Truth can be a relative thing. Facts, sir, do not lie.


Sorry. But the truth will always be the truth.

NASA facts lie. (You know, like there is no atmosphere on the moon, like the moons gravity is 16% of earths. Thats not the truth. But they are NASA sponsered facts.)

Originally posted by johnlear


Truth can be a relative thing. Facts, sir, do not lie.


Sorry. But the truth will always be the truth.

No matter how confused it is apparently.

NASA facts lie. (You know, like there is no atmosphere on the moon, like the moons gravity is 16% of earths. Thats not the truth. But they are NASA sponsered facts.)

So then maybe you can explain what occurred on Apollo 15 when they dropped the hammer and feather at the same time. You can easily find the weight of the hammer on the web and then calculate the g force on the moon by the amount of time that it took the hammer to fall to the ground.

Or did Nasa somehow fake that in the early 70's?

If there was an atmosphere on the moon then why can we not see it?

[So then maybe you can explain what occurred on Apollo 15 when they dropped the hammer and feather at the same time. You can easily find the weight of the hammer on the web and then calculate the g force on the moon by the amount of time that it took the hammer to fall to the ground.

Or did Nasa somehow fake that in the early 70's?

If there was an atmosphere on the moon then why can we not see it?



The feather was probably weighted. You would be surprised to know to what lengths NASA went to, to hide the truth.

Originally posted by johnlear
The feather was probably weighted. You would be surprised to know to what lengths NASA went to, to hide the truth.

Where are you coming from with these assertations? Have you been to the moon yourself and breathed without a space suit on? Have you experianced its greater that 1/6th gravity?

Now we are starting to get off topic.

Back to flight 800 et al. I have researched the case myself and have found mention of three nuclear submarines that were in the area. However, the US Navy will not admit to whether or not these subs possessed SAMs. Can you comment on that at all?

[Where are you coming from with these assertations? Have you been to the moon yourself and breathed without a space suit on? Have you experianced its greater that 1/6th gravity?

Now we are starting to get off topic.

Back to flight 800 et al. I have researched the case myself and have found mention of three nuclear submarines that were in the area. However, the US Navy will not admit to whether or not these subs possessed SAMs. Can you comment on that at all?


No, I have not stood in the middle of the Sinus Medii, without a space suit, and breathed in a big gulp of fresh air while staring up into a bright blue sky. And anybody who says they did must need some very serious psychiatric examination because this is not ''fringe lunacy", this is 'falling off the cliff' lunacy.

Thanks for the research on the subs. That will be very helpful.

Originally posted by johnlear
No, I have not stood in the middle of the Sinus Medii, without a space suit, and breathed in a big gulp of fresh air while staring up into a bright blue sky. And anybody who says they did must need some very serious psychiatric examination because this is not ''fringe lunacy", this is 'falling off the cliff' lunacy.

Then what do you base your knowledge of a atmosphere existing on the moon? If there was one there we could see it with our eyes from earth.

Thanks for the research on the subs. That will be very helpful.

How? It isn't like the subs could have done anything to the aircraft. Isn't it more likely that they were shot down by a terrorist group using hand held SAMs?

[Then what do you base your knowledge of a atmosphere existing on the moon? If there was one there we could see it with our eyes from earth.

Thanks for the research on the subs. That will be very helpful.

How? It isn't like the subs could have done anything to the aircraft. Isn't it more likely that they were shot down by a terrorist group using hand held SAMs?



You are probably correct. We could probably see it with our own eyes. I'm going to have to have a serious talk with myself about these postings.

The reason the subs information is helpful is because they were probably monitoring the test. The altitude of the 747 would have been at the extreme effective or just out of range of a shoulder launched missile. Not to mention that there was no evidence found of that type of explosive (not that we would have been given that information by the NTSB if it was there). But what we do have is evidence that a missile of some sort passed through the first class cabin and as I mentioned Jim Sanders had to go to jail for that. If you read his book The Downing of TWA Flight 800) it will give you a lot of information that you do not have now.

Lets keep this discussion on topic about TWA flight 800. If you have any more questions or comments on the moon you can post them on John Lear: discussion concerning the alleged moonbase. Thanks

[edit on 22-9-2004 by johnlear]

Originally posted by johnlear
The reason the subs information is helpful is because they were probably monitoring the test. The altitude of the 747 would have been at the extreme effective or just out of range of a shoulder launched missile. Not to mention that there was no evidence found of that type of explosive (not that we would have been given that information by the NTSB if it was there). But what we do have is evidence that a missile of some sort passed through the first class cabin and as I mentioned Jim Sanders had to go to jail for that. If you read his book The Downing of TWA Flight 800) it will give you a lot of information that you do not have now.

The subs are not equipped with any kind of tracking device for a missile test. Heck they have a surface search radar only. I guess it is possible that their ESM gear might pick up something, but that is highly doubtful.

The evidence that a missile passed through the first class cabin could also support the theory that this was a terrorist attack.

Sanders did not ensure that he was given a piece from TWA 800, nor did he ensure that the sample did not become contaminated. I question how accurate those findings are. Why has there not been a bigger deal about them?

The subs are not equipped with any kind of tracking device for a missile test. Heck they have a surface search radar only. I guess it is possible that their ESM gear might pick up something, but that is highly doubtful

Interesting, I did not know that



The evidence that a missile passed through the first class cabin could also support the theory that this was a terrorist attack.

No, because there was no explosives on the seats, just rocket fuel.



Sanders did not ensure that he was given a piece from TWA 800, nor did he ensure that the sample did not become contaminated. I question how accurate those findings are. Why has there not been a bigger deal about them?

Bigger deal how?

Originally posted by johnlear
No, because there was no explosives on the seats, just rocket fuel.

But the fuel found is not consistent with Navy rocket fuel.

Sanders did not ensure that he was given a piece from TWA 800, nor did he ensure that the sample did not become contaminated. I question how accurate those findings are. Why has there not been a bigger deal about them?

Bigger deal how?

I have not heard this get much coverage on the major news networks.

But the fuel found is not consistent with Navy rocket fuel.

Interesting point

[

I have not heard this get much coverage on the major news networks.

No, the story was spiked. It was spiked so that the correct spin could be placed on the story.