[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:18:01 +0000 (GMT)

Jack L
From Jack Lewis Sat Sep 1 17:29:27 2007
Dear Paul, 
There are numerous websites which decimate all photographic imagery plus a lot 
of seudo science. So if the photos are contrived, what were all those men 
sitting in front of monitors really doing? Why don't you look at this evidence? 
I did at a time when I didn't want to believe that it could have been a hoax 
but as much as tried to ignore the critics, my common sense told me the critics 
were right. And since then the evidence against the moon landings increases. 
Would you like me to give you a link to just one of these sites? 
Let me ask you a question. Why was it necessary for NASA to rehearse 
Armstrong's decent of the ladder in a studio set that looked exactly like the 
'real thing'? During this rehearsal a light gantry collapsed behind Armstrong 
and he remarked, " I suppose we need to do that again" or words to that effect. 
I can provide you with a link to the video - if you are interested. 
I've visited many of these hoax sites and found none to be convincing. I've 
been to hoax debunking sites and found them to be convincing. I'll try one of 
you hoax sites just to show that I'm prepared to look and I'll report to you on 
my findings. I'll also answer specific questions from you concerning your 
nominated site. I'm not interested in video -- it's way too slow and soaks up 
too much of my monthly ration of MBs.
The men in the rows of stations are organised by function. There was one for 
engineering -- do you want to guess at how many components there were in an 
Apollo vehicle -- where they were interested in monitoring the operation of the 
various processes; another was, I believe, concerned with operations; but 
definately I do remember that one whole row was concerned with navigation. The 
accuracy required of heading and thrust in order to achieve success is 
staggering and the maths involved would curl my teeth. Remember that in the 
late 1960s, computers were not the capable devices we have today. Why don't you 
look into that?
Rehearsals -- now there's a story! Have you ever been in the military Jack? If 
you have you should have some rudimentary idea of the need for and the value of 
rehearsals. Getting some tiny task exactly and immediately right, in the rain 
and in the dark, can be the difference between winning the action and losing, 
but more important -- on a personal level -- is that it might be the difference 
between living to eat breakfast and having your guts and your brains splattered 
all over the countryside and the bloke next to you. In the case of Apollo in 
particular but space navigation in general, every tiny task is rehearsed and 
the results analysed to the nth degree. Each mission costs buckets of money and 
to have a failure because a spanner wouldn't fit a nut or a vital adjusting 
knob was just out of reach is innexcusable! Why would you think that coming 
down a ladder didn't need rehearsal? It's very often the trivial, the 
unimportant which is the cause of
 disaster. Are you aware of the enormous water tank in which astronauts and 
their helpers exercise with full size mockups? These sorts of things are very 
expensive and they aren't built to impress the visitors.
The truth about your skepticism is simply this -- you don't believe because you 
don't want to believe. Put in the positive -- you want to not believe. Why this 
is so almost defies belief but confronted by the reality of it I must believe.
Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: