[geocentrism] Re: Moon Hoax sites

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:13:24 +0100

Dear Philip,
these photos were used for publicity and were supposed to have been taken on 
the moon. The analysis shows that they weren't ergo men didn't go to the moon. 

Do have a look at the other videos on this same link.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: philip madsen 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 2:29 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Hoax sites

  Jack on watching this vid it appears that what is proved is the use of 
promotional photos for publicity.. Nothing was said that negated that the 
mission was done.  Only that the photos they took were not worth using in the 

  Or did I miss something..  

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jack Lewis 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 8:52 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Hoax sites

    Dear Paul,
    Its amazing really, I like everyone else in the world believed men went to 
the moon, then I was confronted with some seemingly contradictory evidence. 
From what you say you also have seen this same evidence. For my part I was 
convinced that the evidence was incontrovertible at the same time I asked WHY 
has this been done - if it is true. I also have seen the debunking sites and am 
not impressed with their explanations. So here you have it I think the case is 
proved and you don't. You would say I don't want to believe it and I say that 
you do. The difference between us is that I was converted by evidence but you 
haven't. I would suggest that you are more biased than I am because I went from 
being a believer to an unbeliever by sound rational criticism. 

    Here is a U Tube link for you to comment on. There are many more short 
original videos, on this page which are commented on as well some very stupid 
editing of original footage. 

    If you have looked at the pros and cons sites then there is little point in 
me giving you links you may have already seen. However I do suggest you look at 
the short videos on this link especially this one.

    If as you say in your last but one paragraph, rehearsal is all important 
why in heaven's name did the astronauts smuggle bits and pieces onto their 
spaceship e.g. a harmonica in defiance of such a supposedly strict rehearsal 
and mind boggling technical difficulties?

    Regarding this rehearsing how many times did Armstrong test fly the LEM? If 
he did how did they simulate flying in 1/6th gravity?

    As you know there are hundreds of questions like that.
    Have you watched the video 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'? 
I would be more than happy to send you a copy. Just send me your address.

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Paul Deema 
      To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:18 PM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science


      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. Get 
it now. 


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 1/09/2007 
4:20 PM

Other related posts: