Re: [nukkad] Did Man _Really_ Land On Moon? - Reply 3

["V. Sudarshan" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  No chain letters, virus hoaxes and good luck charms. See 
<http://www.kumite.com/myths/> for a list of Internet hoaxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY - 3

>
> >> I am afraid that you are wrong. A book was published way back in the
> >> 60s itself. The US government banned the book.
>
> The US government is forbidden by the constitution from doing such a
> thing. In the rare cases where they CAN restrict the release of
> information, they have to show that it is clearly in the interests of
> national security...and you can bet the rent money that if the
> government had tried to restrict a PUBLISHED book about the civilian
> space program--in the SIXTIES, fer cryinoutloud--the press and public
> would have been all over them like a cheap suit. This was the period in
> US history when people were marching in the streets protesting virtually
> every aspect of the government.

REPLY
You are right to some extent. But books can be taken out if they contain
anti-national commentary. People are free to express their opinion without
hurting the powers that be. And it does not take much effort to stall some
efforts (forget the constitution - it says many more things as well) when
people may get "hurt". Sometimes when a nation is elated, they will not see
the truth. Tomorrow if someone tells you that India does not have a N-bomb
what will be your first reaction?

>
> >> ISKCON members use this book to state why its not possible to land on
> >> the moon.
>
> Oh, now THAT one I'd like to hear. The Moon is a solid body with mass
> and a substantial gravitational field in a fixed orbit in the very close
> vicinity to Earth what about that would PREVENT a landing?
>
> >>Its mostly used to corroborate a fact from some Hindu texts
> >> which describes the difficulties in landing on the moon.
>
> Not to disparage anyone's religion, but religious texts make notoriously
> poor science books.

REPLY
I do not think religion has anything to do with moon landing. ISKCON people
say man landed on Ketu (some ghost planet some where! - that notion is even
absurd) . They say the craft did not have enough resources to reach the moon
and get back as per the calculations given in the book.

>
> >> I
> >> did find the problems mentioned in the book. Maybe there are answers -
> >> simple ones but NASA never came out with it!
>
> NASA avoids answering claims like this for the plain and simple reason
> that they are nutty and unworthy of serious response. But consider this:
> if any of these claims had any serious validity--ANY of them--don't you
> suppose that some respectable scientist SOMEwhere would have pointed
> this out and become famous for it?
>
> But that aside, most of the claims the Moon nuts make ARE trivial to
> refute, and have been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited. That hasn't
> stopped the nuts from continuing to spout them, however.

REPLY

NASA has to answer some questions. All are not scientists. Why dont they
answer how the craft carried so much fuel, oxygen and food besides the
residence space and lab space. This is not an absurd question. There are
many questions which they are brushing off.  You cant discredit people who
ask questions by branding them as nuts.

>
> >>Rather they banned the book.

>
> NASA has ZERO authority to ban books.

REPLY

They here does not only mean NASA, it includes all the powers that be

>
> >> Someone else is marketing the photocopied remains and
> >> making money.
>
> Aha.

REPLY
Yes in a free economy people capitalise on ways to make money. Thats
sensible.

>
> >> And yes, the Russians did not refute it because they also sent people
> >> to the moon and for obvious reasons they could not refute it either.
>
> Hah? This statement makes even less sense that the rest.

REPLY
There is a mis-statement here. I should have been "planning to send" instead
of sent.

>
> >> So many
> >> photos were done for public consumption and the guy who did it for
> >> NASA later on went to make sci-fi movies such as Planet of the Apes!
>
> A pretty neat trick, considering that Planet of the Apes came out in
> 1968, a year BEFORE we went to the Moon. See:> And one might point out
that the type of special effects that one would
> use in faking Moon mission photos, scenic, miniature, and flying
> effects, are COMPLETELY different than the major type of effect used in
> Planet of the Apes, that is, makeup effects.


REPLY

The Apollo  projects started in 1961 well before Planet of the Apes. This
guy developed a technique to artificially colour black and white images and
compose them from several prints. This techinique has now been used to
colour and restore many old black and white films like Laurel and Hardy etc.
Here it is not important what the guy did in Planet of the Apes, it is the
techique used. This does not necessarily mean man did not go to the moon. It
means that many photos have been made for the people. A fact that NASA
states on their website that many photos are recomposed and made better with
improvisation techniques. All moon photos at that time where in Black and
white only! and most of the photos were recomposed.

> As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the
> rapidly-dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and
> thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of
> fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to
> the volume of such mail received.

REPLY

Aah Haa!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html