May 9, 1998

Self-certified Astrophysics Engineer Nele Abels-Ludwig responds to criticism levelled against THE MAD REVISIONIST:

Subject: Re: Phillips & Mock. Where do we go from here?
Date: 9 May 1998 08:44:53 GMT
From: Nele Abels-Ludwig <>
Organization: HRZ Uni Marburg
To: ORAC <>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

On Fri, 8 May 1998, ORAC wrote in a vain attempt to denigrate the paragon of reason, the Mad Revisionist:

> Oh, please. This is so ridiculous as to defy belief. You clearly have only
> the most superficial understanding of classical mechanics.

Ha, just another typical lunarist tactic: they always retreat to ad hominem insults when they feel cornered.

> The equations for gravitation and what it takes for two masses to
> form a stable orbit was worked out hundreds of years ago.

And? Does a wrong theory become right just because it is ancient? This is the typical line of argument of a true believer in the lunar religion. The older the stories are the truer must they be. No, my dear friend. Such an argument was valid in the Early Modern, but not today. Nowadays people like the Mad Revisionist slowly are enforcing logic and reason in science - against all odds.

> Orbits are ellipses, with the central object at one of the focal points of
> the ellipse. This is predicted by Newton's equations.

And does that prove the existence of the moon?? Just a hundred years before Newton, people were speaking of perfectly circular "spheres" surrounding the earth, one of them the so-called "lunar sphere". Naah.  You lunarists change your stories as you go along in your vain attempts to adapt them to the revisionist's findings. But you won't be able to hold it up much longer. Truth will prevail!

> If you actually understood the physics of gravitation and classical
> mechanics rather than distorting them,

Another ad hominem attack.

> you would know that the moon follows them quite well--as do all the planets.

And a circular logic fallacy. The moon does not follow the theories because it does not exist. The "theories" are just deliberately fabricated pieces of propaganda which were forged to give the moon-hoax a whitewash of scientific "credibility". The Mad Revisionist has given scientific evidence that the moon is an illuminated balloon, maintained by the lunar conspiracy for their sinister reasons, and/or a mass hallucination. But does the "scientific" community react on his epochal findings? No, they prefer to believe the stories of so-called "eye-witnesses" like Cyrano de Bergerac who claims to have "fallen from the moon" or propagandists like Jules Verne who narrates a fabulous story of how someone was shot to the moon with a giant cannon. We all know that this is physically impossible and that he never would come back to tell the story, because the gravitational forces would kill him at once. And of course we all know that Jules Verne got fabulously rich with the money paid by the lunar conspiracy.

Heck, the lunarists don't even get their own stories straight. At one time they claim that the "moon" consists of rocks, another time it's green cheese. At one time, the "moon" has no atmosphere, another time there is an alleged "man in the moon" living "up there". We all know that nobody can live without air - how can the lunarists seriously expect intelligent folks to believe such rubbish!?

> I'm beginning to appreciate your absurdity, though. It's rather amusing,
> actually, and would be more so, if not so crudely done.

Crudely done!? Yes, the truth hurts, and it is not easy to abandon a beloved fairy tale. But how can you speak of "crudely done"? Is the ludicrous practice of fortune-telling with the help of the "moon" less crudely? Or the laughable attempt to make a calendar with the help of the "moon"? Only by the efforts of the moon-revisionists such ridiculously crude propaganda-attempts were given up, because it was them who have proved scientifically that an illuminated balloon cannot be used to accurately calculate a calendar. Your ad hominems won't change that.


(Nele Abels-Ludwig has performed a statistical experiment that proves conclusively that the moon is non-material - TMR)

We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion