From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: REPOST: Reply #1 to Marc Talbot (met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:36:35 GMT

eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:

>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?

Do you really believe that we could have kept the Manhattan project a secret
much longer? (ie, if we hadn't used the bomb)  It's easy during wartime to
justify to a bunch of workers that they're doing "something for the war"
without telling them what they're doing.  I don't think there's any way the
US could have kept knowledge about the bomb out of the public's view.

Please provide documentation for your claims that the Apollo project was
anything other than what it was claimed to be.  We went to the moon for two
main reasons: for scientific inquiry, and most importantly, to assert our
dominance in space at a time shortly after the Soviets seemed to be doing
better than we are.

I like to see justification for "secret rulers" comments as well.  Would
it be possible for one of the Beter-people to post a summary of his claims?
His letters are very tedious to read through and some of them are quite boring.

>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.

Sorry, but I missed all the details of the battle.  Did anybody die?  Did they
have families?  We must have had a lot of people monitoring this from the
ground.  How'd we silence them?
>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 don't think this is a matter of opinion.  If it is, then take some physics
classes and at least have an informed opinion.  BTW, there is no such thing
as a free-energy machine.  We have never found ANY instances of conservation
of energy not being held.  Machines which run off wind, the earth's mag field,
etc, provide "cheap" energy, but it is being taken from somewhere and 
redistributed as presumably electrical power.  I would object far more
strenuously over Beter's claims about cosmosphere's than the particle weapons
(which I still don't understand the point of...explosives are much easier).

>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.

Thank you for providing references.

>Jon Volkoff
>eidetics@cerf.net

Marc Talbot

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.plant.cannibal