Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon [Archive]

Michael Petukhov

November 13th 03, 06:43 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> >
> > (in russian)
> >
> > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> >
> > Michael
>
> But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> and from Cosmic sources.

Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
technologies will be required, including real protection against
radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.

when and if we succeed we will see is it really first man landing on moon
or not. Since likely China will join the trully international
project there will be very difficult to US to dispute its results and
particularly results of international inspection of the Appolo
"moon landing" sites.

Michael

Michael

>
> Is this to be the latest triumph for the Indian film industry
> do you think :)
>
> Keith

redc1c4

November 13th 03, 06:50 AM

Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > >
> > > (in russian)
> > >
> > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > and from Cosmic sources.
>
> Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> technologies will be required, including real protection against
> radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
>
> when and if we succeed we will see is it really first man landing on moon
> or not. Since likely China will join the trully international
> project there will be very difficult to US to dispute its results and
> particularly results of international inspection of the Appolo
> "moon landing" sites.

we'll be up late at night worrying about it.......

redc1c4,
whatever it is he's drinking, get me a double. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Alexey

November 13th 03, 07:19 AM

cool

Keith Willshaw

November 13th 03, 07:43 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > >
> > > (in russian)
> > >
> > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > and from Cosmic sources.
>
> Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> technologies will be required, including real protection against
> radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
>

I'll believe it when I see it.

> when and if we succeed we will see is it really first man landing on moon
> or not. Since likely China will join the trully international
> project there will be very difficult to US to dispute its results and
> particularly results of international inspection of the Appolo
> "moon landing" sites.
>
>

I'm waiting with baited breath , in the meantime you may be interested
in the finding by Misha Kreslavsky and Shkuratov of the Kharkov
Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine of pictures showing the
Apollo 15 Landing site.

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

Keith

John Flogger

November 13th 03, 09:20 AM

I hope the impoverished and mal-nourished India can first provide
clean drinking water, food, electricity, metal roads and basic health
services to over 800 million of its sub standard people living far
below its poverty line.

God help Russia who chooses India as its technical partner, which can
not even make 100% of a bicycle locally without substantial foreign
assistance and technology transfer. May be you Ruskies can use these
Indy junkies to polish and clean your space vehicle and provide in
flight live entertainment to the astronauts !!!.

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
>
> (in russian)
>
> Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
>
> Michael

captain!

November 13th 03, 11:37 AM

great site.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > > >
> > > > (in russian)
> > > >
> > > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > > and from Cosmic sources.
> >
> > Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> > with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> > difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> > technologies will be required, including real protection against
> > radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
> >
>
> I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>
> > when and if we succeed we will see is it really first man landing on
moon
> > or not. Since likely China will join the trully international
> > project there will be very difficult to US to dispute its results and
> > particularly results of international inspection of the Appolo
> > "moon landing" sites.
> >
> >
>
> I'm waiting with baited breath , in the meantime you may be interested
> in the finding by Misha Kreslavsky and Shkuratov of the Kharkov
> Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine of pictures showing the
> Apollo 15 Landing site.
>
>
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
>
> Keith
>
>

Jack Linthicum

November 13th 03, 12:05 PM

(Matt Ramsey) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> >
> > (in russian)
> >
> > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> >
> > Michael
>
> Maybe if we're lucky they'll send Michael Petukhov. And leave him there.

No, one of those bleeding heart liberals we are always being warned
against will organize some sort of Airplane II lash-up and try to
rescue him. and fail.

Michael Petukhov

November 13th 03, 12:12 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > > >
> > > > (in russian)
> > > >
> > > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > > and from Cosmic sources.
> >
> > Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> > with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> > difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> > technologies will be required, including real protection against
> > radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
> >
>
> I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>
> > when and if we succeed we will see is it really first man landing on moon
> > or not. Since likely China will join the trully international
> > project there will be very difficult to US to dispute its results and
> > particularly results of international inspection of the Appolo
> > "moon landing" sites.
> >
> >
>
> I'm waiting with baited breath , in the meantime you may be interested
> in the finding by Misha Kreslavsky and Shkuratov of the Kharkov
> Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine of pictures showing the
> Apollo 15 Landing site.
>
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
>
> Keith

Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not
detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data
does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed
a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show
overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio.
Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement
by itself was, no doubts, a huge success.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 13th 03, 12:22 PM

(Dav1936531) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >
>
> >>"Michael Petukhov" wrote
> >>Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> organization for space research signed a deal to prepare joint automatic and
> manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> >> Michael
>
> >But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such a thing is impossible
> due to radiation in the Van Allen belts and from Cosmic sources.
> >Keith
>
> Beat me to it. As soon as I opened the post I had this very same response
> immediately composed in my head.
> Dave

Well then it should be something very wrong directly in your head, I guess...

Michael

Scott Ferrin

November 13th 03, 05:22 PM

>Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not
>detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data
>does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed
>a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show
>overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio.
>Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement
>by itself was, no doubts, a huge success.
>
>Michael

And when they find footprints and friggin' CARS on the moon no doubt
you'll say the cars made the footprints.

John Beadles

November 13th 03, 11:17 PM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >
> Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not
> detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data
> does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed
> a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show
> overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio.
> Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement
> by itself was, no doubts, a huge success.
>
> Michael

I'm curious about this mythical automated probe that could have taken
the place of the Apollo LEMs. Since *EVERY* launch in that time
period has been publically identified (the US having no capability to
launch heavy boosters in any form of secret fashion), where could such
an automated probe have come from? What was it launched on? When was
it launched? What was it?

Pete

November 14th 03, 01:12 AM

"Geoff Cashman" > wrote
>
> Michael,
>
> No matter how much evidence is provided to you, you would insist
> the sky is not blue.
>
> You can say radiation would have prevented astronauts from going
> to the moon. Yet, *huge* amounts of evidence indicate otherwise.
>
> Do you have *ANY* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact
> land men on the moon?
>

You asked the question wrong.
Of course he has 'evidence'.

It should have been asked:
"Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact
land men on the moon?"..."

Pete

Dav1936531

November 14th 03, 03:15 AM

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>

>>Dav1936531 wrote
>> Beat me to it. As soon as I opened the post I had this very same response
immediately composed in my head.<<

>Well then it should be something very wrong directly in your head, I
guess...Michael<

CLUE: Don't touch your tin foil hat after handling your lithium tablets without
washing your hands first. The lithium residue on your fingers will eat holes in
the hat and render it ineffective against the Illuminati mind control rays.
Dave

Michael Petukhov

November 14th 03, 07:02 AM

(John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >
> > Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not
> > detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data
> > does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed
> > a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show
> > overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio.
> > Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement
> > by itself was, no doubts, a huge success.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I'm curious about this mythical automated probe that could have taken
> the place of the Apollo LEMs. Since *EVERY* launch in that time
> period has been publically identified (the US having no capability to
> launch heavy boosters in any form of secret fashion),

And why is that? You have little respect to USA.

> where could such
> an automated probe have come from?

No idea.

> What was it launched on?

Obviousely on Saturn V

>When was
> it launched?

A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
every time there would be much less than that.

>What was it?

Personally I think it was something based on Surveyor design.

Michael

John Beadles

November 14th 03, 04:47 PM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> (John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >
> > > Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not
> > > detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data
> > > does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed
> > > a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show
> > > overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio.
> > > Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement
> > > by itself was, no doubts, a huge success.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > I'm curious about this mythical automated probe that could have taken
> > the place of the Apollo LEMs. Since *EVERY* launch in that time
> > period has been publically identified (the US having no capability to
> > launch heavy boosters in any form of secret fashion),
>
> And why is that? You have little respect to USA.

To the contrary, I simply have sufficient knowledge of the american
countryside and space program to know that there was no way to perform
space launches that big such no hint of them has leaked out in 40
years. Even the Soviets couldn't pull that off from Pletsetsk.

In the US there were and still are) only a limited number of launch
facilities that can process launch vehicles of that size, all
surrounded by populated areas. The US was and is sufficiently
populated that any launch from a remote area could not be hidden. It
might be conceivably possible to build a remote launch pad outside the
country (not for a Saturn V), but then you still have to get the
launch vehicle in the country, and those aren't available on every
street corner.

> > where could such
> > an automated probe have come from?
>
> No idea.
>
> > What was it launched on?
>
> Obviousely on Saturn V

How could this be even conceivably possible? The launch vehicle
stacking and checkout procedures were not military secrets. There
were innumerable technicians involved, and yet no hint of the security
measures that would be necessary to install, test and fly the mythical
lander without the secret leaking out immediately. Also there is no
hint of the hardware adaptations that would be necessary to fit such a
lander to the spacecraft.

> >When was
> > it launched?
>
> A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
> automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
> landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
> for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
> missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
> the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
> every time there would be much less than that.

Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
actually happening.

> >What was it?
>
> Personally I think it was something based on Surveyor design.

No doubt.

Michael Petukhov

November 14th 03, 09:17 PM

"Pete" > wrote in message >...
> "Geoff Cashman" > wrote
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > No matter how much evidence is provided to you, you would insist
> > the sky is not blue.
> >
> > You can say radiation would have prevented astronauts from going
> > to the moon. Yet, *huge* amounts of evidence indicate otherwise.
> >
> > Do you have *ANY* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact
> > land men on the moon?
> >
>
> You asked the question wrong.
> Of course he has 'evidence'.
>
> It should have been asked:
> "Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact
> land men on the moon?"..."
>
> Pete

No, it should have been asked:
"Do you have any *credible for Pete* evidence at all that the U.S.
did not in fact land men on the moon?"..."

The answer is no nobody can have it. Right? Tell us what kind
of hypotetical evidence you would accept as credible enough.
Just curiosity.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 14th 03, 10:45 PM

(John Beadles) wrote in message >...
....skipped

I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above

> > >When was
> > > it launched?
> >
> > A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
> > automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
> > landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
> > for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
> > missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
> > the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
> > every time there would be much less than that.
>
> Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
> successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
> done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
> actually happening.

Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only.

I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:

Huston -> Studio in Nevada -> Moon rebroadcaster -> Huston

The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.

Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
me on? Right? Little naive boy...

Michael

>
> > >What was it?
> >
> > Personally I think it was something based on Surveyor design.
>
> No doubt.

redc1c4

November 14th 03, 11:13 PM

Michael Petukhov wrote:

> I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:
>
> Huston -> Studio in Nevada -> Moon rebroadcaster -> Huston

would that be John or Angelica?

redc1c4,
and how would the signal get through your tin foil hat? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Pete

November 14th 03, 11:28 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote
> >
> > You asked the question wrong.
> > Of course he has 'evidence'.
> >
> > It should have been asked:
> > "Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in
fact
> > land men on the moon?"..."
> >
> > Pete
>
> No, it should have been asked:
> "Do you have any *credible for Pete* evidence at all that the U.S.
> did not in fact land men on the moon?"..."
>
> The answer is no nobody can have it. Right? Tell us what kind
> of hypotetical evidence you would accept as credible enough.
> Just curiosity.

ok...I'll play..:)
Just a few, in no particular order:

1. Memos outlining (or even hinting at) the coverup.
2. Unambiguous pictures (and location) of the 'fake moon' soundstage.
3. Timed telemetry data, outlining a non-delay in signal.
4. Verified (lie detector?) interviews with >1 member of this coverup.
5. Analysis of the 'fake moon rocks', showing they are not of lunar origin.
6. Location of (pictures would help) the mythical alternate Saturn V launch
site you mention.
7. Why the fUSSR did not (has not) brought this coverup into the fore.
8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could not
have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology wasn't
good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current material
science all must be included in this analysis).

9. Finally, a detailed analysis of why it *could not* have been done with
the technology of the era. Please include all aspects of the flight. More
detail is better.

Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of those
right away, correct?

Pete

George William Herbert

November 15th 03, 02:13 AM

Michael Petukhov > wrote:
>[...]
>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
>
>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
>me on? Right? Little naive boy...

So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
that this was faked at all?

-george william herbert

ZZBunker

November 15th 03, 02:17 AM

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> Comrade, superior Russian technology will make what has previously been
> impossible a reality, and the great Russian (and Indian) people will be the
> first to truly visit the moon! Freeze dried Tandori and Borscht - yummy!

Russia will visit nothing but America's moon dust.
Since Superior American tehnology is going
to visit Mars and the black holes circling
Jupiter. We don't mess around with
has-beens using Chinese year-of-the-dog
automobiles.

John Beadles

November 15th 03, 03:16 AM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> (John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> ...skipped
>
> I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above
>
> > > >When was
> > > > it launched?
> > >
> > > A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
> > > automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
> > > landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
> > > for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
> > > missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
> > > the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
> > > every time there would be much less than that.
> >
> > Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
> > successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
> > done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
> > actually happening.
>
> Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only.
>
> I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:
>
> Huston -> Studio in Nevada -> Moon rebroadcaster -> Huston
>
> The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
>
> Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> me on? Right? Little naive boy...
>

Ambush you? Not at all. Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine.
I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax"
proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that
they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
anything original, but no, no luck.

In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that
forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and
signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not
possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon
probe would not have been sufficient. See
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm for an
example.

It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back. If the
signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.

John Beadles

November 15th 03, 03:31 AM

"Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll play..:)

> 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could not
> have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
> shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology wasn't
> good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current material
> science all must be included in this analysis).

Before we even go there, we have to answer why there was a moon race
in the first place if radiation were an insurmountable obstacle. Both
the US and the Soviet Union launched numerous interplanetary and lunar
probes long before any manned lunar launchs evertook place. Many of
the US probe experiments were run by university researchers, IIRC.
These people would be fully cognizant of the
interplanetary environment.

The Soviets would know based on the data from their activities and
would not have participated in the moon race. They launched probes
specifically to investigate the lunar radiation environment, including
(but not limited to):

LUNA 1 ('59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
LUNA 2 {'59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
LUNA 3 ('59) - Carried cosmic ray detector
ZOND 3 ('65) - Carried gas-discharge & scintillation detectors
LUNA 10 ('66) - Carried gamma ray spectrometer
LUNA 11 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
LUNA 12 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
LUNA 13 ('66) - Measured cosmic ray reflectivity of surface
LUNA 14 ('68) - Measured solar charged particles & cosmic radiation
ZOND 5 ('68) - Flyby carrying turtles, flies, worms, seeds, bacteria
ZOND 6 {'68} - Carried cosmic ray detectors, biological payload
ZOND 7 ('69)
ZOND 8 ('70)
LUNA 16 ('70) - Returned soil samples, carried radiation instruments
LUNA 20 ('72) - Returned soil samples
LUNA 24 ('76) - Returned soil samples

Many more lunar & planetary probes were launched, but I'm only
including the ones I found immediately that discuss measuring the
radiation environment. In fact, not only was the lunar radiation
environment well known in the early
60's , it was known well enough early enough for both sides to have
avoided ever having a moon race in the first place. Be rather
impossible for Zond 5 to have flown biologicals if the radiation level
were too high, eh?

By this we can infer one of two possibilities:
1. Either both the Soviets and the Americans were in on a deception
(unlikely)
2. The lunar radiation environment was not a significant impediment
to a manned lunar landing (likely)

The theory that the US would be pull over a hoax on the Soviets on
this is falsifiable on this issue.

No Spam!

November 15th 03, 04:50 AM

John Beadles wrote:
> The trend is that
> they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
> in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
> evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
> valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
> hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
> anything original, but no, no luck.
>
> In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable
....snipped...

John -

You're missing the point.

The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
rules of scientific evidence and logic.

They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
cover-up.

They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
do will convince them otherwise.

If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.

Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.

A Reformed Tilter

J.T. McDaniel

November 15th 03, 05:00 AM

"John Beadles" > wrote in message
om...
> "Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll
play..:)
>
> > 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could
not
> > have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
> > shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology
wasn't
> > good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current
material
> > science all must be included in this analysis).
>
> Before we even go there, we have to answer why there was a moon race
> in the first place if radiation were an insurmountable obstacle. Both
> the US and the Soviet Union launched numerous interplanetary and lunar
> probes long before any manned lunar launchs evertook place. Many of
> the US probe experiments were run by university researchers, IIRC.
> These people would be fully cognizant of the
> interplanetary environment.
>
> The Soviets would know based on the data from their activities and
> would not have participated in the moon race. They launched probes
> specifically to investigate the lunar radiation environment, including
> (but not limited to):
>
> LUNA 1 ('59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> LUNA 2 {'59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> LUNA 3 ('59) - Carried cosmic ray detector
> ZOND 3 ('65) - Carried gas-discharge & scintillation detectors
> LUNA 10 ('66) - Carried gamma ray spectrometer
> LUNA 11 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> LUNA 12 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> LUNA 13 ('66) - Measured cosmic ray reflectivity of surface
> LUNA 14 ('68) - Measured solar charged particles & cosmic radiation
> ZOND 5 ('68) - Flyby carrying turtles, flies, worms, seeds, bacteria
> ZOND 6 {'68} - Carried cosmic ray detectors, biological payload
> ZOND 7 ('69)
> ZOND 8 ('70)
> LUNA 16 ('70) - Returned soil samples, carried radiation instruments
> LUNA 20 ('72) - Returned soil samples
> LUNA 24 ('76) - Returned soil samples
>
> Many more lunar & planetary probes were launched, but I'm only
> including the ones I found immediately that discuss measuring the
> radiation environment. In fact, not only was the lunar radiation
> environment well known in the early
> 60's , it was known well enough early enough for both sides to have
> avoided ever having a moon race in the first place. Be rather
> impossible for Zond 5 to have flown biologicals if the radiation level
> were too high, eh?
>
> By this we can infer one of two possibilities:
> 1. Either both the Soviets and the Americans were in on a deception
> (unlikely)
> 2. The lunar radiation environment was not a significant impediment
> to a manned lunar landing (likely)
>
> The theory that the US would be pull over a hoax on the Soviets on
> this is falsifiable on this issue.

Curiously, you find this argument, that the technology
of the time wasn't advanced enough to make the flight,
but you never hear the even more obvious counter
argument that the audio-visual technology of the time
wasn't good enough to fake it, and didn't become so
until the last five to eight years.
--
Jack

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 08:41 AM

(John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > (John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> > ...skipped
> >
> > I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above
> >
> > > > >When was
> > > > > it launched?
> > > >
> > > > A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
> > > > automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
> > > > landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
> > > > for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
> > > > missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
> > > > the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
> > > > every time there would be much less than that.
> > >
> > > Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
> > > successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
> > > done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
> > > actually happening.
> >
> > Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only.
> >
> > I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:
> >
> > Huston -> Studio in Nevada -> Moon rebroadcaster -> Huston
> >
> > The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> > not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> > The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> >
> > Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> > me on? Right? Little naive boy...
> >
>
> Ambush you? Not at all.

Hm. little lie create big distrust.

> Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine.
> I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax"
> proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that
> they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
> in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
> evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
> valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
> hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
> anything original, but no, no luck.

I disagree. of course they cannot. Have you seen Copperfield
who has stolen a train. Can you present exactly how he did all
that in complete details? But we know it was a trick. The same
with NASA moon landing. Ask yourself why do you believe NASA
could land man on the moon? Two reasons mainly 1) NASA, a big
government organization told you that. 2) you have seen some
movies on TV. That's all basis for that believe. If you stop
blind believing in NASA words and start asking your own
questions (about space radiation protection for beginning)
you may immideately find your own contra argument.

Also if you are a fair thinker you must agree dispite of
all NASA "evidences" only one credible evidence that it was
indeed faked will crash all the NASA system of Moon landing
arguments. Only one is enough to crash all this mountings of
lie.

>
> In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that
> forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and
> signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not
> possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon
> probe would not have been sufficient.

My mistake, I forgot about those. Ok I cancel my claim that only one
transmitter would be enough to fake all Apollo missions. Two transmitters
per mission was necessary. Are you satisfied?

> See
> http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm for an
> example.
>
> It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
> ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
> there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back.

Easy? Show please. It is easy to show the opposite.
it did, using of course the scheme presented.

> If the
> signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
> ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
> therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.

Who said it was "recording from a lunar bound lander". Are you prefer
to dispute with your own false arguments, as many NASA defenders like
so much? Frankly I think than many so called moon hoax sites
in internet full of false arguments are sponsored by NASA. It is easy
to fight with their own false claims and sink the grains of true
in the seas of false claims and contra claims.

As for communications I think it was life between studio and mainly
unaware personnel in Huston control center but the signal went via
lunar trasmitters (including one installed in Apollo return module).
That's scheme correctly reproduce all variable delay times, doppler
shifts, indepedent tracking and so on and so far.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 09:16 AM

"Pete" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote
> > >
> > > You asked the question wrong.
> > > Of course he has 'evidence'.
> > >
> > > It should have been asked:
> > > "Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in
> fact
> > > land men on the moon?"..."
> > >
> > > Pete
> >
> > No, it should have been asked:
> > "Do you have any *credible for Pete* evidence at all that the U.S.
> > did not in fact land men on the moon?"..."
> >
> > The answer is no nobody can have it. Right? Tell us what kind
> > of hypotetical evidence you would accept as credible enough.
> > Just curiosity.
>
> ok...I'll play..:)
> Just a few, in no particular order:
>
> 1. Memos outlining (or even hinting at) the coverup.

Hinting? nice crediable evidence! I can predict what
would happend with Neal if he starts hinting he did not
went on the moon. He would be declared as mad person.

> 2. Unambiguous pictures (and location) of the 'fake moon' soundstage.

Anyone can do it. Not a crediable evidence.

> 3. Timed telemetry data, outlining a non-delay in signal.

The scheme with moon radio trasmitter produces aboslutely
correct delays.

> 4. Verified (lie detector?) interviews with >1 member of this coverup.

What?

> 5. Analysis of the 'fake moon rocks', showing they are not of lunar origin.

What if it is of lunar origin meteorites.

> 6. Location of (pictures would help) the mythical alternate Saturn V launch
> site you mention.

Nobody suggested including me an alternate Saturn V launch site. All can be
launched in official one in official times.

> 7. Why the fUSSR did not (has not) brought this coverup into the fore.

Why it should? In any case is not a credible evidence.

> 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could not
> have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
> shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology wasn't
> good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current material
> science all must be included in this analysis).

I agree. That's a good point. Why would not you do that kind of analysis
for yourself. It is not so difficult and I can point you to a basic data
if you want. The funny side is that NASA claimed that such protection
was not necessary.

>
> 9. Finally, a detailed analysis of why it *could not* have been done with
> the technology of the era. Please include all aspects of the flight. More
> detail is better.

Do you really hope get all this from me? No. you have to find out all
this stuff on your own.

>
> Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of those
> right away, correct?

I have many things on that matters (two big files already) but I do not
want to repeat it over and over again. All that was in my view
serious enough was discussed in this NG. So you can easily find out
with Google search engine if you want.

I would suggest also to look very carefully at NASA official moon
movies. Particualrly ones with rover driving. in many there
are dust clouds clearly indicating presence of an atmosphere.
sometimes it is also very visible when astranauts do very
energetic moves. although it does not mean that atmosphere was
always present.

Michael
>
> Pete

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 09:43 AM

(George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
> Michael Petukhov > wrote:
> >[...]
> >The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> >not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> >The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> >
> >Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> >me on? Right? Little naive boy...
>
> So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
> us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
> that this was faked at all?
>

This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
which was largerly ignored etc.

On radiation you can start with:

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.

As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
So be careful you can be mislead.

Michael

>
> -george william herbert
>

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:13 AM

(John Beadles) wrote in message >...
> "Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll play..:)
>
> > 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could not
> > have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
> > shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology wasn't
> > good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current material
> > science all must be included in this analysis).
>
> Before we even go there, we have to answer why there was a moon race
> in the first place if radiation were an insurmountable obstacle. Both
> the US and the Soviet Union launched numerous interplanetary and lunar
> probes long before any manned lunar launchs evertook place. Many of
> the US probe experiments were run by university researchers, IIRC.
> These people would be fully cognizant of the
> interplanetary environment.

I do not think there were really complete data on that matters by 61
when US president declared moon landing goals. By 69 there were certainly
lots of valid data particularly on van-allen belts. But by that time
it seems for so many in US it was already too late to say "sorry it was
my mistake".

>
> The Soviets would know based on the data from their activities and
> would not have participated in the moon race. They launched probes
> specifically to investigate the lunar radiation environment, including
> (but not limited to):
>
> LUNA 1 ('59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> LUNA 2 {'59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> LUNA 3 ('59) - Carried cosmic ray detector
> ZOND 3 ('65) - Carried gas-discharge & scintillation detectors
> LUNA 10 ('66) - Carried gamma ray spectrometer
> LUNA 11 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> LUNA 12 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> LUNA 13 ('66) - Measured cosmic ray reflectivity of surface
> LUNA 14 ('68) - Measured solar charged particles & cosmic radiation
> ZOND 5 ('68) - Flyby carrying turtles, flies, worms, seeds, bacteria
> ZOND 6 {'68} - Carried cosmic ray detectors, biological payload
> ZOND 7 ('69)
> ZOND 8 ('70)
> LUNA 16 ('70) - Returned soil samples, carried radiation instruments
> LUNA 20 ('72) - Returned soil samples
> LUNA 24 ('76) - Returned soil samples
>
> Many more lunar & planetary probes were launched, but I'm only
> including the ones I found immediately that discuss measuring the
> radiation environment. In fact, not only was the lunar radiation
> environment well known in the early
> 60's , it was known well enough early enough for both sides to have
> avoided ever having a moon race in the first place. Be rather
> impossible for Zond 5 to have flown biologicals if the radiation level
> were too high, eh?

As for moon race with USSR. There was very similar manned
moon program in USSR officially opened until 72-73 I think.
however it was never a priority in USSR. Mainly it was Korolev
personal business. It was receiving some very limited funding only
when he was alive in 64-66. Automatic and H1 booster is a different
story. it was priority. korolev did plan to use H1 for the manned
moon flight, but officially H1 was intented to launch heavy
military station in LEO.

However I have to admit designs (unfinished thought) for CM/LM in
USSR were pretty ideologically similar to that in US. It is puzzle
to me why they could believe that **** can be used to fly to moon
and return. The guys here involved in it still hesitate to tell us
how and why in full details.

>
> By this we can infer one of two possibilities:
> 1. Either both the Soviets and the Americans were in on a deception
> (unlikely)

Impossible.

> 2. The lunar radiation environment was not a significant impediment
> to a manned lunar landing (likely)

This is what NASA official position. However today there are
many crediable data including from NASA itself that this is not the case.
See for instance:

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

and referencies in it.

>
> The theory that the US would be pull over a hoax on the Soviets on
> this is falsifiable on this issue.

In my taste this theory is better grounded than theory that
NASA landed on the moon. However practice will show who
was right and wrong.

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:22 AM

"J.T. McDaniel" > wrote in message t>...
> "John Beadles" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll
> play..:)
> >
> > > 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could
> not
> > > have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been
> > > shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology
> wasn't
> > > good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current
> material
> > > science all must be included in this analysis).
> >
> > Before we even go there, we have to answer why there was a moon race
> > in the first place if radiation were an insurmountable obstacle. Both
> > the US and the Soviet Union launched numerous interplanetary and lunar
> > probes long before any manned lunar launchs evertook place. Many of
> > the US probe experiments were run by university researchers, IIRC.
> > These people would be fully cognizant of the
> > interplanetary environment.
> >
> > The Soviets would know based on the data from their activities and
> > would not have participated in the moon race. They launched probes
> > specifically to investigate the lunar radiation environment, including
> > (but not limited to):
> >
> > LUNA 1 ('59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> > LUNA 2 {'59) - Carried geiger counter, scintillation counter
> > LUNA 3 ('59) - Carried cosmic ray detector
> > ZOND 3 ('65) - Carried gas-discharge & scintillation detectors
> > LUNA 10 ('66) - Carried gamma ray spectrometer
> > LUNA 11 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> > LUNA 12 ('66) - Measured hard particulate radiation near moon
> > LUNA 13 ('66) - Measured cosmic ray reflectivity of surface
> > LUNA 14 ('68) - Measured solar charged particles & cosmic radiation
> > ZOND 5 ('68) - Flyby carrying turtles, flies, worms, seeds, bacteria
> > ZOND 6 {'68} - Carried cosmic ray detectors, biological payload
> > ZOND 7 ('69)
> > ZOND 8 ('70)
> > LUNA 16 ('70) - Returned soil samples, carried radiation instruments
> > LUNA 20 ('72) - Returned soil samples
> > LUNA 24 ('76) - Returned soil samples
> >
> > Many more lunar & planetary probes were launched, but I'm only
> > including the ones I found immediately that discuss measuring the
> > radiation environment. In fact, not only was the lunar radiation
> > environment well known in the early
> > 60's , it was known well enough early enough for both sides to have
> > avoided ever having a moon race in the first place. Be rather
> > impossible for Zond 5 to have flown biologicals if the radiation level
> > were too high, eh?
> >
> > By this we can infer one of two possibilities:
> > 1. Either both the Soviets and the Americans were in on a deception
> > (unlikely)
> > 2. The lunar radiation environment was not a significant impediment
> > to a manned lunar landing (likely)
> >
> > The theory that the US would be pull over a hoax on the Soviets on
> > this is falsifiable on this issue.
>
> Curiously, you find this argument, that the technology
> of the time wasn't advanced enough to make the flight,
> but you never hear the even more obvious counter
> argument that the audio-visual technology of the time
> wasn't good enough to fake it, and didn't become so
> until the last five to eight years.

Exactly! That's why it is so easy to find anomalies
in almost all NASA moon video and photo materials.

Michael

Keith Willshaw

November 15th 03, 11:43 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
m...
> (John Beadles) wrote in message
>...
> > "Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll
play..:)
> >
>
> As for moon race with USSR. There was very similar manned
> moon program in USSR officially opened until 72-73 I think.
> however it was never a priority in USSR. Mainly it was Korolev
> personal business. It was receiving some very limited funding only
> when he was alive in 64-66. Automatic and H1 booster is a different
> story. it was priority. korolev did plan to use H1 for the manned
> moon flight, but officially H1 was intented to launch heavy
> military station in LEO.
>

Why would he do so if radiation made such a flight impossible ?

Why would the Soviet Academy of Sciences back his mission ?

Why did the efforts continue for several years after the death
of Korolev ?

> However I have to admit designs (unfinished thought) for CM/LM in
> USSR were pretty ideologically similar to that in US. It is puzzle
> to me why they could believe that **** can be used to fly to moon
> and return. The guys here involved in it still hesitate to tell us
> how and why in full details.
>

Well Korolev is dead which would make his testifying
rather difficult but plenty but Vasili Mishin, gave a long interview to
Spaceflight vol.32:pp.104-106 (1990) and Alexander Yasinsky
wrote an article entitled "The N-1 Rocket Programme."

There's also a nice article in Pravda available on line in English
and Russian at

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/10188_moon.html

Keith

Keith Willshaw

November 15th 03, 11:47 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Pete" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote

>
> Hinting? nice crediable evidence! I can predict what
> would happend with Neal if he starts hinting he did not
> went on the moon. He would be declared as mad person.
>

Not really, he could do so from anywhere on the planet and
make a fortune selling his story.

Keith

Arie Kazachin

November 15th 03, 12:46 PM

In message > - "Stuart Wilkes'
mom" > writes:
>

[snip]

>
>When they get there, they should let us know what the point is.
>

Although this particular schedule (Moon by 2008) seems totally unrealistic,
the attitude of "what's the point of going there" might prove shortsighted
for US in a long run. Despite the mantra "Apollo missions were only footsteps
and flag missions" perpetuated by idiots at CNN (and their "compatibles",
i.e. most other media) who can't grasp anything beyound footsteps and flags,
there had been LOTS of scientific knowledge gained from the Apollo missions
(those who aren't intimidated by very technical explanations might read
"Apollo Lunar Surface Jounal,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html").

In particular, regarding the current energy-related world politics, there
are millions of tons of He-3 on the moon (and orders of magnitude more
in gas giants with Uranus being the preferred). Assuming someone will find
a way to sustain De + He-3 or He-3 + He-3 fusion, the Moon (and later
Uranus) can be viewed as sources of almost non-polluting (De + He-3) or
intrinsically non-polluting (He-3 + He-3) energy.

If US will continue resting on their lauras (sp?), they might end up
paying Chineese/Indians/someone else for He-3 in the same way they
pay Saudis today for oil...

************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

Peter Skelton

November 15th 03, 02:43 PM

OFCS, the gravities are different. Somebody would have picked up
on dust falling or whatever decades ago.

Peter Skelton

Pete

November 15th 03, 03:07 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote

> > Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of
those
> > right away, correct?
>
> I have many things on that matters (two big files already) but I do not
> want to repeat it over and over again. All that was in my view
> serious enough was discussed in this NG. So you can easily find out
> with Google search engine if you want.
>
> I would suggest also to look very carefully at NASA official moon
> movies. Particualrly ones with rover driving. in many there
> are dust clouds clearly indicating presence of an atmosphere.
> sometimes it is also very visible when astranauts do very
> energetic moves. although it does not mean that atmosphere was
> always present.

You are a funny, funny man, Michael.
You asked what evidence I might find 'credible. When given a very basic
list, all you can say is "Go find that stuff for yourself".

You and one or two other kooks say it never happened. The other 6 billion
people on this planet (when they happen to think about it) say it did. I
would say the onus is on *you* to prove your point.

Completely, and unambiguously.

Come back when you can.

Pete

Jack Linthicum

November 15th 03, 06:01 PM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > >
> > > (in russian)
> > >
> > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > and from Cosmic sources.
>
> Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> technologies will be required, including real protection against
> radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
>
>

And, how, are the Soyuz, Zenit and Proton launchers doing, the newest
is the 20 year old Zenit with a 30,000 lb earth orbit capability. The
others are 46 (15,000 lb) and 38 years old (44,000 lb), respectively.
Doesn't sound like anything we didn't have back in 1969, but man-rated
in our case. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/rockets.html

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:46 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> m...
> > (John Beadles) wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Pete" > wrote in message news:<Lydtb.7118> ok...I'll
> play..:)
> > >
> >
> > As for moon race with USSR. There was very similar manned
> > moon program in USSR officially opened until 72-73 I think.
> > however it was never a priority in USSR. Mainly it was Korolev
> > personal business. It was receiving some very limited funding only
> > when he was alive in 64-66. Automatic and H1 booster is a different
> > story. it was priority. korolev did plan to use H1 for the manned
> > moon flight, but officially H1 was intented to launch heavy
> > military station in LEO.
> >
>
> Why would he do so if radiation made such a flight impossible ?

No idea. Perhaps he did not know the full scale of the problem,
However this is my guess only.

>
> Why would the Soviet Academy of Sciences back his mission ?
>

because of the same reason.

> Why did the efforts continue for several years after the death
> of Korolev ?

Purely burocratic reasons. It was much easy to close the program
than open it again. Although no funding was assigned for LMs since
at least 66. BTW the Buran program is still officially opened, without
any activities though. Under the program the only activity all
the time since 66 was H1 booster, but as I said it had a different
destination. also due to top secrecy of ALMAZ military station
program. very usefull cover up story for such a poweful booster.
"Russians still want to go to Moon."

>
> > However I have to admit designs (unfinished thought) for CM/LM in
> > USSR were pretty ideologically similar to that in US. It is puzzle
> > to me why they could believe that **** can be used to fly to moon
> > and return. The guys here involved in it still hesitate to tell us
> > how and why in full details.
> >
>
> Well Korolev is dead which would make his testifying
> rather difficult but plenty but Vasili Mishin, gave a long interview to
> Spaceflight vol.32:pp.104-106 (1990) and Alexander Yasinsky
> wrote an article entitled "The N-1 Rocket Programme."
>
> There's also a nice article in Pravda available on line in English
> and Russian at
>
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/10188_moon.html

Disagree. The last one is not very nice. I would say it
is misleading to very significant extent. As for Spaceflight
vol.32:pp.104-106 (1990). I'll will look at but I strongly
doubt it worth the efforts. In 1990 this subject was closed
matter. No way before say 92.

Michael

>
> Keith

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:51 PM

"Pete" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote
>
> > > Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of
> those
> > > right away, correct?
> >
> > I have many things on that matters (two big files already) but I do not
> > want to repeat it over and over again. All that was in my view
> > serious enough was discussed in this NG. So you can easily find out
> > with Google search engine if you want.
> >
> > I would suggest also to look very carefully at NASA official moon
> > movies. Particualrly ones with rover driving. in many there
> > are dust clouds clearly indicating presence of an atmosphere.
> > sometimes it is also very visible when astranauts do very
> > energetic moves. although it does not mean that atmosphere was
> > always present.
>
> You are a funny, funny man, Michael.
> You asked what evidence I might find 'credible. When given a very basic
> list, all you can say is "Go find that stuff for yourself".

Why do you expect any diffrently? It is a big job by the way to
sort all the crap flying around this subject. If you have
any interest indeed "Go find that stuff for yourself".

Michael

>
> You and one or two other kooks say it never happened. The other 6 billion
> people on this planet (when they happen to think about it) say it did. I
> would say the onus is on *you* to prove your point.
>
> Completely, and unambiguously.
>
> Come back when you can.
>
> Pete

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:54 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote
>
> >
> > Hinting? nice crediable evidence! I can predict what
> > would happend with Neal if he starts hinting he did not
> > went on the moon. He would be declared as mad person.
> >
>
> Not really, he could do so from anywhere on the planet and
> make a fortune selling his story.
>
> Keith

What if he is a good fair guy who was forced to and do not
want to sell the story?

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 15th 03, 10:57 PM

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
> > > >
> > > > (in russian)
> > > >
> > > > Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
> > > > organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
> > > > joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > > But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
> > > a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
> > > and from Cosmic sources.
> >
> > Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
> > with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
> > difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
> > technologies will be required, including real protection against
> > radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
> >
> >
>
> And, how, are the Soyuz, Zenit and Proton launchers doing, the newest
> is the 20 year old Zenit with a 30,000 lb earth orbit capability. The
> others are 46 (15,000 lb) and 38 years old (44,000 lb), respectively.
> Doesn't sound like anything we didn't have back in 1969, but man-rated
> in our case. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/rockets.html

You seems conviniently forgot about "Energia". Although indeed
several good old Protons would be just enough to intergrate necessary
weight in LEO to fly safely to Moon.

Michael

Pete

November 16th 03, 04:57 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote
>
> Why do you expect any diffrently? It is a big job by the way to
> sort all the crap flying around this subject. If you have
> any interest indeed "Go find that stuff for yourself".
>
> Michael

"Crap" is indeed the operative word.

Pete

John Mullen

November 16th 03, 09:27 AM

Michael Petukhov wrote:
> (George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
>
>>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
>>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
>>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
>>>
>>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
>>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
>>
>>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
>>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
>>that this was faked at all?
>>
>
>
> This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
> I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
> are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
> and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
> directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
> wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
> inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
> which was largerly ignored etc.
>
> On radiation you can start with:
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
>
> it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
>
> As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
> Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
> refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
> So be careful you can be mislead.

As IMO you have been!

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

gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies
mentioned by you above.

Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological
factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in
understanding why people hold these beliefs.

John

John Mullen

November 16th 03, 09:29 AM

Michael Petukhov wrote:

> (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
>
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
>>
>>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>>"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>
>>>>>http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/
>>>>>
>>>>>(in russian)
>>>>>
>>>>>Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
>>>>>organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
>>>>>joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael
>>>>
>>>>But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
>>>>a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
>>>>and from Cosmic sources.
>>>
>>>Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
>>>with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
>>>difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
>>>technologies will be required, including real protection against
>>>radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And, how, are the Soyuz, Zenit and Proton launchers doing, the newest
>>is the 20 year old Zenit with a 30,000 lb earth orbit capability. The
>>others are 46 (15,000 lb) and 38 years old (44,000 lb), respectively.
>>Doesn't sound like anything we didn't have back in 1969, but man-rated
>>in our case. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/rockets.html
>
>
>
> You seems conviniently forgot about "Energia". Although indeed
> several good old Protons would be just enough to intergrate necessary
> weight in LEO to fly safely to Moon.
>
> Michael

You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
blow up.

John

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 10:28 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
news:<bp53hm$l06$1
>
> Disagree. The last one is not very nice. I would say it
> is misleading to very significant extent. As for Spaceflight
> vol.32:pp.104-106 (1990). I'll will look at but I strongly
> doubt it worth the efforts. In 1990 this subject was closed
> matter. No way before say 92.
>

Translation

I decline to examine any evidence that may run contrary
to my theory.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 10:30 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote
> >
> > >
> > > Hinting? nice crediable evidence! I can predict what
> > > would happend with Neal if he starts hinting he did not
> > > went on the moon. He would be declared as mad person.
> > >
> >
> > Not really, he could do so from anywhere on the planet and
> > make a fortune selling his story.
> >
> > Keith
>
> What if he is a good fair guy who was forced to and do not
> want to sell the story?
>
> Michael

How would you force him ?

He's a free man who could leave the program or
country at any time, indeed he and his family
have travelled all over the world.

The simpler explanation is that he is telling the truth.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 10:35 AM

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
>
> You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
> blow up.
>

Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion

You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
on the pad.

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html

Keith

John Mullen

November 16th 03, 10:54 AM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael Petukhov wrote:
>>
>>
>>You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
>>blow up.
>>
>
>
> Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion
>
> You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
> launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
> on the pad.
>
> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
> http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html
>
> Keith
>
>
Sure, which is why the Sovs abandoned the N1 and lost the race to the Moon.

But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
in 100 missions.

John

Peter Stickney

November 16th 03, 03:43 PM

In article >,
John Mullen > writes:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael Petukhov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
>>>blow up.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion
>>
>> You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
>> launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
>> on the pad.
>>
>> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
>> http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
> Sure, which is why the Sovs abandoned the N1 and lost the race to the Moon.
>
> But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
> about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
> in 100 missions.

As, roughly, has Soyuz. The accident/abort rates for the two systems
(Spacecraft and Booster) are about the same. The Soyuz has killed its
crew on two flights. One was a parachute failure, (after a number of
other problems), and the second was a Cabin Pressure Dump Valve that
opened before reentry. (The crew wasn't in suits). There have been
other Soyuz flights where crew survival was a matter of luck.
Overall, the safety records are pretty much equivalent.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 04:38 PM

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
> about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
> in 100 missions.
>
> John
>

The Proton booster has a 98% success rate, two failed
in 1999 for example , this puts the failure rate at about the
same level as the Shuttle, fortunately the explosions happened
with unmanned launches.

Keith

Brett

November 16th 03, 05:09 PM

Michael Petukhov

November 16th 03, 07:05 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<bp53hm$l06$1
> >
> > Disagree. The last one is not very nice. I would say it
> > is misleading to very significant extent. As for Spaceflight
> > vol.32:pp.104-106 (1990). I'll will look at but I strongly
> > doubt it worth the efforts. In 1990 this subject was closed
> > matter. No way before say 92.
> >
>
> Translation
>
> I decline to examine any evidence that may run contrary
> to my theory.
>
> Keith

Certainly no. this paper will find its place in my files.
Afterall Mishin was an important guy and whatsever he says
is an important factor.

As a matter of facts sometimes in 98 I have seen in russian
TV 1h program discussing russian moon program with many
important guys involved present: Leonov, the commander of
the first moon crew and the chief designer of soviet LM
(sorry forgot his name). I was shocked how little they
have to say on the most important question from jornalists.
So I afraid that Mishin interview belongs to the same department.
Why I am not really sure. perhaps they do not know exactly
what is and is not state secrete any more.

Michael

Michael

Michael Petukhov

November 16th 03, 07:15 PM

Michael Petukhov

November 16th 03, 07:50 PM

John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > (George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> >>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> >>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> >>>
> >>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> >>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
> >>
> >>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
> >>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
> >>that this was faked at all?
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
> > I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
> > are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
> > and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
> > directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
> > wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
> > inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
> > which was largerly ignored etc.
> >
> > On radiation you can start with:
> >
> > http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
> >
> > it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
> >
> > As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
> > Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
> > refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
> > So be careful you can be mislead.
>
> As IMO you have been!
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
>

John, just a few comments on that site. It is nicely
organized. It does include refernces to original materials
and it discusses most (not all tought) important NASA problems
with that Moon landings. Moreover tt seems author prepared
a book to disprove NASA hoax theory, which is on sale. But
there is one important problem. He lies, directly and openly.

He says:

"...
However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust
thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect
parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. ..."

It is the lie. I am sure you have seen this video. If not take it
and look very closely. It is exactly opposite to what was actually
shown in NASA official videos. Namely clouds of dust from rover
wheels stopped by the air exactly like on the earth were shown.
Very visible, very clear. BTW the same effects for dust from
astranouts foots is also sometimes very clearly visible.

Why he lies, John? If so, after that, how we can trust a word
from this guy about his on other topics, easily received
discussions with NASA experts etc.? No way.

"... Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the
Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel
and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the
video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a
beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA
faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would
have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this
technology today! ..."

Exactly. This is the Earth?

Michael
This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.

> gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies
> mentioned by you above.
>
> Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological
> factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in
> understanding why people hold these beliefs.
>
> John

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 08:43 PM

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:.

>
> Only 12 launch failures in 300+/- attempts since the mid 1960's?
>
>

2% of 300 is 6, Russian rockets have a generally excellent record.
The notable exception was the N1 rocket designed for the
Soviet moon program.

Keith

John Mullen

November 16th 03, 10:21 PM

Michael Petukhov wrote:
> John Mullen > wrote in message >...
>
>>Michael Petukhov wrote:
>>
(George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
>>>>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
>>>>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
>>>>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
>>>>
>>>>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
>>>>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
>>>>that this was faked at all?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
>>>I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
>>>are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
>>>and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
>>>directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
>>>wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
>>>inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
>>>which was largerly ignored etc.
>>>
>>>On radiation you can start with:
>>>
>>>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
>>>
>>>it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
>>>
>>>As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
>>>Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
>>>refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
>>>So be careful you can be mislead.
>>
>>As IMO you have been!
>>
>>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
>>
>
>
> John, just a few comments on that site. It is nicely
> organized. It does include refernces to original materials
> and it discusses most (not all tought) important NASA problems
> with that Moon landings. Moreover tt seems author prepared
> a book to disprove NASA hoax theory, which is on sale. But
> there is one important problem. He lies, directly and openly.
>
> He says:
>
> "...
> However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust
> thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect
> parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. ..."

I can't see that Michael. All I can see is the dust going up from the
wheels and falling straight back down again, as it would in a vacuum.

> It is the lie. I am sure you have seen this video. If not take it
> and look very closely. It is exactly opposite to what was actually
> shown in NASA official videos. Namely clouds of dust from rover
> wheels stopped by the air exactly like on the earth were shown.
> Very visible, very clear. BTW the same effects for dust from
> astranouts foots is also sometimes very clearly visible.
>
> Why he lies, John? If so, after that, how we can trust a word
> from this guy about his on other topics, easily received
> discussions with NASA experts etc.? No way.
>
> "... Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the
> Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel
> and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the
> video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a
> beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA
> faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would
> have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this
> technology today! ..."
>
> Exactly. This is the Earth?

I don't think so.

> Michael
> This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.

Do you have a ref for these clios that you refer to?

John

>
>
>>gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies
>>mentioned by you above.
>>
>>Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological
>>factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in
>>understanding why people hold these beliefs.
>>
>>John

captain!

November 16th 03, 11:43 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> >
> >
> > You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
> > blow up.
> >
>
> Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion
>
> You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
> launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
> on the pad.
>
> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html

> http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html
>
> Keith
>
>

both the american and russian programs have suffered similar disasters.
such are the risks of being pioneers.

captain!

November 16th 03, 11:50 PM

John Mullen > wrote in message
>...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > > (George William Herbert) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > >>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>[...]
> > >>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> > >>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> > >>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> > >>>
> > >>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> > >>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
> > >>
> > >>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
> > >>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
> > >>that this was faked at all?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
> > > I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
> > > are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
> > > and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
> > > directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
> > > wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
> > > inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
> > > which was largerly ignored etc.
> > >
> > > On radiation you can start with:
> > >
> > > http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
> > >
> > > it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
> > >
> > > As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
> > > Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
> > > refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
> > > So be careful you can be mislead.
> >
> > As IMO you have been!
> >
> > http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
> >
>

great site!

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj

November 17th 03, 02:47 AM

John Mullen wrote:

> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
>> (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>
>>>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
>>>>> om...
>>>>>
>>>>>> .............................
>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, how, are the Soyuz, Zenit and Proton launchers doing, the newest
>>> is the 20 year old Zenit with a 30,000 lb earth orbit capability. The
>>> others are 46 (15,000 lb) and 38 years old (44,000 lb), respectively.
>>> Doesn't sound like anything we didn't have back in 1969, but man-rated
>>> in our case. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/rockets.html
>>
>> You seems conviniently forgot about "Energia". Although indeed several
>> good old Protons would be just enough to intergrate necessary
>> weight in LEO to fly safely to Moon.
>
> You could also mention that the Russian boosters are
> much less likely to blow up.
>
Oh, quit your saracasm :)
That would really be a claim as true as most other, of Michaels claims :)

Michael Petukhov

November 17th 03, 10:35 AM

John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Michael Petukhov wrote:
> >>
> (George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>[...]
> >>>>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> >>>>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> >>>>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> >>>>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
> >>>>
> >>>>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
> >>>>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
> >>>>that this was faked at all?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
> >>>I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
> >>>are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
> >>>and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
> >>>directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
> >>>wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
> >>>inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
> >>>which was largerly ignored etc.
> >>>
> >>>On radiation you can start with:
> >>>
> >>>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
> >>>
> >>>it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
> >>>
> >>>As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
> >>>Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
> >>>refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
> >>>So be careful you can be mislead.
> >>
> >>As IMO you have been!
> >>
> >>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
> >>
> >
> >
> > John, just a few comments on that site. It is nicely
> > organized. It does include refernces to original materials
> > and it discusses most (not all tought) important NASA problems
> > with that Moon landings. Moreover tt seems author prepared
> > a book to disprove NASA hoax theory, which is on sale. But
> > there is one important problem. He lies, directly and openly.
> >
> > He says:
> >
> > "...
> > However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust
> > thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect
> > parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. ..."
>
> I can't see that Michael. All I can see is the dust going up from the
> wheels and falling straight back down again, as it would in a vacuum.

What you cannot see? The clouds of dust stopped by the air?
In vacuum there would not clouds, The trajectory would be
symmetrical ballistic parabola, the horizontal speed of
the particles at the end of the trajectory would be the same
as it was in beginning. None of this is visible in NASA clip.

Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover" at:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/videos.htm

>
> > It is the lie. I am sure you have seen this video. If not take it
> > and look very closely. It is exactly opposite to what was actually
> > shown in NASA official videos. Namely clouds of dust from rover
> > wheels stopped by the air exactly like on the earth were shown.
> > Very visible, very clear. BTW the same effects for dust from
> > astranouts foots is also sometimes very clearly visible.
> >
> > Why he lies, John? If so, after that, how we can trust a word
> > from this guy about his on other topics, easily received
> > discussions with NASA experts etc.? No way.
> >
> > "... Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the
> > Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel
> > and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the
> > video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a
> > beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA
> > faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would
> > have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this
> > technology today! ..."
> >
> > Exactly. This is the Earth?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > Michael
> > This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.
>
> Do you have a ref for these clios that you refer to?

Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
which can be found at:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/videos.htm

Michael

>
> John
>
> >
> >
> >>gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies
> >>mentioned by you above.
> >>
> >>Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological
> >>factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in
> >>understanding why people hold these beliefs.
> >>
> >>John

Keith Willshaw

November 17th 03, 10:59 AM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> which can be found at:
>

There are no dust clouds in this video.

The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.

Keith

ZZBunker

November 17th 03, 02:50 PM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > > John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> > >
> > >>Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > >>
> > (George William Herbert) wrote in message >...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Michael Petukhov > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>[...]
> > >>>>>The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
> > >>>>>not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
> > >>>>>The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
> > >>>>>me on? Right? Little naive boy...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
> > >>>>us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
> > >>>>that this was faked at all?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
> > >>>I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
> > >>>are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
> > >>>and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
> > >>>directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
> > >>>wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
> > >>>inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
> > >>>which was largerly ignored etc.
> > >>>
> > >>>On radiation you can start with:
> > >>>
> > >>>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
> > >>>
> > >>>it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.
> > >>>
> > >>>As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
> > >>>Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
> > >>>refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
> > >>>So be careful you can be mislead.
> > >>
> > >>As IMO you have been!
> > >>
> > >>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > John, just a few comments on that site. It is nicely
> > > organized. It does include refernces to original materials
> > > and it discusses most (not all tought) important NASA problems
> > > with that Moon landings. Moreover tt seems author prepared
> > > a book to disprove NASA hoax theory, which is on sale. But
> > > there is one important problem. He lies, directly and openly.
> > >
> > > He says:
> > >
> > > "...
> > > However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust
> > > thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect
> > > parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. ..."
> >
> > I can't see that Michael. All I can see is the dust going up from the
> > wheels and falling straight back down again, as it would in a vacuum.
>
> What you cannot see? The clouds of dust stopped by the air?
> In vacuum there would not clouds,

You don't need vaccums.
Lunar Landers make their own clouds, it's MAGIC.

The trajectory would be
> symmetrical ballistic parabola, the horizontal speed of
> the particles at the end of the trajectory would be the same
> as it was in beginning. None of this is visible in NASA clip.

That is only because NASA wasted 20 years of our
national budget collecting Moon ROCKS.
They are amatuer photographers, whom the only people
on Earth who are paid less are the Russians.

What you fail to understand is what we have to keep
reminding British retart physicists even more often
that we have to remind US retart physicists:

The moon is not a vacuum.
Vacuum's only exist in Pisa, and it's closely allied partner
in low IQ, Paris.

> Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover" at:
>
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/videos.htm
>
>
> >
> > > It is the lie. I am sure you have seen this video. If not take it
> > > and look very closely. It is exactly opposite to what was actually
> > > shown in NASA official videos. Namely clouds of dust from rover
> > > wheels stopped by the air exactly like on the earth were shown.
> > > Very visible, very clear. BTW the same effects for dust from
> > > astranouts foots is also sometimes very clearly visible.
> > >
> > > Why he lies, John? If so, after that, how we can trust a word
> > > from this guy about his on other topics, easily received
> > > discussions with NASA experts etc.? No way.
> > >
> > > "... Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the
> > > Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel
> > > and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the
> > > video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a
> > > beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA
> > > faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would
> > > have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this
> > > technology today! ..."

But, the US never claimed to France that we have the technology.
Our claim is the same as it's always been:

We have the knowledge, we have the power, we have the freedom:
hence you commies are toast.

Michael Petukhov

November 17th 03, 02:58 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > which can be found at:
> >
>
> There are no dust clouds in this video.
>
> The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.

Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.

As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
a bit better visibility, than you have.

Michael
>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

November 17th 03, 03:39 PM

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > > which can be found at:
> > >
> >
> > There are no dust clouds in this video.
> >
> > The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> > back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> > as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
>
> Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
> air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.
>

The limit in this case is that of the video clip involved
and I have seen this before at a higher definition.

> As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
> suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
> particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
> speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,

I see no clouds of dust suspended. On a surface like that
on any of the sand/dust deserts I have travelled you can see the
dust track for miles behind a vehicle.

> are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
> a bit better visibility, than you have.
>

For a good picture of how dust behaves on earth
see

http://www.goredsea.com/media/images/large/DSC07745.JPG
http://www.goredsea.com/media/images/large/DSC07739.JPG

Keith

John Mullen

November 17th 03, 06:19 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
>>>>Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
>>>>which can be found at:
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are no dust clouds in this video.
>>>
>>>The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
>>>back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
>>>as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
>>
>>Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
>>air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.
>>
>
>
> The limit in this case is that of the video clip involved
> and I have seen this before at a higher definition.
>
>
>>As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
>>suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
>>particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
>>speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
>
>
> I see no clouds of dust suspended. On a surface like that
> on any of the sand/dust deserts I have travelled you can see the
> dust track for miles behind a vehicle.
>
>
>>are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
>>a bit better visibility, than you have.
>>

Sorry Michael, I have to agree with Keith. The clip you refer to, which
I have also seen in higher resolution, to me just shows clouds of moon
dust being thrown up and then falling straight back down again, as you
would expect it to in a vacuum.

If you have ever driven in dusty conditions on earth as I have you will
be aware of how long the dust hangs in the air.

John

John Mullen

November 17th 03, 06:29 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:.
>
>
>>Only 12 launch failures in 300+/- attempts since the mid 1960's?
>>
>>
>
>
> 2% of 300 is 6, Russian rockets have a generally excellent record.

Which was my point. By trying to do too much (ie reusable components)
and then not funding it properly, the USA has achieved less than they
ought to have. By using conservative technology, the Russians have
achieved more reliability. Apart, as I agreed already, from the N1.

> The notable exception was the N1 rocket designed for the
> Soviet moon program.

Hideously over-complex design. It just *looks* wrong. Maybe the Russians
didn't get enough Nazi rocket scientists!

John

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj

November 17th 03, 07:14 PM

Michael Petukhov wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>
>>>Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
>>>Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
>>>which can be found at:
>>>
>>
>>There are no dust clouds in this video.
>>
>>The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
>>back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
>>as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
>
>
> Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
> air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.
>
> As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
> suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
> particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
> speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
> are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
> a bit better visibility, than you have.
>
> Michael
>
>>Keith
Keith may have visibility :) and so do you :)
But you need to have the organ connected to your vision
hardware replaced or refurbished.

Michael Williamson

November 17th 03, 07:16 PM

Michael Petukhov wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...

>>>Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
>>>Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
>>>which can be found at:
>>>
>>
>>There are no dust clouds in this video.
>>
>>The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
>>back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
>>as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
>
>
> Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
> air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.
>
> As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
> suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
> particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
> speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
> are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
> a bit better visibility, than you have.
>
> Michael
>
>>Keith
>

In which direction to you expect the dust to be thrown? While not
quite absolutely vertical, there is very little horizontal
component to the velocity of dust lifted off the ground
by tires unless they are slipping. On earth, most of the
horizontal velocity of dust is provided by the disturbed
*air* around the moving vehicle. Therefore, your
description of what you believe to be the results of
air resistance are in fact more evidence of its
absence. If there was enough air pressure to change
the direction of the dust, it would billow out, as
you see behind (for instance) a vehicle on a dirt
road.

Mike

Mike

John Beadles

November 17th 03, 08:13 PM

"No Spam!" > wrote in message >...
> John -
>
> You're missing the point.
>
> The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
> nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
> rules of scientific evidence and logic.
>
> They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
> are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
> facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
> cover-up.
>
> They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
> do will convince them otherwise.
>
> If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
> exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
> were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
> they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
> them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.
>
> Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.
>
> A Reformed Tilter

No, I understand and agree completely. Nevertheless, I think the
argument must occasionally be fought. Not to convince the hoaxer, but
to expose lurkers to the counter arguments. I know there are many
hoax debunk web sites which can serve this purpose; however, in my
experience, they tend to argue directly against the "evidence"
provided by the hoax proponents. My observation is that the indirect
evidence (political environment, technical capability, etc.) did not
permit an hoax to be performed. So, every once in a while I'll
address one of these posters to see if they have anything new,
identify counter arguments for the lurkers and to use the opportunity
to sharpen my admittedly scholarship.

John Beadles

November 17th 03, 08:52 PM

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> (John Beadles) wrote in message >...

> > It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
> > ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
> > there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back.
>
> Easy? Show please. It is easy to show the opposite.
> it did, using of course the scheme presented.
>
> > If the
> > signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
> > ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
> > therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.
>
> Who said it was "recording from a lunar bound lander". Are you prefer
> to dispute with your own false arguments, as many NASA defenders like
> so much? Frankly I think than many so called moon hoax sites
> in internet full of false arguments are sponsored by NASA. It is easy
> to fight with their own false claims and sink the grains of true
> in the seas of false claims and contra claims.
>
> As for communications I think it was life between studio and mainly
> unaware personnel in Huston control center but the signal went via
> lunar trasmitters (including one installed in Apollo return module).
> That's scheme correctly reproduce all variable delay times, doppler
> shifts, indepedent tracking and so on and so far.
>
> Michael

Michael,

I'll answer this, but it'll take me a day or so because the answer is
going to be extensive. I attempted to send out a msg on this topic,
but I think I accidentally hit the send button before I was finished.

captain!

November 17th 03, 10:23 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > which can be found at:
> >
>
> There are no dust clouds in this video.
>
> The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
>
> Keith
>

also, if you pay particular attention to the part where he slams on the
brakes at the end, you will notice the dust falls forward across the wheel
well and onto the ground immediately.

Stuart Wilkes' mom

November 17th 03, 11:00 PM

"captain!" > wrote in message
news:cTbub.416666$pl3.294210@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > > which can be found at:
> > >
> >
> > There are no dust clouds in this video.
> >
> > The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> > back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> > as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
> >
> > Keith
> >
>
> also, if you pay particular attention to the part where he slams on the
> brakes at the end, you will notice the dust falls forward across the wheel
> well and onto the ground immediately.
>
>

Capn you got sucked into one of Petukov's psychopathys. I thought this was
about Russia and India...which one holds the lightbulb and which one turns
the ladder?!

Michael Petukhov

November 17th 03, 11:28 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > > > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > > > which can be found at:
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are no dust clouds in this video.
> > >
> > > The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> > > back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> > > as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
> >
> > Ok Keith your visibility clearly does not allow you to see this
> > air effects in Moon, as well as to all NASA defenders.
> >
>
> The limit in this case is that of the video clip involved
> and I have seen this before at a higher definition.

So do I. I have bought high definition video tape in when
visiting US.

>
> > As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
> > suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
> > particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
> > speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
>
> I see no clouds of dust suspended. On a surface like that
> on any of the sand/dust deserts I have travelled you can see the
> dust track for miles behind a vehicle.

Never mind. If you do not perhaps indeed you cannot.

BTW I have found and read the Mishin book "Why we did not
went to the Moon", 1990. Not a bad title...

Funny reading to say mild. Imagine lots of talks about advatage
of H1 design compare to Saturn V and not a word about LM design
and testing, not a word about radiation and protection against
it as it never existed. Of course he is true beliver that NASA did
went to the moon.

Among interesting things he said that by end of 1970 project
UR500K(proton)/L1 (known as Zonds 4-8 for public) was successfuly
4 times tested and were 100% ready for a manned mission
(if you do not know it was about the circling Moon and return),
but "high authorities" closed the program out of hands without any
explantions. By the same decision his OKB1 was given an order to
start urgent program of a space station for LEO. Moreover he,
the cheaf designer and the official Korolev successor said that
"the goverment decision was not clear for me then and it
is not clear for me now".

That's about all useful info on "Why we did not went to the Moon"
we can extract from this otherwise nice booklet. I have got
100% impression from his book he never even heard these words,
"the space radiation hazard". Not sure about astranauts but
russian cosmonauts seem were completely immuned of this.

Michael

>
> > are all pretty visible to me. Let's see maybe others have
> > a bit better visibility, than you have.
> >
>
> For a good picture of how dust behaves on earth
> see
>
> http://www.goredsea.com/media/images/large/DSC07745.JPG
> http://www.goredsea.com/media/images/large/DSC07739.JPG
>
> Keith

George William Herbert

November 18th 03, 04:57 AM

Michael Petukhov > wrote:
>> The limit in this case is that of the video clip involved
>> and I have seen this before at a higher definition.
>
>So do I. I have bought high definition video tape in when
>visiting US.

Then you have no excuse. All the well done high resolution
film and video sequences clearly show parabolic flight of
dust particles and settling at 1.6 m/s^2, the Moon's gravitational
accelleration.

The lower gravity makes the particles stay up in longer than
they would on earth; our gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 and people look
at the lunar stuff and think 'it's not falling fast enough,
it's got to be an atmosphere', but they're wrong.

>> > As for me "clouds" of very fine particles of dust hanging
>> > suspended in the air and as well as "clouds" of more heavy
>> > particles concetrated in areas where they lost horizontal
>> > speed (due to air resitence) and fall down almost vertical,
>>
>> I see no clouds of dust suspended. On a surface like that
>> on any of the sand/dust deserts I have travelled you can see the
>> dust track for miles behind a vehicle.
>
>Never mind. If you do not perhaps indeed you cannot.

If you take the velocity of the rover, the rotation rate
of the wheels, and how fast it could fling dust particles
up into the vaccum, then figure the math on 1.6 m/s^2 gravity
and how long it will take for them to land, you find that
you can show that for any point in any video, the stuff flung
up has all settled completely within that time. The bulk of
it is flung up a lot slower and on lower than vertical
trajectories and settles much faster.

That *is* clear in all the videos.

>[Michkin book]
>Among interesting things he said that by end of 1970 project
>UR500K(proton)/L1 (known as Zonds 4-8 for public) was successfuly
>4 times tested and were 100% ready for a manned mission
>(if you do not know it was about the circling Moon and return),
>but "high authorities" closed the program out of hands without any
>explantions. By the same decision his OKB1 was given an order to
>start urgent program of a space station for LEO. Moreover he,
>the cheaf designer and the official Korolev successor said that
>"the goverment decision was not clear for me then and it
>is not clear for me now".

It was completely clear to everyone: Russia intended to participate
for prestige in a Moon Race. There was a time when it appeared
they could in fact beat the US program to a manned landing,
in the early 1960s. They got moderate funding then, and the US
spent lavishly on Apollo, with the result that Apollo succeeded
on time and the USSR N-1 rocket failed and the around the moon
Proton/Soyuz mission was cancelled because it would have come
well after the first US landings.

Anyone who insists that the reason for cancellation is unclear
is an idiot or too ignorant to be discussing the situation.

>That's about all useful info on "Why we did not went to the Moon"
>we can extract from this otherwise nice booklet. I have got
>100% impression from his book he never even heard these words,
>"the space radiation hazard". Not sure about astranauts but
>russian cosmonauts seem were completely immuned of this.

You earlier referenced Guth's page on space radiation hazards.

The problem is, Guth can't calculate anything correctly regarding
space radiation hazard. He also sees manufactured structures everywhere
he looks in Venus radar imagery, calls himself the Global Aeronautical
and Space Administration, claimed for a time that a USAF laser weapon
test shot down Space Shuttle Columbia, and some other really great
lines. Brad Guth talks up a storm and knows a lot of technical
words, but he cannot calculate or analyze physics or space science
problems accurately. Period. Nothing he has ever done as original
work has been correct, as far as I can tell, and he even tends to
misread and misrepresent explicit answers from other people's
research.

Brad Guth is a kook. Trust nothing he tells you about the space
radiation hazard regarding Lunar missions. His claims on that
account are known to be completely wrong, because he can't do
math or science right.

Now, do you have any *other* evidence that we didn't actually
go to the moon?

-george william herbert

Peter Stickney

November 18th 03, 01:01 PM

In article >,
(George William Herbert) writes:

> You earlier referenced Guth's page on space radiation hazards.

Checking back through the killed files, it was, in fact, his sole
reference on the subject.
>
> The problem is, Guth can't calculate anything correctly regarding
> space radiation hazard. He also sees manufactured structures everywhere
> he looks in Venus radar imagery, calls himself the Global Aeronautical
> and Space Administration, claimed for a time that a USAF laser weapon
> test shot down Space Shuttle Columbia, and some other really great
> lines. Brad Guth talks up a storm and knows a lot of technical
> words, but he cannot calculate or analyze physics or space science
> problems accurately. Period. Nothing he has ever done as original
> work has been correct, as far as I can tell, and he even tends to
> misread and misrepresent explicit answers from other people's
> research.

You forgot the Giant Metal Carbon Dioxide Dirigibles and the Venusian
Islamic Space Lizards.

Not something I'd bring before the Academy of Sciences.

> Brad Guth is a kook. Trust nothing he tells you about the space
> radiation hazard regarding Lunar missions. His claims on that
> account are known to be completely wrong, because he can't do
> math or science right.

IIRC, he's also been about the most consistant winner of the "Illucid"
rating from netkook.

> Now, do you have any *other* evidence that we didn't actually
> go to the moon?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

captain!

November 19th 03, 11:20 PM

"Stuart Wilkes' mom" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "captain!" > wrote in message
> news:cTbub.416666$pl3.294210@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > > > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > > > which can be found at:
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are no dust clouds in this video.
> > >
> > > The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> > > back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> > > as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> >
> > also, if you pay particular attention to the part where he slams on the
> > brakes at the end, you will notice the dust falls forward across the
wheel
> > well and onto the ground immediately.
> >
> >
>
> Capn you got sucked into one of Petukov's psychopathys. I thought this was
> about Russia and India...which one holds the lightbulb and which one turns
> the ladder?!
>
>

i can't resist when space is part of the discussion.

Jack Linthicum

November 20th 03, 08:23 PM

"captain!" > wrote in message news:<kVSub.439029$9l5.262807@pd7tw2no>...
> "Stuart Wilkes' mom" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "captain!" > wrote in message
> > news:cTbub.416666$pl3.294210@pd7tw3no...
> > >
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. I am refering to dust clouds clearly visible in NASA official
> > > > > Apollo 16 video under the title "Astronaut drives Lunar Rover"
> > > > > which can be found at:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are no dust clouds in this video.
> > > >
> > > > The dust is thrown off the rear wheel and immediately falls
> > > > back to the ground with no plume of dust hanging suspended
> > > > as happens when you drive in desert areas on earth.
> > > >
> > > > Keith
> > > >
> > >
> > > also, if you pay particular attention to the part where he slams on the
> > > brakes at the end, you will notice the dust falls forward across the
> wheel
> > > well and onto the ground immediately.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Capn you got sucked into one of Petukov's psychopathys. I thought this was
> > about Russia and India...which one holds the lightbulb and which one turns
> > the ladder?!
> >
> >
>
> i can't resist when space is part of the discussion.

Add on from a near-by thread: has the Hubble telescope ever found any
of the LEM bases left behind when the crew compartment lifts off?