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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I like your letters. Good luck in getting a reply to the real letters.

I work for the visitors center to NASA's Johnson Space Center, and though we do get people once in a while who believe in the moon hoax theories, they are primarily children, and their statements usually begin with "I saw this program on tv that said..." Since it has now been a couple of years since that "quality" program aired on tv we do not get many quarries anymore. When we do get them I always direct them to this web-site. Fourtunately with the children, it is easy to convince them that the program was wrong, since their brains are still open to new ideas.

I realice that a moon-hoaxer would say that the moon-hoaxer would not come to a NASA visitors center that buys into the conspiracy. OH well, I guess that means that my boss is right and that we do cater to an intellectual crowd.

Read receipts only come back to you if the person reading the message lets them. It asks a question as to whether or not you want to send the receipt back.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Hey, I like trivia games.

What is Laika? Who are G. Dobrovolskiy, V. Volkov, V. Patsaev?
What is Vladimir Komarov?
What is the Nedelin disaster (92) and Vostok accident of 1980 (50) plus myriad other accidents?

What do I win?

__________________
Valiant Dancer

Laika - first animal in space, Sputnik II, 1957

G. Dobrovolskiy, V. Volkov, V. Patsaev - crew of the ill-fated Soyuz 11. After 24 days in space as the first crew of Salyut 1, they died on reentry when a valve opened prematurely, venting the atmosphere. They were not wearing spacesuits.

Sergei Korolev - the father of the Soviet space program. Known as the "Chief Designer" and only declassified after his death, he was responsible for the Soviet Union's early space firsts, including SPutnik, Vostok, Voskhod, and the design of the Soviet L-1/L-3 lunar program, which included the N-1 "super rocket" and the Soyuz program. He died in 1966 after surgery. (I know you didn't have that there, but I mixed him up with Komarov at first.)

Vladimir Komarov - pilot of Soyuz 1, he died in 1967 as his capsule crashed to the ground at over 500 mph because his parachutes twisted and failed. He had been spinning out of control since his fifteenth orbit, and may have blacked out or died during the rough reentry.

What is the Nedelin disaster (92) and Vostok accident of 1980 (50) plus myriad other accidents? - rocket explosions on the ground

:roll: Now that I look over your post, I see you were answering in a Jeopardy form instead of asking what they were. Oops. :roll: Oh well.

It's worth adding that the Russians also, sadly, have claim to the title of most recent loss of ground crew due to a launch vehicle failure. A Soyuz rocket failed due to contamination in a fuel line leading to a catastrophic turbopump failure. One Russian soldier on the ground was killed when the vehicle fell onto a gas station on the ground near Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Fortunately, the resulting fire was controlled and no more lives were lost.

OK, here's the latest scoop. I sent this character another e-mail asking if I could post his e-mail here, and he sent back an absolutely disgusting reply. I still can't post that one, but in reference to the BA website he said, "Complete idiots there as anyone can see," and called the BA a NUTTER. Apparently, since I post here, I would be a complete idiot as well, but he doesn't know that...... yet.

I now have the upper hand in my vendetta against ignorance (also known as NASAscam :wink: ). I thought of three scenarios for my next e-mail (whether he replies, of course, is a coin toss). So, help me decide. Which should I choose?

First, so you know the personality of my NASAscam- corresponding alter-ego, here are the e-mails he replied to:

Subject: How you changed me
"Totally radical site, man! I used to think we really
went to the Moon but you really cleared me up!! How
could those guys be that dumb! I am going to show this
site to all of my friends! Wow! That is really amazing
that NASA covered up the hoax so badly! you have some
really amazing stuff. I'm amazed that the pro-Apollo
people haven't figured out tires would explode on the
Moon, Russia is WAY ahead of us in space, and that
most of the astronauts only flew once. Your site is
totally amazing! Ride on, dude!"

Re: How you changed me
"Like, thanks, dude. I've got these confused friends at
the site http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/index.php.
can I post your e-mail to, like, straighten them out?"


Possibility one would gently try to ask one question, to see if I can get a response without angering him too much:

Yo, dude, I was like, on your website, you know, and I found this thing that the PANS might try to use against you. I believe you and all, but the PANS might disagree with this statement:

""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."
"

There was like, some Gemini mission, I think it was 7 or 8 , that did a little more orbits than the Apollos. Maybe you should change that 'cuz the NUTTERS won't like it.

Or:

Yo, dude, I was like, on your website, you know, and I found this thing that the PANS might try to use against you. I believe you and all, but the PANS might disagree with this statement:

"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."

The astroNOTS, like, rode in the Command Module, man. It was the conical capsule. It seems like the PANS actually called the cylindrical part the Service Module. Not that this means you're wrong or nothin', but it'll make a lotta PANS change their minds and all.




Possibility two would totally spill the beans (I prefer this approach but doubt it would give me a reply):

Hi, there, NASAscam! Surprise, surprise! I am the same person as (my e-mail address)! So, now I see it really is me who is living in the REAL world. If you did, you would not only respond to those e-mails that agree with you, and you would rationally review the evidence. However, I am a NUTTER and I understand if you don't want to read the rest of this, naturally. It's only logical that a website that supposedly is truthful ignores facts.

As you well know, I sent you about twelve e-mails, all of which you ignored. Then, from this alternate address, I sent you merely two, both of which you replied to. I would not say the sign of a rational thinker is he who ignores all that doesn't agree with him. Tell me, do you get more e-mails for or against Apollo and NASA? Too bad most of the stuff on your website is pure falsehood- I would like to know that.

I AM A NUTTER, AND PROUD TO BE ONE!!!!

Daniel
Proud user of www.badastronomy.com


Well, which approach would work? If he does respond, I would prefer the latter to the former, and he may not reply at all. I might also attach real e-mail #2 to the latter. Let me know what you think.

(Can you tell the difference in my grammatical styles between my real and phony e-mails? I am quite good at inventing people, if I may say so myself :P )

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

Just a thought, BigJim, but if you're going to keep up the surfer-dude image, have you thought about the quality of your spelling, punctuation and grammar?

The "surfer dude" persona is clearly just that (though the fellow you're corresponding with may not know that) Someone who talks like that wouldn't write like that. And as PeterB notes, your spelling and punctuation are too good. Further, your persona syntax has no connection at all to the technical verbage. Just write as yourself even if you don't careto reveal your true identity to this fellow.

Just my $.02

I think a reassessment of the problem is in order. It is unlikely that a lack of information is the reason for the errors on the NASAScam site. Therefore it is unlikely that providing more information will correct the problem.

You will have to do more investigating as to the cause of the errors.

Is it money? Perhaps there is profit from selling ad space or cookies. Information may not matter.

Is it mental illness, such as I believe Nancy L. actually has? Then information is only going to be reassembled by the recipient.

Is it an altered perception of reality? In that case, whatever information you provide will be interpreted differently regardless of how illogical.

As you can see from these scenarios, information is not likely to alter the situation. I suggest you give up on the web page author and concentrate instead on the readers of the site that might still be saved from stupidity.

Unless, of course, the approach you are currently taking is therapeutic. In that case, enjoy. :P

BTW, I'm not taking this whole thing completely seriously. :wink:

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Might as well give it a try. Wait until he gives the authorisation for publishing his e-mail replies before you pull back the curtain though.

Nedelin disaster October 26, 1960 turned 92 people on the ground into flambe when a fueling accident caused the rocket to explode on the ground.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html

Vostok accident of March 18, 1980 48 individuals are killed in a Vostok (R7/A) rocket fueling accident.

http://www.videocosmos.com/plesetsk-80.shtm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mon...rts/705808.stm

An added little tidbid of info about Korolev, after he died he was buried in the Kremlin wall, an honor the Soviets reserved only for their most distinguished citizens.

BigJim, I like the second response, where you politely tell him what a fool he is. Good luck with that.

here's an idea,

Since conspiracy theories work sooooo well, why don't we start one that states that in the 70's the Soviets started using their ESP experiments to implant suggestios in western minds that the moon landings were all faked.

Their ultimate way of destabilising the West after its "victory" in the space race.


Fact and reason do not appeal to these theorists, I think we need to talk their language.....

Hmm I might start a separate thread on this one.... best conspiracy conspiracy theory....

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender