NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/conspira/13367

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 5.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13367 talk.politics.misc:65213
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: REPOST: Reply #1 to Marc Talbot ([e-mail])
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:12:00 GMT
Lines: 90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>From Jon Volkoff, mail address [e-mail]
>>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

    The Manhattan project was conducted in wartime.  The rules
    of the game are very different in war and a lot of people
    were seconded into secret projects with their patriotic
    colleagues not asking questions.  In addition, the Manhattan
    project was carried out in the New Mexico desert miles from
    anywhere.  There were in fact some rather horrendous security
    breaches and it's difficult to assemble that number of people
    in an out of the way place without the locals noticing.  Some
    people did have an idea of what was going on.

>that, and they successfully covered-up its true purpose, didn't they?  Do you

    Well what was its true purpose and what is your evidence?

>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

    Opinion?  The properties of subatomic particles are well-known
    and it only takes a few minutes of thought by someone familiar
    with the field to point out some deficiencies in the theory.

>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 also remember a long and detailed discussion of particle
    beam weapons in "Nature" (1979, 1980 sometime).  This paper
    pointed out many interesting problems including:

1.      Electron beams - mutual repulsion of -ve charges at the particle
    densities needed to achieve damage give the weapon a range of
    about 150 nanometres.

2.      Proton beams - mutual repulsion of +ve charges at the particle
    densities needed to achieve damage give the weapon a range of
    about 150 micrometres (they're that much more massive, therefore
    the greater range).

3.      Neutron beams - no problems with repulsion, but problems with
    accelerating them, viz. how do you accelerate them?

    A friend did some peripheral work on the X-ray laser which was the
    original impetus for Star Wars.  Never had any prospect of working
    as far as he was concerned.  The need to use H-bombs to pump the
    laser makes it rather less than convenient to use, and rather difficult
    to hide, sorry, I mean cover up.

    Alec Chambers