|
 |
6/27/2007 10:09:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Wednesday
Kent,
Although I must admit that the "Apollo 20" flap is impressive, someone has
gone to a lot of trouble, I don't buy it.
First, the mission was allegedly launched from Vandenberg. The idea that
a
Saturn 5 could be launched from Vandenberg without anyone noticing is
absurd. I was in college (University of Illinois, Aero/Astro Engineering)
during most of the Apollo program. Although I never had the privilege of
witnessing a Saturn 5 launch in person, I had a couple of friends who went
down to Florida to watch one. They described it to me in breathless detail.
They were five miles away. They said that at that distance, the rocket still
looked huge. When it lit up, there was silence for a few seconds but when
the sound hit them, they said that they couldn't even talk to each other.
They would shout and couldn't hear the guy standing a few feet away. Their
clothes vibrated on their bodies. They could feel their internal organs
vibrating. The flame was so bright, that they couldn't look directly at it.
If one of these behemoths was launched from Vandenberg, someone would have
noticed. Also, a launch from Vandenberg cannot be made to the east to take
advantage of the earth's rotational speed. The launch would have to be made
into a polar orbit or against the rotation of the earth. Either way, the
total payload capability of the Saturn 5 would have been drastically
reduced. A launch to the north or south would have been visible to people
on
the coast, even in daylight.
Second, the components of the booster are huge. They had to be shipped to
Florida on barges floated down the Mississippi and through the Gulf. It was
no small project and was quite visible. It had to be done in the best
weather as the barges with their loads couldn't move in bad weather. How
would these booster parts get to Vandenberg? Overland? Impossible. Through
the Panama Canal and up the West Coast? Someone would have noticed.
Third, you don't just set up a Saturn 5 on a box and light the fuse. The
vehicle requires a specially designed launch pad and tower not to mention
an
assembly building. Such construction would have been unmistakable and its
remnant would exist today.
My hat's off to whoever has perpetrated this. One criticism is that the
"spaceship" looks like it was formed out of modeling clay. Great story,
though, lots of fun.
Reference: Anyone who would like more information on the Saturn 5, more
technical information that you knew existed, check out 'Saturn' by Alan
Lawrie. This is not a book for evening reading. It is highly technical and
probably only for the researcher or rocket techno-geeks like me.
Eugene, Oregon
Thanks,
Good comments.
At play now are some rather extensive efforts in disclosure or misdirection, added investigation will hopefully reveal which is which. In either case it seems something is up, maybe someone is dealing the ET card. [Carol Rosin about the late Werner von Braun]
The Lunar matter: hoax or not we do still have Apollo 15 recon data to examine.
Kent
NASA APOLLO 15: AS15-P-9625
|
|
6/28/2007 5:21:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Thursday, 2007
Kent,
"High-level Psyops build their shenanigan around a nugget of truth."
Ain't that the case! Seems a little truth is the best seasoning to make a
plate of lies palatable. (You can quote me on that.)
Some 10 - 15 years ago, Richard Hoagland had a quarterly newsletter to which
I subscribed. I got a year's subscription but only got three issues before
they were discontinued. But I have no hard feelings, I definitely got my
money's worth. The newsletters weren't just a couple of pages. They were
some 30 or 40 pages long with lots of pictures - a real feast. In them, they
went over, in great detail, the suspicious things they had found in the NASA
moon photos. Remember, these are photos in the public domain, available from
NASA to anyone. The reproductions in the newsletter weren't the greatest
but
they were plenty good. They were things that I have never seen on his
website nor in any of his books. Most of the stuff shown was not in the form
of blurry enhancements that were hard to interpret nor over-enhanced
pixilated blowups that could have been anything. The enhancements were
usually just increases in contrast or a reasonable blowup. And what they
showed was jaw-dropping. Huge pieces of what appeared to be long, twisted
beams of some sort, scattered on the lunar surface. The area Hoagland has
dubbed "L.A. on the moon" shows clearly rectilinear objects the size of
buildings laid out in a grid pattern. A shadowy yet unmistakable structure
that looks for all intents and purposes like a suspension bridge and much
more. Again, not some fuzzy blobs that could be just about anything but
objects that would, once seen, give one pause.
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/ has a lot of good stuff)
My point is, one doesn't need a computer with specialized software to do
complex enhancements. Getting quality copies of moon photos and going over
them carefully with a good magnifier can reveal plenty. If you can scan
pictures into your computer, you can use Photoshop or other software to do
simple things like contrast enhancements to bring out information that is
there but that the human eye can't see. Of course, NASA has caught on to
this to some extent and some pictures in their catalogs have been blacked
out and are marked "unavailable." It is important to get the earliest
catalogs or, simply order the pictures that have been blacked out without
mentioning anything, like all is well. Sometimes, you'll get what you want.
I think it is also telling how attention has been turned so much towards
Mars. Why so little interest in our own moon? Curious. I want to remain
cautious about it, I tend to be conservative in my thinking (I am 59 years
old... how odd. How did I get here?), but after what I have seen, I am
convinced that there ARE intelligently constructed things on our moon. Who
built them and when remains to be determined. So yes, maybe that thing on
the far side IS a spaceship or something else. Maybe the European, Japanese
or Chinese space programs will be open about it. OR - Maybe we need a
billionaire (Nemo?) to fund a private lunar probe. How about it Bill? You
have too much money, how about spending it on something really interesting?
Also, speaking of Mr. Hoagland, I also find it curious that he has backed
off on his investigation of moon anomalies. He was at it hot and heavy there
for a while. Then, since his heart attack, he seems to have backed off and
been promoting his "new-age" 2012 stuff. Now, I don't want to sound
accusatory. Maybe there is a quite honest, straightforward reason for it.
I
just find it curious.
As a small sidebar, I actually met Richard Hoagland many years ago when this
whole "Mars Face" thing was just getting started. I see no reason he would
remember me, though, I went to see him with a friend of mine who was a
freelance writer at the time. He was thinking of doing a piece on the Mars
Face and I went with him to interview Mr. Hoagland. My impression was that
he is definitely a "type A personality." He was high-energy, talkative,
intelligent and very well informed. His house was filled, and I mean FILLED,
with books and magazines on every subject imaginable. He also had an
electric guitar hanging on a wall but I don't know if he could play. On one
wall, he had a HUGE (maybe 5' x 5') black and white photo of the Martian
surface. I didn't think much of the Mars Face flap at the time, only having
seen the fuzzy reproductions of the picture in the newspaper. He handed me
a
magnifier and pointed to a place on the picture and said, "Look there." I
did and saw this face staring back at me. The hair stood up on the back of
my neck. He then proceeded to point out all the other anomalous objects and
I was hooked. Never seen the guy since but think highly of him, even from
that brief meeting.
Well, this turned out to be longer than I intended. I hope you found it all
interesting.
Eugene, Oregon
6/29/2007 3:40:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
I have read various articles on the net regarding whether or not our moon spins on it's own axis. Funny thing is, most professional astronomy sites seem to be trying to tell us that it does spin around it's own axis about once for every orbital period.
My questions are these....If one should drill a hole in the center of a baseball from top to bottom and run a string through it, tie it off with enough left over to swing it about one's head from a distance of a few feet, will it rotate around the string or 'pole/axis' running top to bottom through the center? Or will one side continually face you as it orbits your head?
If it does not spin about it's own axis but instead move it's whole body through space around your hand, is not the moon actually fixed and stationary in reference to it's own axis therefore moving only around your hand as the external axis point?
If one can accept the obvious as true, then many astronomy sites that claim the moon spins on it's own axis are teaching error. But are they teaching error by accident or intenionally? A car driving around you in a circle is hardly "spinning on it's own axis". Even accounting for that "once for every rotation" gibberish. An arrow with a string tied to it's middle will present one side to you as you swing it around your head, it too is hardly spinning around it's own axis. These objects, like our Moon, are simply moving in a circular path around an axis point, which I'm sure we all can agree, quite external to themselves.
owner of:
http://www.jimloy.com/astro/moon0.htm
Insists (despite hard evidence to the contrary) that the moon spin's around it's own axis when it's plain to see by even a child, that it doesn't spin it at all on it's own axis (an imaginary pole running top to bottom through the middle of itself) but instead simply moves in an orbit around an axis far away from itself, an axis point that could hardly be called it's own.
And here's Bad astronomy website's explanation:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moon_spin.html
So who's right? Those laymen who see the moon as not spinning at all, instead merely wobbling around it's own axis a wee bit and merely travelling in a circle around a distant axis point....or those professionals who seemingly try to bamboozle us that it does? Could that many well known astronomers simply be that bad at simple physics? Seems unlikely to me. It seems like just more of those ever increasing and condescending: "don't worry your pathetic little heads about such observations, go back to sleep" dismissals.
Many people are not aware of the fact that the largest known impact crater in the solar system (Aitken Basin) is located on the perpetual far side of our moon. It is 1550 miles across!
Makes me wonder.....surely they aren't all THAT ignorant of basic physics! (just me being optimistic?)
What secret might they be trying to hide?
On the 'far side'....
http://www.geocities.com/beyondearth2001/moon_files/image003
http://www.ufocasebook.com/moon.html
Is your head spinning yet? If so, try and remember it's all relative....
Or so they would have us keep guessing.
--------------------------------------------------
6/30/2007 12:10:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
I've seen some interesting things at nite lately here in NorCAl.
First, about a week or so ago, saw this huge rectangular object moving through the night sky from SE to NW, very fast, only saw for a few seconds because of trees. Didn't even have time to try to estimate size, but it seemed to be very high. I've seen something like it before that I thought was a meteor swarm. But two that look alike?
Second, the other night saw something I at first thought was was a large plane, flying S to N, then turning E, it had two very bright lights, and from what I could make out, two red lights, one on the bottom, one on top. The lights were strobing like airplane lights, but when the object was overhead, it was absolutely silent and appeared to be black. Now we live not to far from Travis AFB so I've been trying to find photos of B2's at night with thier lights on because someone said that that is what they thought it might be. But B2's aren't based in Cal as far as I know.
