[geocentrism] Re: Bouw on moon-doubters
- From: "Cheryl" <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:10:58 -0500
Amnon -- You've hit on nitty gritty stuff. I sure wish I was smarter in
science and physics.
Since Dr. Bouw is an expert on shadows and retouching films I'd tend to
listen to his opinions about the moon pics. But I wonder how much of an
expert he is on radiation and the Van Allen belts. He says the astronots
got less radiation from the van allen belts than people who used to step in
front of those floroscopes (sp). Can this be true?
I think he might be wrong about that, and some other things.
I personally don't believe there were any astronots landing on any moon.
The most convincing argument Dr. Bouw seems to offer in support of a true
moon landing is he says the lighting in the pics is so different that it has
to be on the moon, that it has a kind of "surreal sheen" that he sees.
My gut tells me it's all a fake. And if it's true that there's no hot or
cold in space and a vacuum serves to insulate, then William Cooper's point
about the space ship turning so as to "cool" itself from the sun's rays in
the darkness of space -- is that true that there would be no cooling at all?
Wouldn't the vibrating molecules slow down soon as they were in the dark
vacuum, or would they keep vibrating perpetually? William Cooper says heat
is agitated molecules and cold is slowed down molecules, so why wouldn't the
molecules be slowed down in a vacuum away from the sun? Can it possibly be
true that if you put something in a vacuum at a certain temperature that it
will stay that temperature forever?
If William Cooper is correct about no heat or cold in space except when
molecules are agitated (by the sun), then what would the temperature be on
the dark side of the moon? It wouldn't be neutral. Rather, it would be
really cold.
I'm confused.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl" <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Bouw on moon-doubters
> Amnon-- I read this article and Dr. Bouw pretty much demolishes the fake
> photos argument and turns it around against the hoaxers.
>
> However, Dr. Jones has never put any of these arguments up on his site
> regarding the lighting in the photos. His proofs pertain to the speed of
> the moon traveling around the earth and the claims of William Cooper
> regarding the space suits.
>
> I wonder what Dr. Bouw would have to say about the claims of William
> Cooper
> regarding the space suits and also the "toasting" of the astronots in
> their
> spaceship as they turned in space round and round to keep "cool" -- that
> there IS no hot or cold in space. The heat from the sun would be intense
> with no atmosphere to shield or protect from it, and a vacuum keeps heat
> in,
> does not cool it.
>
> Gordon Bane is an associate of Dr. Bouw's and is posting on this forum.
> Gordon's book Geocentric Bible is published in the second half of Dr.
> Bouw's
> book Geocentric Primer.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amnon" <yerushabel3@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:52 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Bouw on moon-doubters
>
>
>> Has Gerardus Bouw's article
>> http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no90/gotomoon.html
>> criticising moon landing doubters been discussed yet on this forum?
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
