NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/conspira/13364

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13364 talk.politics.misc:65194
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!eidetics
From: [e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: REPOST: Reply #1 to Marc Talbot ([e-mail])
Date: 23 Dec 1992 03:40:13 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

From Jon Volkoff, mail address [e-mail]

It appears that you did not see my earlier posting of a response to you.
Therefore I am reposting it and mailing you a copy.

[e-mail] (Marc E. Talbot @ University of Illinois at Urbana)
writes:
>[e-mail] (Len Bucuvalas) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joshua Galiotto) writes:
>>>
>>>Well okay, I admit the the title's a bit melodramatic- but hey, I AM
>>>talking about Dr. Beter aint I?!
>>>
>>>Here's are questions: is Dr. Beter (of Audio Letter fame, of course)
>>>still alive? And if so, what's the guy got to say for himself now that
>>
>>No...he died, I think, in 1984.
>>
>>>history has turned out so drastically different than he and his
>>>"oh-so-knowledgable" sources had forecasted? I hope he's still alive.
>>>I'd be interested in hearing his half-assed explanation of things (not
>>>to mention rubbing a bit of history in his face.)
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^???
>>
>>Pk...so please point out for us all where his history is wrong.
>>Please include references so we can back up your stements
>>ourselves?
>>
>You don't seriously belive the guck about particle weapons
>on the moon, do you?  Or the battle which he claims took place there?
>Think about the logistics of covering something like that up (aside
>from the fact that technology which he describes is simply
>not possible in a number of cases, and unrealistic in others - coming from
>a physics major!).  You would need to buy the silence of
>1.  People who designed described particle weapons.
>2.  People who built particle weapons.
>3.  People who installed particle weapons.
>4.  People who designed new space technology required.
>5.  People who built new space technology.
>6.  People who flew in said craft.
>7.  Families of all of the above.
>I'm assuming here that someone has posted his letter about the "Battle
>of the Harvest Moon," which describes a battle US and Soviet forces
>fought on the moon.  It got posted to sci.physics a while back, and
>was the subject of much amusement.  If it hasn't been posted here, I'll
>try and dig it up.

Excuse me, sir, but have you forgotten about something called the Manhattan
Project?  A project which developed a seemingly impossible (at the time)
superweapon for use in wartime, in total secrecy?  A project which was the most
costly in history up to that time, yet the money was spent without the knowledge
of Congress?  A project with thousands of people in many laboratories involved,
but with fewer than 100 people knowing its true purpose?  No, I think these
things could be done in secret.  Besides, the Apollo project was far bigger than
that, and they successfully covered-up its true purpose, didn't they?  Do you
actually think that $20 billion dollars were spent by our secret rulers, even
if it's our money, just to go pick up some moon rocks?

Why is such a space battle hard to cover up?  The most visible aspect of that
battle and its aftermath was the Skylab destruction, which was witnessed over
much of the southwestern U.S., including by the McDonald Observatory in Texas,
and was successfully covered-up by the Skylab charade a year later.  Other than
that, I don't see much difficulty in covering it up.

As for particle beam and other technology not being feasible, this is definitely
a matter of opinion, physics major or not.  As I recall, similar things were
once said about telephones, airplanes, and more recently, underwater missiles
and free-energy machines, all by supposedly well-informed, self-proclaimed
experts.  Maybe you should dig out the October 2, 1978 back-issue of Aviation
Week and Space Technology, for a discussion of beam weapons, in which it is
admitted that particle beam technology is in fact feasible.

I'll save you the trouble of reposting the Audio Letter you refer to.  It's
#26, and you can find it on alt.conspiracy and talk.politics.misc.

Jon Volkoff
[e-mail]