I would like to share with you a collection of e-mails I am sending to NASAScam, in hope of a reply. Comments, suggestions? I'll let you know if he replies.

EMAIL #1: Subject: Great Website! ( I put that in there in the hopes that he would open it )


I must congratulate you on a truly great web feat. You have put together the best and largest collection of utter nonsense I have ever seen in my life.

For starters, let me give my honest opinion of your site. It is funny if taken in jest. I sincerely hope this is its purpose. Otherwise, I am ashamed that you could call mankind's greatest achievement a scam. Since I have little time to spread truth since most of my time is earmarked for things such as planting hyacinths and re-inventing the law of gravity, I will speak in brief, covering majoring points.

In reference to the pictures of the astroNAUTS, you raise several issues. Sigh. These are simply misunderstandings that you could clear up in a mere fraction of the time it took you to put up your website.
Well, I will do this for you. First, there is a picture of the astroNAUT Buzz Aldrin leaning forward on the Moon, and you ask how he managed to maintain his balance. This is simple and is mentioned in about 500 books. The lunar backpack had a large mass and weighed more than the rest of the suit, so the astroNAUTS had to stand forward to maintain their balance. Impossible on Earth, but easy in one-sixth G wit ha heavy backpack.

Why can't you see stars in the Apollo photographs? The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim.
It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs. Try to take pictures of starts on a moonlit night with snow-cover.

The reason there are some pictures of certain mountains with the lunar module and some pictures of seemingly the same thing without it is that the lunar mountains you see are not hills, but huge mountains. You get no sense of size from lunar photographs because of a lack of reference points. (This is why the Moon looks larger when rising and setting)

So these 'hills' are actually mountains, and they're far away. So the astronauts would have to travel a long distance before they'd ever stop being in the background.What the photos actually show is a slight variation in the angle you can see the mountains. Rather than proving they're a fake background, they actually prove they are three dimensional objects.

Some pictures from the same missions were mislabeled as being on different missions, and these were corrected. You do not appear to have checked your images.

But your most ridiculous "evidence", and what made me decide to simply write you this E-mail and know that you are not thoroughly serious about this, is the picture of the astroNAUT Alan Shepard. Two MAJOR POINTS:

There is no condom in the picture. The object you are questioning is a rock, and there is a movie taken which CLEARLY SHOWS the astronauts sampling the rock. Images AS15-86-11671 and AS15-82-11123 show similar features. It disgusts me you could call this rock a condom and then question whether we went to the Moon on that basis.

Two: This is totally ridiculous. Yes. Alan Shepard did, in fact, have Meniere's Disease, which you spelled wrong. Alan Shepard did, in fact, have surgery to correct his Meniere's Disease, as shown on the popular TV show "From the Earth to the Moon", the book A Man on the Moon, the book Moonshot, and countless websites, which you can find on Google by yourselves. And Alan Shepard did, in fact, travel to the moon.

But you are not scientists, or engineers, or astroNAUTS, or physicists, and as the rest of the moon hoaxists do, I am sure you will disregard this and tell me about "all that other evidence out there". If you are serious, I challenge you to rebut this on your website. Otherwise, Happy Trails! Too bad you can't use your web design talent for a real, scientific webpage.

If you are still are not convinced, which I am sure you are not, go to www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/, http:\\science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm, www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html, www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html , users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm, www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/i...ard/moon01.htm, and, well, you can find them yourselves. Or, you can read a book about the space program or basic physics and engineering.

EMAIL #2: Subject: Interesting Website you have...

But you have no conception of what you are talking about. If you have any interest in fact, read this e-mail, and I challenge you to try to rebut it. From your website:

"
It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them. It would have also been impossible for them to get out at the conical/pointed end of space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.


"

It is clear to me you have no idea how the Apollo spacecraft was configured. I challenge you to find a diagram of it, or otherwise you should really get http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books the book at this link.

How dare you accuse us of not doing research, when you don't even know what the command module and service modules are! (The command module, where the astronauts rode, was the conical end. The cylindrical part of the spacecraft, the service module, held fuel, oxygen, fuel cells, the engine, and other life -support equipment.

In the picture here, http://home.attbi.com/~danglover/Apollo17/10075984.jpg you can see this: the command module is the conical part- that is why it has windows and the service module doesn't - there was no one in there. And the picture here http://home.attbi.com/~danglover/Apollo17/10076002.jpg clearly shows how the astronauts exited the capsule.

Also, some of your facts are very interesting :

"FACT: Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be "essentially green"."

This is not a fact, nor a reason why we did not go the Moon.

"FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface would be blinded by the light."

Earth is much, much brighter and more reflective than the Moon, and yet we aren't blinded as we walk down the street. If you care to check, look up the Moon's and Earth's albedo - that is, their reflectivity.

"FACT: Alleged Moon rock is basalt rock found here on Earth. NASA made it radioactive by "baking it" in a radiation oven.If it is genuine Moon rock, then it was brought back by a scoop and return probe. "

What is a 'radiation oven'? How does it turns moon rocks into Earth rocks? If you irradiate an Earth rock, you don't get a lunar rock, but an irradiated Earth rock. Geologists can easily tell them apart. Also, you seem to take two alternate routes of argument - you say if one claim is wrong, the other is right. And, since in another fact you say NASA can't get rockets to land and take off, how did we bring back 800 pounds of moon rocks by robot?

"
FACT: In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2000 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory."



You are confused with software needed to run a graphically appealing lunar landing game and the software needed to perform simple calculations to take LMs to the surface. The LM computer only had to perform simple calculations such as range, whereas a simulation of a lunar landing needs to model the entire, LM, all its systems, a landscape, a sky, the dynamics of the engine, etc. Also, as shown here, http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html, the first computer chip was invented in 1961.in addition, modern, superfast computers are still in large air-conditioned buildings.

Also, you make these statements:
"No animal however was used to test a return Moon journey."

Oh, so http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/zond/zond.html the Zond program was a hoax, too? Also, the main purpose of flying animals in space was to see in they could function and live in space, not to test new spacecraft.

"There were in fact TWO communication links on all Apollo missions. The first was LAUNCH CONTROL, who communicated with the astronauts from the moment of launch, up until they were in Earth orbit. Once in Earth orbit, communication to the astronauts was transferred to those "limited few in the know" who were manning MISSION CONTROL. "

This does not at all prove we did not go to the Moon, and this practice has been followed since Gemini and continues today.

"Think about it, how could you install a camera in the center part of a rocket booster engine without it being burned to a crisp? It can only be done on a film set, and why is it we only see this sequence, albeit repeated for each Apollo mission, only on the Moon missions, and not on any other space mission?"

The camera was not in the engine, but mounted on it.

"In the 80's, at the height of the Reagan's Star Wars program, a shuttle was launched into space , and it's on board computer was programmed to "lock on" to a laser beam projected from the top of a 2,000 foot high mountain somewhere in the states. Unfortunately all distance measurements programmed into the shuttle's computer were registered as miles, consequently the "lock on" device aboard the shuttle began scanning the globe searching for a 2,000 mile high mountain. Unable to locate one, the shuttle turned on it's back, and began scanning outer space to search for the immortal 2,000 mile high mountain."

This is mud-slinging and has nothing to do with Apollo.

"Admittedly Russia has had the occasional problem/failure, however their problem/failure rate is substantially lower than that of the USA. Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station. They were the first in everything to do with space. "

America accomplished:
First Space Rendezvous
First Space Docking
First Person to Fly into Space Twice
First Person to Orbit the Moon Twice
First Successful Mars Mission
First Manned Lunar Orbit
First Manned Lunar Landing
First Communications Satellite
First Monkey in Space
First Animals Recovered from Space
First Probe to Reach Venus
First Probe to Reach Mercury
First Probe to Reach Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
First Reusable Spacecraft
First Spacecraft with More than Three People on Board

"A bold, brash, and somewhat ridiculous statement to make following a 15 minute space hop a mere 69 miles above Earth, after all the Moon was over 250,000 miles away."


Alan Shepard flew 116 miles above Earth on MR-3.

"A national survey by the program makers showed a staggering 60% of Americans believed the Moon landings were faked. We have moved on a further 20 years, and it is now estimated the figure is 97%"

Estimated by you? Show me one shred of evidence for either of those claims.

"You can tell by Armstrong's actions, and the look on his face during pre launch interview, that he knows he is not going anywhere near the Moon, and has been forced to tell lies in front of millions of people. He is nervous, stumbles over his words, and looks down at the table in front of him like some little boy who has been told off by his teacher. This was to hide his guilt from the camera, hardly the behavior of a man about to make history. "

Neil Armstrong was, by nature, a very shy man. You're just putting feelings into his head. Where on Earth did you get these ideas? Pure speculation. He was also about to embark on a highly dangerous and difficult mission which he had rehearsed for months.

"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes. Apollo 8 took 20 hours to complete 10 Moon orbits, which equates to an average time of 2 hours per orbit! "

If you bothered to educate yourself about Apollo, you would know the CSM orbited the Moon at about 5,000 miles per hour, less than a third of Earth-orbital speed, so the numbers work out.

"FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary."

Why is it every time an Apollo astronaut dies you say he was on the verge of revealing the Moon hoax?

"FACT: Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows darned well that he never went anywhere near the Moon, and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public, and talked about the Moon landings during the 70's and 80's. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 33 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin's book "Return to Earth", he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will."

All of six of whom? This assumes: Since clause A, that we never went to the Moon, is true, then clause B, that Aldrin is suffering brain damage from guilt, is also true. It is self-reliant- one clause is only true becasue the other is asssumed true. Circular reasoning.

"The Apollo mission for each of these astronauts, (or astroNOTS as Ralph René calls them), was their FIRST and ONLY experience of space travel, apart from Shepherd's 15 minute sub orbital space hop, which was limited experience of weightlessness.
Shepard, Mitchell, Irwin, Duke, Schmitt, Roosa, Worden, Mattingley and Evans"

DO YOUR RESEARCH.
Other Apollo rookies:

Walt Cunningham
Donn Eislie
Bill Anders
Rusty Schweickhart
Al Bean
Fred Haise
Jack Swigert

Also, the CM pilot for Apollo 16 was Thomas "Ken" Mattingly, not Mattingley.

"NASA used Apollo to further the time that astronauts could spend in Earth orbit, with the view to constructing a space station, however they conned the world into believing they were making Moon landings. This is confirmed by the mission duration times before, and after the Apollo program. The last Gemini mission prior to Apollo did 59 Earth orbits in 94.5 hours. Following on from the last Apollo mission in Earth orbit, (Apollo 17), Skylab 2 launched in May 73 did 404 orbits in 672 hours before crashing back to Earth. Apollo missions fill the gap between Gemini's 59 orbits, and Skylab's 404 orbits."

This is your weakest and most ridiculous evidence on the whole site.

1) Gemini 7 did 206 orbits, spending more time in space than any Apollo flight

Your conclusion totally breaks down here -the Apollo mission did not, in fact, bridge a gap.

2)Skylab 2 did not crash. It was a manned mission that splashed down safely at the end of its flight.

"In 1981, ex NASA employee, and long time skeptic of Apollo, Bill Kaysing, appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, detailing how NASA had conned the American people into believing that they had landed men on the Moon."

Bill Kaysing never worked for NASA.

"Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit over 34 years ago."

First of all, you misunderstood him. On the site continually confuse short and long radiation duration. Goldin, meant we cannot take long, interplanetary voyages until the risk of long-duration radiation exposure has been solved. And why wasn't Goldin killed?

"During the 60's and 70's, many Third World countries were drifting towards Communism, and the USA regarded any increase in Communism, no matter how small, as a direct threat to their democracy. The USA, under the guidance of the CIA, would pull out all the stops, and do practically anything, to halt this sway towards Communism, no matter how bizarre a plan was put forward. At this time Russia was, and still are, way ahead of the USA in space technology."

Russia never was, and is not, way ahead of us in space technology. Korolev pulled several amazing feats, but those were essentially "built to order" for Khruschev. The Voskhod capsules were extremely dangerous, and Alexei Leonov almost died on his spacewalk. The Gemini capsules, which had abilities to redezvous, dock, do easy EVAs, and have long-duration missions, were far more advanced and capable. Russia's supposed lead in space exploration came to an end in 1967, when Vladimir Komarov died on Soyuz 1. I don't know what your basis is for making such a statement.


EMAIL 3: Subject: In addition....

In addition to my previous e-mail, I send you this link.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4854 (Yes- that is a BA thread! 8) )

Now, if you are truly interested in fact, you will read it and my other e-mails. Otherwise, you can go on ignoring facts and posting ridiculous content on your website.

EMAIL 4: Subject: Proof...


I see you have still not replied to my e-mails, visited any of the websites, or tried to educate yourself about Apollo? I would like to ask you a question: WHY IS IT THAT ONLY PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU ARE RIGHT? Why is it that all facts that debunk the moon hoax are dismissed are garbage from arrogant NUTTERS? And why is it that anyone who agrees with you is an intelligent, rational person, and anyone who doesn't is an ignorant pro-Apollo NUTTER? Are you afraid of facts, the truth, or being wrong? Why do you continually insist on mud-slinging at mankind's greatest technological achievement? Why do you only post e-mails that agree with you? Do you feel you have made a truthful, honest website, since you ignore everyone who says you're wrong or tries to reason with you? Let me know. I still am waiting to see any effort to rebut my claims in my e-mails, let alone the world of information on Apollo.


So, how are they? I am going to send him one every day until he replies.

Until the next time.....

BigJim

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

He may of exploded after reading your email.

I can't believe people are actually voting in the poll...

25%-No
75%-No

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Invite him here. I am both intrigued and mortified by the prospect of a discussion with this gimp but it could be entertaining.

I am disgusted by the treachery. Where is Clavius is your links? :x

Still, I like the way you take a firm hand with him. Courtesy will probably be dismissed as a sign of weakness. Aggressiveness is the only way.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I voted for the top one. It was feeling left out.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Don't worry, I'll include Clavius in my next one. Sorry, I guess it slipped my mind.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

If you haven't sent him this you might want to add these Russian firsts.

First deaths in space.
First death in re-entry
Most people killed in ground accidents

If he ever responds to my e-mail, I will send him that, also. The latest E-mail from the stables of BigJim:


EMAIL 5: Subject: Living in the REAL world...

On your website, you say:

"Living in the REAL world, not a fantasy one."

Who do you mean by that? Us, the NUTTERS? Certainly it can't be you. You have not examined any of the facts, but simply made up "facts" that support your theory. (i.e. a "radiation oven" for making moon rocks, making up statistics that supposedly support you, quoting theories and opinions as facts). You continually refuse to respond to any attempts to communicate or debate with people who support Apollo and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. By only posting the e-mails which agree with you, and totally disregarding everything else, is to be living in a FANTASY world, not a real one.

I challenge you once more to attempt to rebut, on your website or in an e-mail, the points I have raised. I will not even go into the panopoly of books and websites on Apollo which I have informed you of in previous e-mails. Why do you want to ignore facts and the truth? Why do you put your e-mail address on your website if you don't want to get any e-mails except those that agree with you? In fact, I would not be surprised if you get more pro-NASA e-mails than ant-NASA ones; by only posting those who agree with you, you contrive the truth so it suits your purposes. Do you really think that you are presenting a fair and accurate view of Apollo? Why is it that you keep using the "you are a NUTTER" defense to dismiss any real science or debunking of your own claims?

I await your reply, and your attempt to rebut the evidence I have presented in my e-mails. If you truly want to live in the REAL world, not a fantasy one, then get some books on Apollo. Visit some websites, and then see what you think. (another one to visit is http://www.clavius.org) There is so much information on Apollo which you clearly have not seen, much less successfully debunked, that your website, despite all the time you spend on it, does little to go against Apollo. Or, at least, after viewing and considering the evidence fairly, if you still disagree, try to scientifically and rationally describe why instead of just saying because we are all NUTTERS.


I wonder if I should keep sending him e-mail in the hopes I will pester him into a response, or just stop, or maybe just keep sending him the same ones, since I doubt he has read them anyway. I have sent an awful lot already (especially in #2).

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Yes, agressive, but courteous agressiveness. No need to go to 4 letter words. I think Jim's got the right balance of outrage & righetousness. Go get the scam artist!

Well, it's been two weeks now, and he has not replied.

I sent a copy of each one again, and put a read receipt on it (so when he opens them, I shoul dget an e-mail saying it was opened). However, puzzlingly, I have not received those. I hold three possibilites:

1) He saw my previous e-mails and is ignoring these because they are from me

2) He only checks his e-mail once in a blue moon

3) He never checks it and simply has his address on his page to waste our time

So, to see if possibility number 1 was correct, I sent an e-mail from another address telling him how great his site was, and I am waiting to see what happens with that. Suggestions? Perhaps we should all do a mass mailing to him, or link to a ton of his pictures to increase his bandwith so much that the site fails :wink: (Not that I would have a problem with that, but the BA and some other board members here would probably see that as underhanded).

Waiting for your suggestions....

BigJim

P.S. If any of you decide to send him your own e-mails, post 'em here (remember, if he replies, do not post the reply - board FAQ!).

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

What a marvellous attempt at clandestine harassment.

I suppose he has it coming to him. He is promoting that his readers harass the astronauts.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

He probably deserves it, too -not only does he promote it, but he gives e-mails to many Apollo astronauts and scientists (such as Farouk El-Baz). Now, these men are heroes to me, and to think that this chump gives people their e-mails and tells them to write harrasing mail to them, is despicable.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Surely criminal charges can be brought. Stalking, threatening, crimes against intelligence.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

When was the last time the website was updated? Perhaps he's abandoned it, and it just hasn't been taken down yet.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

No more than five months ago. Any change of heart is recent.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

GOT A REPLY! GOT A REPLY! Will tell you about it shortly.

Well, as I said, I wanted to see if he was just ignoring my mail, so I sent him mail under an alias at another e-mail address telling him how great his site was, and the bozo actually replied to it! After sending two copies each of six e-mails against him, he responds to the first one I send that agrees him. The nerve and the gall of this character are unbelievable and despicable.

I can't post the e-mail yet (BA's rules) but I sent him a follow-up asking if I could, to "straighten out my confused buddies". I won't tell you much, other than the fact that we are all PANS (Pro-Apollo Nutters). If he lets me, I will post the e-mail soon.

I am absolutely shocked and disappointed that he only replies to/opens e-mails that agree with him. I know for a fact he hasn't opened my last six e-mails; I requested read receipts. But then to receive a reply after one pro-hoax e-mail (Don't worry, it contained poor grammar and no substance! :wink: ) is disgusting. I don't think that I am hurt; the word is not right. But what does hurt me is that hundreds of people have visited his website and believed him, although he refuses to respond to facts. Also, I would wager that he receives far more pro-Apollo than anti-Apollo e-mails, since he only posts the anti-Apollo ones.

Well, anyway, keep tabs on this thread.

More soon,
BigJim

__________________