PDA

View Full Version : I Did a Bad Thing



jrkeller
2002-May-08, 01:19 PM
A couple of days ago, I was in a used book store and found "Dark Moon". I thought about it for awhile and bought the book. I figured since it was used, the authors weren't making any money off me. The previous owner only read about ten pages so the book is like new. That should have been a warning right there.

Anyway, I plodded my way through a few chapters and I can't believe anyone buys into this stuff. It's poorly written and full of errors. The thing that really struck me about this book is that about half of the book covers things like crop circles, Roswell, and the usual alien connections. The other thing that struck me as is that the book is very poorly written.

David Hall
2002-May-08, 01:31 PM
Well, if you're going to buy a book like that, that's the way to do it. At least a reputable bookstore made some money, and the person who bought it in the first place got some of his cash back as well when he sold it, so in a way you are actually helping to mitigate the damage done a bit.

I also see no problem with owning such a monstrosity, as long as you didn't feed the hoaxter in the first place. And your motivation is pure. You are simply attempting to find out what the "other side" has to say.

Just think, now you can honestly say you have read the HB's work. They can't claim that you are working from ignorance (at least in regards to this one book).

Good for you.

Art Vandelay
2002-May-08, 03:00 PM
Speaking of "Dark Moon", it looks like the authors are doing their own "customer reviews" on amazon.com. I would at least suspect it was them after reading the review from Steven Wright of Rochester MI. He brings up the statement from the new Nasa chief about radiation (which we know was also brought up by someone somewhere else) and goes on to give the book a five star rating. He says it's 'great stuff', but I think Mr. Wright is Mr. Wrong. Luckily, I was able to post my own review first.

JayUtah
2002-May-08, 03:35 PM
Bart Sibrel "reviews" his own video on Amazon. The problem is that Bart isn't very good at hiding his particular brand of paranoia, and so it's very easy to spot.

Yes, one of Dark Moon's cardinal flaws is its length and inability to stick to the subject. Of course, the conspiracy theory mindset is hardwired to the notion that everything's "the subject", so there you have it.

Of course, part of the length is to help separate the contradictory arguments by placing as much irrelevant verbage between them as possible. It's the "inundation" technique -- throw a whole lot at the reader so he won't examine any one point too closely, and he'll only have the last ten pages or so in his head.

The video is the same way -- extremely long and apparently designed to be absorbed over several sittings so its contradictions aren't as apparent.

CC
2002-May-08, 04:51 PM
Bart Sibrel "reviews" his own video on Amazon. The problem is that Bart isn't very good at hiding his particular brand of paranoia, and so it's very easy to spot. JayUtah

I hope you would concede Bart at least saw a copy of the video in question.
I think that makes him entitled to write a review. Dont you?

JayUtah
2002-May-08, 05:15 PM
Give it up, Squirm. You know your personal attacks aren't allowed here.

He's not writing under his real name. He's posing as other people to brag up his own work.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-08 13:17 ]</font>

CC
2002-May-08, 06:56 PM
oops

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CC on 2002-05-08 15:04 ]</font>

CC
2002-May-08, 07:02 PM
Not a personal attack but a gentle reminder to you, not to throw moon-stones from those who live in Seethruart's glass lunar-domes.

Not Squirm. Perish the thought! But for once I will concede it is an honest mistake on your part.
I thought my initials might have given it away! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CC on 2002-05-08 15:21 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-08, 07:21 PM
Not Squirm. Perish the thought!

Sorry, I meant Slime, not Squirm, formerly known as Carrot Cruncher. Whatever you're calling yourself this time around, stop using his forum to perpetuation your personal vendetta against me.

I happen to believe it's unethical to pose as someone else and give a favorable review for one's own work. Do you agree or disagree?

CC
2002-May-08, 07:23 PM
I wholeheartedly agree.
You see, we are much a like. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

CC
2002-May-08, 07:51 PM
The other thing that struck me as is that the book is very poorly written. JRKeller

I was wondering can you give an example of bad prose. I realise you may understandably disagree with the pseudo-scientific findings in the book, but I dont understand why you found it so 'poorly written'.
I found it most agreeable. Then again I'm not into Shakespeare.

Please elaborate.

johnwitts
2002-May-08, 10:10 PM
The book 'Dark Moon' seems designed to befuddle the reader. If you don't know Apollo, it's incredibly difficult to follow the contradictions throughout the book, as you won't personally relate to the 'anomolies' in question. If you do know Apollo, you realise where they are wrong, and then where they've contradicted themselves. I'm going to have to read it again to bring up specific examples, but I do know they are there.

JayUtah
2002-May-08, 11:56 PM
"Poorly written" does not necessarily besmirch the aesthetics of the work. I would say it's "poorly written" in terms of style, scope, and structure.

Bennett and Percy rely a lot on the dangling rhetorical question. Carefully italicizing words in their questions, they raise issues without addressing them. I don't currently own a copy of the book, but I recall one question asking why von Braun left NASA when they "were apparently fulfilling" his lifelong dream.

A good question. The authors offer no answer, but are quite content to lead the reader very carefully to the brink of a conclusion and let him plummet while they themselves remain safely within the realm of speculation. This is so that they can back away at will from any particular point when it becomes uncomfortable. But the constant reliance on innuendo is a major stylistic flaw.

Dark Moon is a sort of intellectual minestrone. It's as if Bennett and Percy opened up the refrigerator, grabbed all the conspiracy theory leftovers, dumped them into a pot with some spices and water, and served up the result. The book is gargantuan, and about three times as long as it needs to be. Dark Moon contains much that is irrelevant. And I suspect that most of it is there to distract the reader from the flimsiness of the essential line of reasoning.

That works very much against Percy and Bennett. A large, complicated case is much harder to prove than a small, comprehensible case. The face on Mars, Avebury, and crop circles are essentially irrelevant to the notion of whether the Apollo record was falsified.

If you strain the minestrone of its irrelevancies, the elementary broth that remains is predictably thin and unsatisfying. It's the same old photographic and cinematographic anomalies that form the core of nearly every hoax theory offering.

The authors' new twist is that these anomalies aren't the result of NASA's inattention to detail, but deliberate sabotage by conscientious fabricators who wanted the truth to come out. At first glance this seems better than assuming NASA is completely inept and made thousands of mistakes.

But on second thought you have to now assume NASA is inept and allowed a substantial, well-organized subculture to exit within its highest echelons of alleged secrecy. These people couldn't simply blow the whistle in the conventional way because they would have been killed. So we're supposed to believe NASA conveyed the notion that death would punish disloyalty, yet under these circumstances a healthy rebellion flourished and produced thousands of "whistle-blows".

The authors have no answer for this, aside from the standard, "You must read Dark Moon completely in order to understand the authors' hypothesis." In other words, shut up and eat your minestrone.

But the implausibility of the authors' principal hypothesis is not the structural error. The structural error is to rely on the so-called anomalies to provide the alleged corpus delicti for the existence of whistle blowers.

The problem is that the issue of anomalous photographs is cited to support -- or rather, fails to support -- all all the hoax hypotheses dating back to Kaysing's 1974 book. And so Dark Moon's hypothesis fails for the same reason all the others do: the anomalies aren't necessarily anomalous.

David Percy is the first hoax author to claim any expertise in photography, lighting, and the other skills associated with recording images on film. Unfortunately none of that seems evident in his arguments. Dozens of other photographers puzzle at Percy's apparent ignorance of reflectors, emulsion behavior, lighting, perspective, and shadows.

The non-photographic inconsistencies such as radiation and rocket propulsion leave Bennett and Percy essentially wallowing in a sea of ignorance. Experts have questioned the authors' interpretation of the associated sciences -- in which neither author can claim any expertise -- and have been left empty-handed. All this culminates in the persistent argument that Apollo 13's crew would have landed on the moon in the dark.

All this mishandled evidence places the authors squarely in the gunsights of the subversion of their support. Therein lies the structural flaw. If there are no bona fide anomalies, then there is nothing for the whistle-blower hypothesis to explain. Therefore there is no need for whistle-blowers, and this probably explains why the authors haven't been able to produce any of the alleged whistle-blowers for questioning.

That, in my opinion, is why Dark Moon is poorly written.

jrkeller
2002-May-09, 05:20 AM
Maybe poorly written was a bad choice of words, but I think it is the best that I can think of. It's not that the authors write like first graders or anything like that, but if I had had written a research paper, thesis, book, etc., of that quality about the work that I do, I would have received, this is poorly written. I take the entire work and make my judgment about its writing style that way.

Here's an example.

In the book, there is a section on the non-parallel shadows. The authors show a low quality black and white photo of the Apollo 14 LM at far distance and some rocks in the foreground. They have put some arrows of the photo showing the direction of the light source. They also present a photo of a row trees and their shadows and of course the shadows line up.

My problems with this section are:

1) The original photograph is in color and can be easily obtained and free in some cases. I can find this photo in many places. Use the best photo you can find. I bought that photograph off a website for 10$, so it's quite easy to do. BTW, I had Ed Mitchell sign that one and we had a good laugh about the Fox show.

2) The photo comparison between trees and Apollo 14 is inappropriate (the old apples and oranges comparison). The photograph of the trees is a close up shot and the Apollo 14 LM is a distance shot. How can anyone tell how a shadow falls on a flat surface at a distance of about a 1000 feet, from an oddly shaped machine.

3) What the authors should have done is find out how far away the LM and find a similar Earth bound object (a kids play set at a park would probably work) and photograph it. Then use that in a comparison.

4) Or they could have tried to recreate the Apollo 14 landing site photo using two different light sources. Maybe they did try and found out that when you do this, you get two shadows.

I guess I can summarize it this way. Poor research in my opinion and then using it and writing about it is poor writing.

Martian Jim
2002-May-09, 06:43 AM
perhaps cc is Bart Sibrel in disguse (his trying to tell us the book is good so we go buy it)

JayUtah
2002-May-09, 03:38 PM
No, CC is Slime, a.k.a. Carrot Cruncher, the character most directly responsible for the crippling of the ApolloHoax forum. He has next to nothing in terms of real insight or understanding of Apollo issues. He just likes to argue; that's all.

And so his manner of debate is to go over every post you've ever made and, in lawyer fashion, try to trip you up in your own words and draw the argument away from the topic and into irrelevancy. He asks leading questions so that he can use them as straw men later. He posts under a variety of nicknames, trying to get you to believe they're separate people who all agree with him. His idea of winning is to embarrass you on completely irrelevant grounds into leaving the argument.

In informal debate nomenclature, such a set of tactics is known by a certain name, but unfortunately that name is not printable here. Suffice it to say he usually has very little to offer. And the Bad Astronomer has already warned him that his tactics are not allowed here.

Let's see how long he can stick with issues instead of meta-issues.

JayUtah
2002-May-09, 03:55 PM
How can anyone tell how a shadow falls on a flat surface at a distance of about a 1000 feet, from an oddly shaped machine.

And who says the surface is flat? Unlike many Apollogists (I just coined that word!), I believe the foreground rocks are the "correct" shadow and the LM shadow is the one affected by optical and geometric factors. This is not to say that those who argue the foreground rock shadows can be affected by hillock geometry are wrong, merely that the effect they mention doesn't seem to be as great a factor.

Fortunately I've done the photogrammetrics and I estimate, assuming we're talking about the same photo, that the LM is about 250 feet away from the photographer.

David Percy shows a great many sample photos. Over the one showing the row of trees in the park, Percy draws a series of lines to suggest shadow direction. The guide lines are obviously parallel, since Percy is trying to show that such an arrangement would cast parallel shadows. Unfortunately the line in one case is between the shadows and merely splits the difference in angle so as not to be too egregiously incorrect. The other guide line is actually over the top of the tree shadow, so the reader can't see the actual shadow and tell whether the guide line is correct.

Luckily for the astute reader, a park bench in the same photo, not intended as a proof object, provides the proof that the shadows fall according to perspective, not parallel as Percy claims.

And subsequently Percy has provided proof photos in which the shadows fall directly left-to-right across the frame, i.e., the sunlight is shining exactly perpendicular to the optical axis. That is, of course, a uniquely special case and the only case, after the transformation to projective space, in which the shadows would be parallel. But it is not the case in nearly all Apollo photos that the sun shines exactly transverse to the optical axis.

And further, distance is the great mitigator. In any but the special case used as "proof" by Percy, shadows will appear more horizontal the farther away they lie from the photographer. A shadow with any transverse element to its direction will appear to lie horizontal given sufficient distance.

Or they could have tried to recreate the Apollo 14 landing site photo using two different light sources.

There is a standing challenge to David Percy to recreate in the studio exactly the photos he says are anomalous. If he can so expertly determine the lighting setup from just looking at the photo, then to recreate it in his studio should be child's play. It would go a very long way toward proving his hypothesis. Instead he offers only diagrams and drawings. But of course the reader won't know if the diagram he's shown will actually produce the effect claimed by the authors. And in fact, it won't.

Percy either knows very little about lighting, or he is deliberately misrepresenting his knowledge of lighting to the reader.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-14 23:21 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-May-09, 06:42 PM
The photograph I'm talking about is number 20 and on the previous page is the photo of the trees and the park bench. I did notice that the park bench shadow didn't line up with the tree shadows.

I'll take your word on it that the LM is 250 feet away. My method was to go outside, look at cars and people and make my guess that way.

I think what makes me mad (I wanted to use a few curse words hear, but I'll refrain) is that no NASA photograph people were contacted. Someone like Dick Underwood, who was the chief photographic planner and is mentioned, referenced or quoted in just about every space photography book (Home Planet, This Island Earth, The Infinite Journey) is never even referenced here. He's still alive and helping NASA plan space photography.

I also found the section on space suits quite laughable. It is clear from this section, no research was done.

DaveC
2002-May-09, 07:02 PM
I borrowed a copy of the book from an aquaintance but couldn't force myself to read more than a dozen pages and skim through the rest of it. As I've found from my little email war with Aulis, Percy and Bennett are not interested in doing any research, and they seem oblivious to the inconsistencies in their view of the information available. The gymnastic feats - which they denied in the book existed are now, since they have been shown examples, "too dangerous to have been attempted by astronauts on the moon" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Their latest essay on radiation, which looks like an admission that the book was wrong on that issue, is held out by Bennett and Percy as proof that Dark Moon was right. ("See, we TOLD you radiation in space was deadly".)

The book is, as I recall, about 500 pages, which they might have filled with researched material. The actual Apollo material could have been presented in about 100 pages of tightly focused writing, given that no analysis of other explanations for what they present were provided.

My definition of a poorly written book (on a subject I have a real interest in) is one that fails to get me to read more than a chapter or two. Dark Moon even fell far below that threshhold.

johnwitts
2002-May-09, 11:52 PM
Refering to the A14 photo, if we zoom onto the astronaut to the left of the LM, we can only see him above is knees. Also, we cannot see the feet of the LM. Photos taken from a position to the right of this picture ie at about 90 deg to the LM from this vantage, directly up-Sun, show the ground sloping quite sharply up to the left. This all points to the LM shadow in this picture being partially obscured by the terrain, that is, a ridge between the camera and the shadow that cannot be readily seen in theimage. Notice also that the astronaut has no shadow.

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 12:32 AM
The photograph I'm talking about is number 20

I don't have a copy of Dark Moon of my very own, so I don't remember which was photo 20. But I assume it's this one

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/as14-68-9486.jpg

or the one after it.

I'll take your word on it that the LM is 250 feet away.

I made some notes on this photo a few months ago. I don't have them handy; I'm trying to organize my Apollo notes and right now I'm at the point where I don't know were anything is.

Based on some careful empiricism, http://www.clavius.org/photlens.html, I have a geometrical model of the Zeiss Biogon lens on the Hasselblad 500/EL using 70mm film. It gives adequate first-order approximations for angular distances in photographs taken with that equipment. Since the angular height of the LM ascent stage can be measured in fiducials in the image, and since we know the height of the ascent stage, this gives us a basic trigonometric solution to the distance.

no NASA photograph people were contacted.

Of course not. Bennett and Percy cite several other experts to make their case, but the only NASA person they seem to have contacted was public affairs head Brian Welch. Any time they need to present NASA's point of view in order to maintain the semblance of fair play, they just use Welch.

But of course if your aim is to smear NASA, why would you give them a chance to defend themselves and spoil your fun?

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 12:49 AM
Percy and Bennett are not interested in doing any research

They are not interested in research unless it supports their point of view. Research to establish the preponderance of fact or the correct understanding of a principle is unheard of. It is especially frustrating to see them plead in public for someone to restore their faith in Apollo (playing the audience for sympathy) and then quietly erasing the very proofs they claim to seek, and denying their own forum is a place where that is appropriate.

Clearly the behavior of charlatans.

The gymnastic feats - which they denied in the book existed are now, since they have been shown examples, "too dangerous to have been attempted by astronauts on the moon"

This deserves clarification. Bennett and Percy first asserted that no examples of low-gravity gymnastics appear in the Apollo video and film, and they say they have high-quality copies of all of it. However, it was relatively easy to find examples of those gymnastics in the low-quality online video clips, which comprise only a very small portion of the video that exists.

Clearly Bennett and Percy did not examine much of the high-quality footage they claimed to possess, or else they simply decided to lie to their readers about what was on it.

When confronted with this evidence, the authors forgot all about having said it didn't exist, and instead tried to change the subject and show that these examples must have been falsified. And then they inexplicably announced that the low-gravity gymnastics they were looking at were improbable because it would have been dangerous for the astronauts to attempt them.

Where was this nugget of wisdom when they were claiming the lack of low-gravity gymnastics was suspicious? Bennett and Percy fill their works with this kind of inconsistency. What they say is possible or suspicious changes from chapter to chapter, based on what they need the reader to believe in order to make their point.

Their latest essay on radiation, which looks like an admission that the book was wrong on that issue, is held out by Bennett and Percy as proof that Dark Moon was right.

Dark Moon's understanding of radiation is like a very small child's understanding of why he shouldn't cross the road. He knows only that it is forbidden, and not necessarily the intricate details of what exactly is dangerous about it. Adults, with their understanding of traffic and their practiced attention, can successfully navigate an intersection. And people with an understanding of what radiation is and what about it is dangerous to people and things can successfully navigate cislunar space.

There is a standing challenge to David Percy to compute quantitatively the expected radiation exposure of an Apollo astronaut. He can't do it.

The actual Apollo material could have been presented in about 100 pages of tightly focused writing

And should have been. Bennett and Percy bit off more than they could chew. They should have written a single book on the problems they claim are in the Apollo record, and then built upon that after the case was made.

However, inundation is a common feature of polemical writing. You can't read Dark Moon in a single sitting, and so you can't as easily discern all its consistency problems.

CC
2002-May-10, 02:05 AM
JRKeller:

Thanks, you cleared up for me the misunderstanding about Percy's masterpiece. I thought I was the only one here who enjoyed it. I wont even attempt to argue the merits of the points posed as they are dealt with in all the other threads.


perhaps cc is Bart Sibrel in disguse (his trying to tell us the book is good so we go buy it)

I'm not Sibrel! I am one of the mugs who bought his DVD. I should have taken Bart up on his full money refund offer when I had the chance.

JayUtah:


Bennett and Percy rely a lot on the dangling rhetorical question. Carefully italicizing words in their questions, they raise issues without addressing them. I don't currently own a copy of the book, but I recall one question asking why von Braun left NASA when they "were apparently fulfilling" his lifelong dream.

Without checking the book (my copy is out) not only did the Nazi leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!
No answers forthcoming from either party?
I believe you may be confusing rhetorical questioning with a deviloushly clever ploy to skirt around the our countries libel laws. By posing a miriad of questions without fully answering them they leave the assertions up to the reader.
In the case where Percy has tried to answer some of the anomalies, I'm thinking of certain shadow anomalies, he has fallen
for the trap experienced conspiracists avoid. Because you can show that under extreme conditions your theories seem to answer the perceived anomalies you then go on on to dismiss all of Percy's points.
Instead of the book being 'minestrone', it was clear to me that all aspects of Apollo and history of rocketry was tackled in order to give the reader maximum understanding of the players involved.
The Dark Moon scenario was the culmination of the work.
The added Bennetts Cydonia/Crop Circles are a pointer to the dishonesty of modern-day NASA (ref Brian O'Leary). I think it is very relevant to the Apollo record and therefore the book.


No, CC is Slime, a.k.a. Carrot Cruncher, the character most directly responsible for the crippling of the ApolloHoax forum. He has next to nothing in terms of real insight or understanding of Apollo issues. He just likes to argue; that's all.

I do like to argue but my quick actions of getting ApolloHoax forums removed has more to do with the safety of US citizens than anything else. For security reasons I cant go into all the details, suffice to say, if the congressional medal of honor does come my way I will be accepting it on behalf of all us misunderstood HBs.
Before you curse my good name anymore, perhaps you'd like to take a look at the title of this thread posted by Admin at ApolloHoax 'after' I brought the forum to its knees.
http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=787&forum=12&9

I will now leave you alone, permanently. BA doesnt allow the cut-and-thrust of my sytle of argument so be thankful Jay.
ApolloHoax going down has saved your bacon.
Heated discussions there brough out some real gems! - 'The real Jay'.

I'm very interested to know why there hasnt been a single post of David Lettermen's 'so-called' comedy sketch with Buzz Aldrin atating he 'didnt' go to the moon. A friend of mine, who didnt know of the ApolloHoax theories at all, is now convinced the Buzz was attempting to preempt a NASA confession.
Powerful stuff and obviously too strong for this place. Is David Letterman that unknown in the US? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Ian R
2002-May-10, 03:29 AM
On 2002-05-09 22:05, CC wrote:

I do like to argue but my quick actions of getting ApolloHoax forums removed has more to do with the safety of US citizens than anything else. For security reasons I cant go into all the details, suffice to say, if the congressional medal of honor does come my way I will be accepting it on behalf of all us misunderstood HBs.

I certainly don't recall anything posted at ApolloHoax that was extreme enough to endanger US citizens in general. Aren't you going just a little bit over the top, as per usual?

Or do you just like being a drama queen?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-05-09 23:32 ]</font>

Jim
2002-May-10, 04:00 AM
... not only did (von Braun) leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!
No answers forthcoming from either party?
I believe you may be confusing rhetorical questioning with a deviloushly clever ploy to skirt around the our countries libel laws. By posing a miriad of questions without fully answering them they leave the assertions up to the reader.

If what they have to say about this is true, why would they be subject to libel laws? BTW, rhetorical questions are those to which the audience knows the answers; these are not rhetorical questions. They are innuendo, unfounded, and - as you suggest - border on libel.

In the case where Percy has tried to answer some of the anomalies... he has fallen for the trap experienced conspiracists avoid. Because you can show that under extreme conditions your theories seem to answer the perceived anomalies you then go on on to dismiss all of Percy's points.

This seems to be the tactic taken by HBers. Find something, anything, that you can point to and say, "See! The Apollogists were wrong! If they were wrong about this, they must be wrong about everything!!"

Percy makes specific claims using specific examples. Showing the errors in those examples is appropriate. When every specific example he gives is debunked, that's not "extreme conditions".

... suffice to say, if the congressional medal of honor does come my way ...

I take great exception to this "throw-away line" of yours. I have known Medal of Honor recipients and you show a lack of proper respect with that line.

It is the Medal of Honor. It is given to active duty US military who demonstrate exceptional bravery at risk of their own lives under combat conditions.

You think you are being cute, but you are being insulting.

Before you curse my good name anymore...

Such hubris.

I will now leave you alone, permanently. BA doesnt allow the cut-and-thrust of my sytle of argument so be thankful...

Goodbye.

Good riddance.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-10, 05:30 AM
not only did the Nazi leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!


Are you talking about James Webb? He was the NASA administrator prior to the Apollo 1 fire, but he left on October 7, 1968.

That's over nine months before the launch of Apollo 11. Saying he left "just days" before the launch is a huge stretch, unless you mean "280 days". I once caught Bart Sibrel making the same mistake.

If you're not talking about Webb, then who?

jrkeller
2002-May-10, 05:50 AM
Jay,

That's the photo.

CC,

Actually, I've enjoyed examining the whole Moon Hoax Myth since the Fox show came out. It's made me learn about a variety of topics that I probably wouldn't have otherwise, such as photography, lighting, etc., After the Fox show, I have no doubts what so ever that the moon landings were real.

On the flip side, books like Dark Moon and the Fox TV show make me feel sorry for all those people who get taken by a bunch of charlatans who know nothing about science, engineering or even how to research a topic.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-10 01:56 ]</font>

CC
2002-May-10, 09:33 AM
I certainly don't recall anything posted at ApolloHoax that was extreme enough to endanger US citizens in general. Aren't you going just a little bit over the top, as per usual?

Or do you just like being a drama queen?
====
I take great exception to this "throw-away line" of yours. I have known Medal of Honor recipients and you show a lack of proper respect with that line.

It is the Medal of Honor. It is given to active duty US military who demonstrate exceptional bravery at risk of their own lives under combat conditions.

You think you are being cute, but you are being insulting.

I'm afraid youre both just letting your anti-HB and partiotic hog-wash cloud your judgement. Whatever medals your country hands out to those who shut down a very real security risk to your country (I know it aint the purple-heart!) it can be verified or denied by a source within ApolloHoax.
I would not post such a highly contentious remark unless I was sure (in my mind) I could back it up.
However your inability to grasp the bigger picture leaves me smiling and not willing to expose your country to futher harm.
As you end with the remark along the lines of goodbye and good riddance, I cannot better leave this place than with my final statement left for others to judge.
I hope our the British boys in Afghanistan (oops no medals) arent able to read the inward looking prose of superior American here.
BTW To TX Ian R.
Look up Dubya/DEA/1985/Miami and drugs in a search engine!

007 signing off.

Martian Jim
2002-May-10, 09:48 AM
your a HB? (hoax beliver)

have you noticed that all the evidence trying to prove that their was a hoax is either fake or can be de-bunked by people within seconds?

i think you are running out of evidence to prove that it was a hoax so you are having to use flames as a last resort
_________________
<MARQUEE HEIGHT="90" >the guy that has come from mars, for no reason (no reason, or you think for no reason......)</MARQUEE>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Martian Jim on 2002-05-10 08:00 ]</font>

Art Vandelay
2002-May-10, 02:13 PM
I'm afraid youre both just letting your anti-HB and partiotic hog-wash cloud your judgement. Whatever medals your country hands out to those who shut down a very real security risk to your country (I know it aint the purple-heart!) it can be verified or denied by a source within ApolloHoax.
I would not post such a highly contentious remark unless I was sure (in my mind) I could back it up.
However your inability to grasp the bigger picture leaves me smiling and not willing to expose your country to futher harm.
As you end with the remark along the lines of goodbye and good riddance, I cannot better leave this place than with my final statement left for others to judge.
I hope our the British boys in Afghanistan (oops no medals) arent able to read the inward looking prose of superior American here.
BTW To TX Ian R.
Look up Dubya/DEA/1985/Miami and drugs in a search engine!

007 signing off.


OK, let me see if I got this straight... There was a some posting on an Apollo message board somewhere that was actually endangering the lives of every person in the US and this guy single-handedly saved everybody by shutting it down using nothing more than **. Man, he's even better than James Bond. I hope he got a couple a chicks afterwards instead of the usual one that Bond gets.

By the way, I tried that search on Yahoo and got 0 (zero) results. Must be another conspiracy.

Art

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 03:54 PM
Without checking the book (my copy is out) not only did the Nazi leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!

No, not "days" before. You might also take note who left office at about the same time as Webb: Democratic U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, to be replaced by Republican President Richard M. Nixon. The post of NASA Administrator is a political appointment. It is acceptable for an appointee to continue from one president to another under the same political party, but when the administration changes political parties then out go the appointees from one party, to be replaced by appointees sympathetic to the goals of the new ruling party.

If you had checked to see which other important government officials left office at the same time, and knew something of American government, you would have your answer. In rhetoric this is known as "splitting rails" -- Giving only one instance in a context that makes it look suspicious when giving all such instances would resolve the discrepancy.

No answers forthcoming from either party?

No answer that Bennett and Percy are willing to report. That's the problem. Of course each had a reason for leaving NASA. But the authors don't research them, they don't understand them, and they don't report them. Instead they phrase their treatment in such a way that a certain explanation is clearly favored -- in von Braun's case, that NASA wasn't really fulfilling his dream to send men to the moon -- without coming out and saying it.

I believe you may be confusing rhetorical questioning with a deviloushly clever ploy to skirt around the our countries libel laws.

No. Rhetorical questions are not leading, and they cannot be used to establish a valid premise.

And it should gravely concern the reader that the authors appear so afraid of libel that they are willing to split rails dozens of times throughout the whole book. Obviously the innuendo is intended to avoid responsibility for their ideas, but that's another whole new realm of poor writing.

Bennett and Percy promise me that they will give "irrefutable evidence" that the Apollo record is falsified. Such evidence does not come in the form of innuendo or leading questions. It comes in clearly stated conclusions and well-researched support for them. It does not come veiled implications.

As any attorney can tell you, the best defense against libel is to prove that the statements are, in fact, true. If Bennett's and Percy's evidence is so unshakable, they should have no fear in court. But since avoiding libel seems to be a prime consideration for them, perhaps their evidence is not so irrefutable as they would have the reader believe.

If Bennett and Percy want to argue that NASA had not fulfilled von Braun's vision and that's why he left, then they need to present evidence in the form of statements or letters from von Braun himself that state this. To merely suggest to the reader that this may have been the case, to set it up as the likely reason, and to provide no evidence for it, is highly irresponsible. It is not "irrefutable proof". It isn't even proof that needs addressing. It falls flat, like dozens of other examples of innuendo that Bennett and Percy use.

By posing a miriad of questions without fully answering them they leave the assertions up to the reader.

Not when the reader's attention is carefully drawn to one particular outcome, the one that happens to be what the authors want believed.

You don't establish fact by means of a rhetorical question. The authors' argument on this point is, essentially, that von Braun wouldn't have left if NASA was fulfilling his dream. He left, therefore NASA wasn't fulfilling his dream. That's an affirmed consequent -- an invalid argument.

The authors refuse to establish the reason why von Braun left NASA in the customary and valid way -- of providing documentary proof of his actual motives. They're just guessing based on what they wish were true, and compelling the reader to guess along with them. But their argument rests on whether their guess is correct. Therefore they need to prove it, not merely suggest that it might be the case.

Because you can show that under extreme conditions your theories seem to answer the perceived anomalies you then go on on to dismiss all of Percy's points.

No. The refutations of Percy's photographic evidence do not, in general, involve "extreme conditions". Many are quite reproducible on earth in normal sunlit photography. Many others are easily understandable given a real understanding of the physics involved.

On the contrary, Percy's attempts to prove his understanding of perspective is correct make use of such "extreme conditions" -- special cases which prevail only under certain carefully controlled sunlight angles and aren't generally the case in lunar surface photography. Yet Percy maintains this is the general case.

Percy's assertions regarding reflected light elicit laughter from every photographer and lighting designer I've consulted. And Percy is not above simply lying to the reader, drawing lines suggesting shadow direction which misstate or hide the actual directions.

I don't dismiss all of Percy's points on the basis of one or two examples, except when those examples reveal a mistake which Percy repeats over and over. I dismiss Percy's points because none of them, so far, has stood up to even mild examination. Clearly his arguments were aimed at people who know little or nothing about perspective and/or photography. I happen to know a fair amount about photography, and a whole heck of a lot about perspective.

it was clear to me that all aspects of Apollo and history of rocketry was tackled in order to give the reader maximum understanding of the players involved.

No. The aspects of Apollo and the history of rocketry were presented in a slipshod, stilted, and factually incorrect way in order to give the reader the impression that Bennett and Percy have some expertise in these issues -- they do not -- and to establish in the mind of the reader (who is similarly in the dark) a fanciful notion of space operations that supports their findings.

David Percy and Mary Bennett know very little about actual space travel. This is why they refuse to debate anyone with demonstrated understanding.

The added Bennetts Cydonia/Crop Circles are a pointer to the dishonesty of modern-day NASA (ref Brian O'Leary).

But even should any of these allegations be true -- and it is not proven that they are, proving dishonesty in one case does not prove dishonesty in another case. Even if NASA is hiding the truth regarding the face on Mars, that is not proof in any way that they had a reason to falsify Apollo, the means to, or actually did it.

But the fact remains that the case against NASA regarding Cydonia and other Mars issues is far from proven. What I've examined of these issues shows the same fanciful, unscientific, illogical treatment of evidence that exists in the moon hoax argument. Therefore all Percy and Bennett have done by tying their hoax theory into Mars issues is to create a case that's impossible for them to prove. They now have to prove the moon hoax and Mars issues.

"Guilt by association" is a common trick for polemical writers such as Bennett and Percy, but it has no place in a debate ostensibly based on fact. Theirs is clearly the tactic of throwing as much mud as possible against the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick.

I do like to argue but my quick actions of getting ApolloHoax forums removed has more to do with the safety of US citizens than anything else.

No, it does not. You mistakenly believe you're the only one who knows what transpired between you and the owner of the forum and his parents. Besides, several people here can testify to your having revealed there your desire to "bring down" the forum and especially to "bring down" and "finish off" me personally.

That is all I will say on this point.

BA doesnt allow the cut-and-thrust of my sytle of argument so be thankful Jay.

Your style of argument does not deal with the issues under discussion. It deals only with attempts to undermine your opponent, suppress his evidence so that no one sees it, and embarrassing him into abandoning the debate. In other words, you rely solely on ad hominem tactics. I fail to understand why you believe that proves anything.

I happen to know that you have given the ApolloHoax admin your word that you will no longer post at his forum. And unless you change your approach, you are not likely to be welcome here. You might consider whether your style of argumentation is really working for you.

Heated discussions there brough out some real gems! - 'The real Jay'.

I fail to see the logical or rhetorical value of throwing mud at someone and then laughing because he's got mud on him.

The "real" Jay is the one you labored intently for months to fabricate. Unfortunately no one except for you seems to believe in it.

Powerful stuff and obviously too strong for this place.

Or maybe it's clearly obvious that all the parties were joking, having some fun at hoax believers' expense. If you wish to take David Letterman seriously, that's your privilege.

Buzz Aldrin has made it clear in non-humorous contexts that he believes the hoax theorists are profiteers with nothing substantial.

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 04:39 PM
i think you are running out of evidence to prove that it was a hoax so you are having to use flames as a last resort

Unfortunately CC doesn't have a lot of actual knowledge that applies to Apollo or the evidence for or against it. As he says, he just likes to argue. And when you can't argue the issues intelligently, there's not a whole lot left.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-10, 04:49 PM
On 2002-05-09 22:05, CC wrote:
BA doesnt allow the cut-and-thrust of my sytle of argument so be thankful Jay.

Do you have a citation for that?

SpacedOut
2002-May-10, 05:53 PM
For those who are not aware of what transpired in the last moments over at apollohoax.com let me give you my impressions. I have lurked there for quite while but have never joined because of the acid tone many of the threads took. The final straw that broke the site was a thread making personal attacks on JayUtah.

The arguments that CC (under one or more aliases?) and others (never been sure there were any others) were trying to make the argument that ALL of Jay’s arguments were false because of a few perceived errors on Jay’s part. The basic argument was that because they had caught Jay at one misstatement everything he had ever said was false. When points were raised about some of the errors in the Hoax Proponents arguments, and therefore by the same argument, the HB claims should be dismissed – the attackers ignored this and continued to attack Jay.

To let you know how petty the attacks were – according to the attackers – one of the reasons Jay cannot be believed because he referred to a DVD as a VIDEO! As we all know DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disk (NOW – but more on that later) and since Jay had used the word VIDEO it was obvious that nothing he said could be believed!

I believe the thread was 12 to15 pages of these kinds of arguments long when most of the site was deleted.

Now back to DVD. It was stated in the thread that DVD was originally Digital Video Disk and then later changed to Digital Versatile Disk simply because they were truly “Versatile”. This was my memory of the events. In the thread – so-called “I’m in the industry” people stated that no it was always a: -“Versatile”. Since the origins and mutations of acronyms ( MRI, LM – are a couple) is something of a hobby for me, I decided to do some research. My research started on the web and I quickly found a lot of information pointing in both directions “Video” and Versatile”. Most of what I found that verified the “Video” history, such as the “DVDForum” the industry group that maintains the standard was originally named the “Digital Video Disk Consortium” I could not confirm that with what I considered to be reliable sources. So I went directly to Philips, one of the several companies that created the DVD standard. I didn’t get a response from them until after the apollohoax thread was deleted and now seems like a good time to post my findings here.

Since the BA doesn’t want full emails posted here I’ll provide the pertinent paragraph from the email I received from Philips:


Originally, DVD was an abbreviation for "Digital Video Disk." As it can be used to store more than just video, some people also call it "Digital Versatile Disk.".

(I’ve forwarded the email to TBA for his rcords)

So to CC and the like – If you wish to criticize someone because you think they have misspoken – please check YOUR facts.

[fixed wrong word}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-10 14:29 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 06:18 PM
I'm resigned to the notion that I sometimes make mistakes, that I sometimes exercise poor judgment, and that I am partially governed by normal human passions. And I suspect that these failures will persist with me my entire life. But I believe in taking responsibility for my behavior and for correcting its adverse effects to the best of my ability.

If people think they can browbeat me into going away, they've got another thing coming.

SpacedOut
2002-May-10, 06:27 PM
On 2002-05-10 14:18, JayUtah wrote:
I'm resigned to the notion that I sometimes make mistakes, that I sometimes exercise poor judgment, and that I am partially governed by normal human passions. And I suspect that these failures will persist with me my entire life. But I believe in taking responsibility for my behavior and for correcting its adverse effects to the best of my ability.


Which is why I find your thoughts on the whole Apollo Hoax phenomenon so persuasive.

Art Vandelay
2002-May-10, 06:30 PM
I probably shouldn't ask this but I'm still kinda curious...does anybody know what was so dangerous that CC needed to step in and save us from? Was it some kind of cool top secret information? I want to know the secret stuff /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-10, 06:35 PM
On 2002-05-10 14:30, Art Vandelay wrote:
I probably shouldn't ask this but I'm still kinda curious...does anybody know what was so dangerous that CC needed to step in and save us from? Was it some kind of cool top secret information? I want to know the secret stuff /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


I haven't a clue what CC is refering to - unless its Jay! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

SeanF
2002-May-10, 06:43 PM
On 2002-05-10 13:53, SpacedOut wrote:

Since the origins and mutations of acronyms ( MRI, LM – are a couple) is something of a hobby for me, I decided to do some research.



Ha! Caught you, SpacedOut!

MRI and LM (and DVD, for that matter) are not acronyms, they're simply abbreviations! An acronym is an abbreviation which is pronounced as a word (SCUBA "scooba") rather than just as a series of letters (DVD "Dee-Vee-Dee").

Since you made this mistake, we obviously cannot trust anything else you say!

(using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity)

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-10, 06:52 PM
OOPS!!!!

I retract everything I've ever posted!

jrkeller
2002-May-10, 06:56 PM
Boy, what a can of worms (snakes is more like it) I openned.

CC,

Instead of attacking people, why don't you give me some facts. A technical person like myself makes decisions based on facts not feelings. You could be the nicest guy in the world and your nemisis could be the biggest jerk that ever lived, but I'm not going to be on your side simply because you're a nice guy.

I want facts and I want them to be correct.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-10 14:59 ]</font>

jagster
2002-May-10, 07:06 PM
Actually, LM is pronounced 'LEM' because that is what it was at first. Lunar Excursion Module. They decided to change it to 'Lunar Module' because 'excursion' gave the impression of the module actually moving around on the surface.

Point? LM is an acronym. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-10, 07:14 PM
So - does this now mean that 1/3 of what I say is believable? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-10 15:15 ]</font>

jagster
2002-May-10, 07:21 PM
lol! Take what you can get!

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 07:25 PM
The pronunciability requirement of "acronym" has taken a back seat in modern usage to the requirement that the abbreviation be formed by the initial letters of each word that is acronymically encoded. "Abbreviation" can denote an unpronounced acronym, but most naturally denotes a shortened form of single words, "2nd" for "second" and so forth.

The strict definition of "acronym" requires the result to be a word, and by implication to be pronounceable. But common usage today does not follow the strict definition, and as any lexicographer will hasten to point out, dictionaries reflect usage, not establish it. Because there is no convenient word for a non-pronounceable abbreviation composed of initial letters, "acronym" has been co-opted for this important concept.

NASA is an acronym in the strictest sense because it is pronounceable and is pronounced, and is composed from the first letter of each of the constituent words. Its predecessor NACA is an acronym in the sense that it could be pronounced. But it was not pronounced as a word -- each letter was said individually.

Some acronyms have slipped into very common usage, such as "radar", and are not even considered by most speakers to "stand for" anything.

JayUtah
2002-May-10, 08:23 PM
Okay, back to AS14-68-9486.

I've got a digital version of the photograph, rectified using the fiducials. In my copy the LM is 83 pixels tall, corresponding to 22 feet in object space. It is 0.49 fiducials tall, corresponding to an angular height of 5.5&deg;. Basic trigonometry establishes the baseline as 228 feet.

A key element in the interpretation of this photo is is orientation of the lunar module. Most hoax believers are confused by the irregular shape of the LM. David Percy maintains that the shadows are improper, and most Apollogists conclude that the LM shadow is correct and the foreground rock shadows are anomalous due to the slope of the hillock.

But I maintain that the photographer is standing approximately 45&deg; off the LM's fore-aft axis. This axis is frequently a good first-order approximation to the up-down sun direction. The LM lands facing down-sun. Other photographs suggest that the LM initially yawed some 21&deg; from the sun azimuth at landing. I have not yet corrected this yaw error for the time at which AS14-68-9486 was taken, nor have I refined the photographer's position relative to the LM fore-aft axis. When I complete this work, we shall be able to determine the insolation azimuth in this photo to within a few degrees.

Based on the first-order work, I have determined that the foreground shadows are consistent with the rough approximations of the sun azimuth and the LM orientation. I therefore believe the LM shadow is anomalous in the sense of being the shadow whose direction requires additional explanation.

The LM landed having yawed approximately 21&deg; to the right of the sun azimuth as the sun was positioned shortly after landing. This is proved by examination of up-sun photographs that include the sun disk and the LM and in which the LM orientation is unambiguous. Under those conditions, the shadow of the LM should fall to the left (from pilot's point of view) of the LM fore-aft axis.

The illuminated panels on the LM ascent stage illustrate that this is still the case in the photo in question. The shadow should be displaced from the projection of the LM fore-aft axis onto the lunar surface, in a direction away from the photographer.

Most significantly, the demarcated crater which appears outside the commander's window and is visible during the flag deployment is also visible in AS14-68-9486, and is in an excellent position for its rim to interfere with our view of the LM's shadow.

Jim
2002-May-11, 12:26 AM
On 2002-05-10 05:33, CC wrote:
I'm afraid youre both just letting your anti-HB and partiotic hog-wash cloud your judgement.


"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson

Strangely, though, it is the HBers who make the claims of patriotism, usually as an insult, when they run out of arguments.

"Yeah, well, you're just supporting the Apollo thing 'cause you're too much of an American patriot to think your government..." and so on.

CC, my objection to your offhanded reference to the MoH and you "deserving" it had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with something I don't think you understand: respect.

I had the good fortune to work with a holder of the MoH for almost three years. I found out about him through a third party; he never mentioned it. He received his Medal not for some overblown act of patriotism, but because his men were in danger and he had to take action to save them... action which placed his own life in jeopardy and led to him being wounded three times. (He got three Purple Hearts, too.)

Your cutesy remark denigrates this man. It denigrates all those who hold the MoH, many of whom lost their lives to save their fellows.

And it reflects - very poorly - on you.

Jim
2002-May-11, 12:41 AM
Without checking the book (my copy is out) not only did (von Braun) leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!

CC, better get that book back!

Von Braun was head of the Marshall Space Flight Center until 1970, when NASA transferred him to DC to head up strategic planning. He left NASA not quite two years later at age 60 to go to work for Fairchild Industries.

James Webb was NASA Director from February 1961 until his retirement on October 6, 1968, his 62nd birthday. He was replaced by his Deputy Director, Thomas Paine, as acting Director until his appointment as permanent Director became effective in March 1969.

Paine served until his resignation in September 1970.

JayUtah
2002-May-11, 01:16 AM
Jim, I agree with your position on the Medal of Honor. I'm lucky to live in a city with a Medal of Honor recipient. He carried the Olympic torch just a few months ago. And you can rest assured that CC's actions do not merit any award at all.

CC is from the U.K. which, as you know, is separated from the U.S. by a common language. His particular sense of humor tends to baffle and sometimes irritate Americans, or at least some of us. He attempts to punctuate his statements with sarcasm, but tends to miss the mark and cause offense instead. I can be fairly sure his remarks were not intended seriously, however insensitive they may have been.