From chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!baeck Thu Feb 16 04:06:09 1995
Path: chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!baeck
From: baeck@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: MOON LANDING is a lie (another try)
Date: 9 Feb 1995 02:06:22 GMT
Organization: K.U.Leuven,ESAT
Lines: 146
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3hbtau$b2n@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>

I'm a 23-year old engineering student at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since about 8 months, Leuven is haunted by this pseudo-lunatic who calls himself Mark Peeters (and Yes, that's an alias). He claims the whole story about space flight, satellites and particularly the landing on the moon is a LIE; a conspiracy upheld by governments, scientists and a whole lot of other public personalities. A twisted idea, at first sight ? That's what I thought too - but Mark Peeters seems to have built a complete, more or less consistent theory to explain all possible counterexamples. He just won't listen to reason, even though the scientific side of his theories looks doubtful to me, to say the least.

So I'd like to know about your thoughts, remarks, on this subject, and maybe someone even could prove him wrong undeniably ?... Please feel free to post a reply, in this group or to me personally - that's to baeck@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Walter Baeck) - and I'll report back to him. Mark Peeters has no direct Net access, you see, and even if he had, he'd probably not want to use it; in fact, he's quite paranoid about this!

You'll probably want to know more about these theories of his, before you react. Mark Peeters has been organizing regular meetings here in Leuven, which have entertained a faithful but, alas, small public. Those meetings are meant as discussions about the landing on the moon, but till now the situation is still as it was at the beginning: M.P. doesn't 'believe', and all the rest of us do. I'll try to summon up a few of the most frequently used agumentations against Mark Peeters' theories; these have shown up regularly at the meetings, but the - sometimes quite disappointing - answer has always been the same.

Q. - What about the T.V. pictures of the landing on the moon ? They looked pretty realistic and convincing; and so did the pictures that show the whole Earth, or the dark side of the moon.
A. - All of these images are forgeries; everyone knows that pictures are easy to fake. You could call this 'Virtual Reality' if you want. Note that the landing on the moon was not broadcast "live" on T.V., although this was only admitted afterwards. Mark Peeters has even brought a picture of the 'greeting of the Flag' on the moon, which -as he claims- supports his case, because the shadows are= visibly inconsistent, and therefore indicate manipulation.

Q. - What about satellites ? Who transmits all our T.V.channels, telephone & computer links, etc ?
A. - Human-made satellites don't exist, because flying into space to launch them is impossible. Believe it or not, all the data transmission that is now being allegedly done by satellites, actually happens with the aid of AWACS airplanes, which cover the whole Earth surface in a network of dozens of planes. They stay up in the air for 24 hours a= day, and get a tank fill regularly from a special aircraft.

Q. - Why organise such a complicated conspiracy, which involves the coopera- tion of thousands of people all over the world, and costs millions of dollars. Who profits from this massive lie ?
A. - The Catholic Church has been arguing for 2000 years now, that Maria= gave birth to Jesus without losing her virginity. We all know that's biolo- gically impossible - and yet so many people have been thrown onto the arena throughout the ages, to maintain this lie. There's no directly visible profit here either - in fact, it just pays to keep people dumb and blind, bound to your authority. That's the motivation for the lunar landing conspiracy too. REM sings "If you believe they've put a man on the moon, then nothing is cool".

One of the basic elements of Mark Peeters theory is the impossibility of 'breaking through the sound barrier', leave alone flying to the moon. His scientific explanation on this is rather fuzzy (as is most of what he says..), but he remains convinced of it until an experiment will prove him wrong.

Q. - What about supersonic flight ? Not only fighter jets, but even= Concordes fly faster than sound nowadays; and they're accessible to everybody who'll pay....
A. - A plane can never fly faster than 340 m/s or 1200 km/h at sea level. (All of you AngloSaxons, please convert these figures to the= appropriate units..). You'll find out when asking an air company about flight times Europe - U.S. The air at the Earth surface rotates along with the= ground (that's one full tour in 24 hrs). But higher air layers move slower, and eventually the top layers hang perfectly still. This means there's a constant "draft" high above the ground; an aeroplane can take advan- tage from this by climbing high enough. Then, it still flies no faster than the speed of sound, relative to the air surrounding it. But to an observer at sea level, it does seem to break the barrier.... Note that this effect will only work in one direction - and that's why a transatlantic flight can take substantially more time in one= direction than the other.

Some people have contacted air companies (here in Belgium, that's Sabena : 02/723.23.23). A Concorde of British Airways flies from London (Heathrow) to New York (JFK Airport) in 3h50, and back in 3h40, twice a day. Unfortunately, the price is 2,642 =9C for single flight and 4,367 =9C for= retour. This means 1550 km/h - but Mark Peeters didn't find these figures= convincing. As you notice, some of us take this real seriously indeed !

Q. - So all these sympathetic scientists and astronauts are ruthless liars?
A. - Not necessarily; some might have some integrity left, but they're just scared too much to let the truth out. All scientists undergo pressure from higher cicles in society, and get threatened by secret services. At this point, Mark Peeters referred to the rector of the University of Brussels. This charming, tolerant man had murdered his wife for obscure reasons, and had tried to make it look like a car accident, out of which he miraculously escaped himself. Police were not very convinced, and even- tually the rector confessed. The news caused quite a sensation here in= little Belgium! Mark Peeters : "Who says they didn't kill the Rectors wife, arranging it to make him look guilty, and threatening to kill him too, if he didn't give up some scientifical meanings that were not 100% compliant with mainstream opinion ?" Well, who says..... Therefore,

Q. - Why don't you get lost ?
A. - Mind you, I just might !! If that happens, don't trust any accident/ suicide/illness explanation given to it. They're after me too, because I'm a threat to the whole lunar landing conspiracy. There's too much at stake.

Mark Peeters claims that when he was a student himself (that must have been sometime ago, but he refuses to tell his real age - of course !), some professor of his confessed to him about the forgery, but asked not to spread this news any further, and certainly not to mention his name. He has been bothering the engineering students' organisation, and even some current professors, with his questions. Most people are willing to admit that the lunar landing might not actually have taken place, but say it is surely technically possible. Another quote : Pres. JFK seems to have said in some year preceding the lunar landing itself "If I say we're going to put a man on the moon, then I speak bold".......

So let me ask a question now, particularly towards the Americans. Mark Peeters says a lot of U.S. citizens don't believe themselves that NASA actually succeeded in landing on the moon. Somebody called the P.R. service of NASA, and found out they admitted 20 % of the American people shares this opinion !! The official added that this was due to "MISTRUST IN government", which seems to be widely spread in the U.S. I'm personally quite amazed by these figures : how do you Americans expect us, the rest of the world, to believe you guys landed on the moon, if you don't even believe that yourselves ?! My impression is the doubt here in Europe is much= smaller; in fact, Mark Peeters was the first person I heard questioning the lunar landing in my life.

Well, I think that's about all. I hereby wellcome all reactions; if= possible, I'll get all of them through to Mark Peeters himself. So long,

Walter.