Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/reports/401-500/491

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-20 | 4.3 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!hookup!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!jaeschke
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Jaeschke)
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
Subject: Re: UFO's and Project Apollo
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:11:13 -0500
Organization: VFMA-333 Tres Equis =<XXX>=
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q7bob$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cnc019044.concentric.net
X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.0

OnLine <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Perhaps we went for the Moon too soon...perhaps we should have developed
> a better and cheaper way of doing it and aimed for a Lunar landing in the
> 80s or 90s..that's what the cancelled APOLLO flights and the fact that
> no-one has been back to the Moon suggests to me.
>

        While I am very familiar with this story, as well as the "Santa
Claus" story which supposedly indicated that the lunar orbiter had made
visual contact with an alien craft, I am not so quick to ascribe to any
of it.  I am a firm believer that we are not alone in this Universe --
to believe otherwise is too arrogant (even for me <G>).  Further,
believing otherwise defies the statistical probabilities that life, in
some intelligent form, could have developed elsewhere.
        However, the moon-men story has always been alluring.  There
have been the fabled "sounding" test which indicate that the moon is
hollow (and therefore must be an encampment for extra-terrestrial
intelligence).  There have been the stories that the lunar astronauts
have been watched by beings in control of massive, threatening
machinery.  Further, there have been many, many stories that expand on
this in great detail.  Yet, none have made me, a firm-believer, buy into
the story.  Here's why:
        As "online" stated, there may have been other reasons why the
lunar-landings were stopped -- cost being a major factor.  However, the
lunar project was, as I saw it at the time, President Kennedy's "Grand
Mission of America and Mankind", which would bring together a nation
that had been plagued by War.  It was his vision that we turn our great
warmaking infrastructure in a more peaceful, positive direction.
Perhaps we did go too soon, because the cost was high in dollars and the
patience of the American People.  Further, once we arrived at the moon,
our science had yet to reach a level where we were fully able to
appreciate the profound impact that exploration of a new world would
bring; especially since we had yet to fully explore our own.  In
addition, since most of the expense and effort of the Apollo mission was
put into being able to safely place a man on the moon and return him
safely to earth, many of the possibilities for scientific exploration
were not possible.  Now, in the 90's, we are finding that small,
cheaper, faster missions are providing much more scientific data per
dollar spent that any manned-mission could provide (a wonderful example
of this is the Clementine Lunar Exploration Vehicle which surveyed the
moon with greater precision and resolution than had ever before been
achieved).  The Apollo missions proved that with enough of a push we
could "run", but we had not yet learned to crawl, let alone walk.
        Interestingly, no spacecraft or land-based scientific apparatus
has ever detected signs of life on the moon: no radio emissions, no
electromagnetic fields, and no evidence of any kind.  Given the
antagonistic nature of the media, in this country, it is doubtful that
such a conspiracy of silence could be maintained, had evidence existed
such as the Clementine spacecraft sending back terrain maps showing that
the lunar surface had been distrubed -- terrain data which covered over
90% of the moon's surface with a resolution of just a few meters.
        By the same token, incidences such as roswell/aurora have given
much more to be curious about -- eyewitness account, conflicting
stories, admitted government cover-ups, GAO investigations, etc., etc.
And while the "true hard evidence" that the critics call for is,
apparently lacking, how often does your son have to come home stinking
of beer before you believe he's been out drinking?


wj