<< Letters Prague 52 - Letters Singapore 01 >>

think@think.cz is the place to send your customer complaints. Allen's Distinction: The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.

Think,
Subject: fascinating

I gotta admit than I haven't laughed that much on a web page as I laughed reading that page about relationships on www.think.cz/issue/19/6.html your website is great! - Salma Massoud<salmamassoud@yahoo.com>

Well folks, you see, we get a lot of love and a lot of confusion... either way, know that we have leant how to say 'thank you' and 'do prdeli' at the same time!

From:Mjmjmk@aol.com
Subject: Think Magazine

I have a framed picture I think it was the picture off a t-shirt by Ellen Eldridege, signed & numbered 3/11. can you tell me anything about this, is it worth any thing. It is named _____ old maid? Thank you for your response.

To be quite honest, we haven't been in contact with her since back in good old issue number one. But if anybody else out there would like to bid on this fine object, or know its worth, why don't you give Mr. Mjmjmk a call and help him buy some vowels.

From: talfoto86@hotmail.com
Subject: Think Magazine

hi,
Oh my god I have found this article for the first time, and it's so nice. I forgot about it, I'll email it to all my friends, I'm in Brooklyn NY, missing Praha. How are you? Please check out my new site: www.talfoto.com

kisses Tal.

We're doing fine, your site looks great! In case you haven't heard, I'm living and working in Singapore, where I'll be restarting Think in the Spring, and Keith is in Vietnam teaching and getting ready to launch a publication there as well... you can reach him at nulanulanula@yahoo.com. Take care, and nice to hear from you!

We should like to know this too...is there anyone out there who knows where this little Angel can find some groovy tunes from the illustrious Pavel Bidlo? If so, drop us and her a line ASAP!

And finally, this nice long letter froma self-proclaimed "genius" who obviously has too much free time on his hand. We bantered the arguements around a bit, but as he told him towards the end, it's like in the matrix when Morpheus says "My beliefs don't require you to believe". Nuff said:

Subject: Ralph Rene and the Lunar hoax...

This letter is in regards to your publishing of the supposed scientific facts, presented by Ralph Rene in his book, "NASA Mooned America". The 'facts" presented on your site are not only biast, but very poorly thought. Rene's conclusions have no true regard for the laws of physics, and infact, tend to, not only contradict himself at times, but show just how ignorant Mr. Rene really is.

Take for example his theories discussed on your site:

1. Rene stressed that he first became intrigued by the fact that the flag was blowing on the footage of the landing. Rene states that there is no atmosphere on the Moon, and therefore, no breeze to blow the flag. Taking into consideration the laws presented to us by Sir Isaac Newton, it is for that same reason Rene pointed out that the flag did wave. First of all, there was a horizontal pole from atop the flag, holding it in an extended manner; however, when the flag was to be planted, you can note that the pole did not extract all the way, leaving a slight rippled look to the flag. When planting the flag, the men twisted it into the ground. By twisting this pole, a force was exerpted at the base of te flag; this is were the force was the strongest, casuing the flag to "wave" in one direction. The sudden change in the direction of the pole, caused another "wave", this time in the opposite direction, hence the flag appeared to be "blowing". Sir Isaac Newton stated the law of inertia, which says: "Something in motion tends to stay in motion, something at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted on by an external force." In the even of a flag blowing on Earth, it ceases to ripple when the breeze dies, because there is an external force (Air) acting upon it. On the Moon, there was no such force to stop the flag from rippling; so, once the pole was planted, and the flag had been acted on by an external force (The astronaught), it continued to wave for a period of time, because there was little force acting upon it to stop it.

2. Rene stated that the solar flares would have killed the astronaughts by radiation. He also stated that the reason they would have been fine, up until reaching the distance of the Moon, was protection from the Van Allen's Belt. This is utter nonsense. The Van Allen's Belt, is a layer of RADIATION, ehich, if anything, would have been the major contributor to the radiation poisoning. The hull of the rocket protected the astronaughts from any radiation. If the astronaughts could have survived a trip through the Van Allen's Belt, they surely could have survived being on the Moon (Not to mention the suits are designed to protect from radiation, etc.).

3. Rene stated that all of the photo's are "perfect", and that not one bad shot was taken. This is entirely false. Hundreds upon hundreds of photos were taken, many of which were not in the least bit "perfect". NASA has released many of these photos to the public in the last while, to show how ludicrous such a remark is. The reason for these photos to have not been released earlier lied mainly in the hands of the magazines and media production agencies that purchased these photos. Such inperfect photos are of no interest to the media, and therefore, were not seen until demand for them grew.

4. The statement that NASA tried to murder those people who were ready to expose them, is complete slander. Many of the astronaughts from these missions, including those from Apollo 13 (who were among those NASA "tried to kill"), have publicly said that such an assumption is down right wrong, and offensive to them. The people NASA "wanted dead" are living proof that no scandal of this nature ever occurred, and they wish the best for the families and friends of those who tragically lost their lives in the name of science.

5. Rene states that NASA launched the astronaughts for real, in the event of a fire or explosion, etc, that would have killed them, then returned them to Earth a few days later to prepare for the hoax. If this is the case, and complying that they could manage to sneak them back, without any witnesses, how would they launch them back into space without anyone noticing? On top of that, what would they have done in the event that the second launch went horribly wrong, and killed the crew. NASA would have been exposed, and the entire mission would have failed. There is also the problem of the $40 billion budget. Such launches and landings are not cheap. Alongside with all the people and equipment required to "Fake" such a mission, and the amount of equipment needing to be launched into space for the period of time; it would have been much less costly to just send them to the Moon in the first place. It seems to Me that Rene never really put much thought into his accusations, and just made up a bunch of information to make his cases. Wouldn't it have been much easier to send them to space for the 7 days, and have filmed the footage on the Moon prior to the entire mission?

6. Rene points out the famous golf shot on the surface of the Moon, and NASA officials teasing him about slicing the ball to the right. Rene pointed out that witout air to disrupt the pattern of the balls flight, it would be impossible for the ball to slice. This is probably Rene's most worthy case, as it is his only assumption that contains any basis in physics. There is in fact, some atmosphere and particles on the Moon, not nearly as dense as on Earth. The Moon has also 1/6 the gravitational force than the Earth; and this difference is gravity allows for a vast difference in characteristics, for example, it would take less air disturbance to slice a ball. Another factor to be considered (and a large one) is that without a real atmosphere, there are less forces acting on the ball, for example drag. With little drag, the ball would move quite easily in the direction of it's force. What causes a ball to "slice", is the spin of it. When the ball was hit, it put a large spin to the right, causing it's momentum to curve off to the right, and thus the force was generated off target, and the ball "sliced" to the right.

7. Rene points out that on the Apollo 16 mission, the Lunar Module is being filmed leaving the surface of the Moon, and returning to orbit. Rene asks who could have been filming the LM leaving the ground? What Rene did not consider is that upon departure, not all of the LM returned to orbit. A portion of the craft was left on the surface of the Moon. This portion contained the camera that was fimling the departure of the astronaughts.

8. Rene states that the space suits are thick, and movement would have been limited, inyet, the astronaughts seemed to have no trouble moving. Take into consideration that the crew was trained for years on Earth, in those suits, and therefore, would be much more attuned to maneuvering in them than the average person. If you watch any other astronaughts from any other missions, they seemed to move in these suits quite well too. There was some restrictions, and you can tell from the footage. The astronaughts did not move as freely as they would have without the suits. All the training in these suits, however, gave them the knowledge, and experience, to be able to maneuver quite well in the suits.

9. Rene asks why, seeing as this was the Cold War, and they wanted to prove they landed on the Moon, did they not send a signal back to Earth. Rene says that it could have been easily done with a magnesium flare. Right here, Rene contradicts himself. He stated earlier that there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so how can he expect a flare to burn without oxygen? Even if it was capable to set off such a flare, it could not have been seen on Earth. The Earth's atmosphere distorts small images on the Moon, even with a telescope. If all of this isn't enough, consider this: If the lander itself settling down on the surface of the Moon, could not be seen, what signal would they have been able to send back? I think landing the craft there would have been a signal enough on it's own.

10. In one photo, you can see the reflection off of an astronaughts visor. In the picture, Rene points out that the astronaught taking the photo does not appear to be holding a camera. That is because he is not holding one. The astronaughts suits were fitted with camera's, to protect them from the radiation, and negative effects of the Moon. These cameras were directly on their suits, so there was no need to be holding a camera. This also explains how the pictures would, in fact, have turned out despite the radiation and other causes that should have renderred them useless.

11. Rene asked why there were no stars in any of the photos; after all, if there is no atmosphere wouldn't the stars be even brighter than on Earth? Yes, the stars would be brighter, but still not bright enough to be picked up on camera. Camera's cannot detect such a drastic change in contrast, especially from the bright light being refracted off of the spacesuits and white sand of the Moon. Ever notice how you can't see the stars in any photos at night, or in any movies? The stars were there, they were just too faint to be picked up by a camera.

12. Rene said that the there had to be multiple light sources for the photos to have turned out the way they did. This is again, complete ignorance. The sun is the only source of light yes, but should the shadows turn out to be pitch black, no! You can see images in the shadows, because there is not an entire lack of light there. Shadows on Earth are not pitch black because we have an atmosphere to refract the light. On the Moon, no atmosphere means no refracted light for the shadows right? Wrong! The particled of dust, etc. in the air, combined with the bright sands on the Moon, refracted the light back, but unlike on Earth, there is no atmosphere to refract them in every which direction, only straight back, much like how sonar works. The light from the sun refracts 180þ, because of which, we are able to see other images, and it would appear to some to seem like more than one light source. This is called the "Halo Effect". In actuallity, if there would have been more than one light source, the objects being filmed would have had a double shadow, not a single shadow like in the photos. Two separate lights on an object, both creat a shadow, in two different directions, which you do not see in these photos. The Halo Effect, looks nothing like it would with two or more light sources.

13. Rene makes a note of the footprint. The astronaughts footprints seemed to make a greater impression in the dust than the Lunar Module. Rene states that the Lunar Module had power rocket thrusters, forcing downward to slow the craft as it landed; this should have caused blast craters when landing. Rene said that it appeared that the rockets were not working at all. This is again, utter nonsense. Consider this:" A woman walking on a highway in high heel shoes does more damage to the asphalt than a tank." The reason....when a force is exerpted on something, the smaller the object exerpting the force, the greater the pressure. Take the palm of your hand, and press it against the palm of your other hand, now take the tip of your fingernail, and with the same amount of force, press it against the palm of your other hand. Note that your fingernail left an impression, whereas your palm did not. Even with more force, your palm still leaves less of an impression that your fingernail did.

This is the same case for the astronaughts footprints. When the LM was landing, the rockets were firing down, which according to Rene, should have left blast craters. This would be true, in the event that there was an atmosphere. In a vacuum, (or very close to one, as in the case on the Moon), the exhast from the rockets is not being compressed by any air, and expands outward quite rapidly, therefore creating even less pressure than one would assume; leaving for a very soft, gentle touchdown, and NO blast craters. When the astronaughts jumped down onto the surface, there was nothing to cause the foot to spread out over a large area, and the smaller surface area of the boot, caused a signifacantly higher level of pressure to the Moon, thus, you saw the boot imprint in the sand. As for there being no real evidence that the rockets were even on, what about the dust being kicked up as it approached the surface? This shows the slight force that there was on the Moon from the LM. The dust, however, without an atmosphere, settled back down, without any air distruptance to move it,in the same general spot it was before, leaving sand there for the footprints to impress.

These are some very simple, and very brief expainations as to how these apparent "anomalies" occurred. There are much more physical verifications from the videos of these landings to prove that we did in fact, land on the Moon (for an example, the Lunar Rover is kicking up dust behind the rear wheels as it moves, in yet, the dust falls straight back down without any air disruptance, whereas in an atmosphere, the dust would have continued to travel back landing further behind it's original displacement, unlike what occured in the actualy video.) Such occurances, alongside with the 841lbs of Lunar rock, despite a lot of people's opinions, could not be made up!

The particles found inside, can not all be found on Earth, along with the crater impressions that could not be created in an atmosphere, prove that these rocks are other-worldly. On top of that, the USSR (the biggest opposition in this, and what would have been the first to publicize any fraudulant evidence), monitored the radio signals sent back to NASA, reported these signals to have been from some million miles away from Earth, in the direction of the Moon. If Ralph Rene, a self-taught engineer, and all the other unofficially trained conspirators, could pick up on these supposed mistakes, wouldn't the professionals, some of which are trained for over 10 years, in all fields of physics, and astro-physics, would have noticed these minor "imperfections" as well? Sure a more qualified man would be a better critic in this field than an untrained amateur!

Ü.§.G¯LgÿÜh ßÂÜ•ÆÔ«¾ß.§.Ü
L•a¯ÒÜhR¯³¸ß From: blackest_fukking_witch@hotmail.com

back<<