut's shoe in the Moon surface. How can > there be enough moisture in a 250 degree heat dustbowl to hold particles > together to make an imprint? How could they survive in the craft in that kind > of heat? Pellow says; These are questions to which I can't provide a direct answer. All I would say is that: Since when is moisture needed to produce an impression? How much do you know about the design of the LM to suggest that it's design couldn't withstand such temperatures? Gavin says; This isn't a very light imprint as you would expect to make in the Sahara desert, (I don't know if that is an accurate analogy or not) it's a deep foot print clearly showing the tread on the underside of the astronauts shoe. Other Rover tracks Jim says should not be possible either. As to temperature resistance of the LM, I do not know. > 6. When they supposedly land on the moon the footage looks really fake. With > 10,000 pounds of thrust there should have been a massive dust cloud. Instead > it looks like airbrushing. There is no crater under the exhaust. Pellow says; Why should there be a massive dust cloud? The LM was decelerated very slowly. Whilst the LM had a maximum thrust of 10,000 pounds, the full thrust was used at a higher altitude. At the moment of impact the amount of thrust used was very small. (Remember that the moon's gravity is only 1/6 of ours) As an analogy, is your driveway littered with the skid marks of heavy breaking? Mine neither. Gavin says; I'm sorry Ed, your analogy's off again. This "no crater under the LM" problem is raised two or three times by Jim. In one colour photograph of the LM on the moon there is no crater at all under it. Not even 6 inches. Jim does not mention decelerating, but it would seem logical. The figures for the LM's minimum thrust when descending is 1050 lb, that is if it was at bare minimum. The LM weighed 16 tons fully loaded with Rover, fuel and personnel, so even in 1/6 gravity it weighed a little over 2 1/2 tons. Even at minimum thrust there would be a noticeable crater under the exhaust. Jim does show a NASA drawing before the flight to the moon which shows the LM landing, rocket blasting a big crater in the lunar surface and a massive dust cloud. You can say well that was before they went, in reality it was different. Not different enough to leave the ground undisturbed. Below Ed are some technical specs for the LM taken from the same Washington museum website I supplied you with earlier. WEIGHT: Empty: 3920 kg (8650 lb) Crew & Propellant: 14,700 kg (32,500 lb) HEIGHT: 7.0 m (22 ft 11 in) WIDTH: 9.4 m (31 ft 00 in) THRUST: Descent Engine: 44,316 Newtons (9870 lb) maximum 4710 Newtons (1050 lb) minimum THRUST: Ascent Engine: 15,700 Newtons (3500 lb) FUEL: 50-50 mix of Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine (UDMH) & Hydrazine OXYDIZER: Nitrogen Tetroxide PRIME CONTRACTOR: Grumman Aerospace Corporation <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
