Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon

From: (Michael Petukhov)
m

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

(John Beadles) wrote in message om...
(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

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message om...
(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.

"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

(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...
....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.

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

"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

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

"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.

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...
...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/...7/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.