PDA

View Full Version : New Very Laughable Topic



jrkeller
2002-May-26, 06:28 PM
I just went to,

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

to read up on the third Van Allen Belt (another posting) adn I found this gem.

"Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth."

So now that people have shown that when a spacecraft is in low Earth orbit, the view of the through a spacecraft's window of Earth changes rapidly, but when one's on the way to the moon the view changes slowly, we've got a transparency on the window.

Boy things just get worse.

This site has got to be one of the worst yet.

JayUtah
2002-May-26, 10:00 PM
That's Bennett's and Percy's revision of Bart Sibrel's original argument from the supposedly top secret footage. Sibrel uses that version now. They completely ignore the part where the border of the window intrudes upon the "transparency" supposedly taped to it. The site you reference is essentially just a redux of Bennett and Percy.

johnwitts
2002-May-26, 11:15 PM
...and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window 1. Not only is this piece of 'evidence' wishful thinking, it can also be proved to be wrong, by anyones interpretation.

JayUtah
2002-May-27, 01:39 AM
Some of the more idiotic arguments from that page:

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963...

Kaysing received his bachelor of arts degree in English in 1949. Seven years later he's magically at a senior V.P. level position in a major technology corporation.

1. In a major engineering corporation no one would simultaneously hold the positions of director of technical publications and director of advanced research.

2. No one can hold the position of director of advanced research in a large, major technology corporation without a Master's degree in a technical field. To head up advanced research in a company whose major product is rocket engines, an advanced degree in mechanical engineering would be a must.

3. No one rises to that position without having published significant original research in the applicable field. Kaysing has no such publications.

4. Persons who have directed advanced research can typically discuss technical subjects without making the glaring errors that Kaysing has made.

He [David Percy] has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done.

First, the downlinks are originally on videotape, not originally on film. Only the 16mm DAC footage was originally on film and has been transferred to videotape.

Second, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that Percy hasn't examined much, if any, of the vast high-quality video footage he claims to possess. The things he says are suspiciously absent from the footage are suspiciously easy for others to find.

On the still photo ... we see a flap of triangular fabric

The flap is most certainly visible in the video footage. Aulis is looking in the wrong place.

...it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that?

Anyone who's ever seen a command module knows why. In order to film through the hatch window up close you would have to scrunch in between the floor and the control panel. This is uncomfortable, especially in zero gravity. Your body doesn't stay scrunched the way it would if you hunker on earth. You have to use your muscles to hold the hunker.

Better instead to "stand" in the docking tunnel where you can stretch out naturally, and the hatch is in front of you, albeit four or five feet away.

...but from the view of Earth in the right hand window ...

They assume the blue glow is the earth as seen from orbit. The lighting doesn't work out -- what's illuminating the transparency then? Further, the "clouds" in the view of earth in the right window bear a striking resemblance in shape and motion to the sunlit portions of the astronaut's flight suit, which is obviously being reflected in the window.

The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine.

That was the temperature of the lunar surface in those circumstances. Since the film wasn't touching the lunar surface, those measurements are irrelevant.

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with.

Patently false. Percy shows us only the missing fiducials that look like they've been the victim of cut and paste. He "neglects" to show the hundreds of other missing fiducials which are obviously obliterated by optical factors.

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him? Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both.

Unfortunately the picture given as an example shows exactly the opposite scenario: the astronaut with the longest shadow is closest to the postulated light source. The picture given in evidence of the hypothesis clearly rejects it.

Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt).

It's difficult to know where to begin.

First, albedo has nothing to do with atmospheric conditions.

Second, the albedo of aged asphalt is 12-17%, not 7%.

Third, the albedo of the moon's surface is variously measured (different techniques, different places on the moon) as 12-30%.

Fourth, the albedo does not necessarily account for the peculiar effect of lunar surface material at phase angles of zero, a phenomenon which can even be observed from earth.

As you can see from the sequence here, although the viewing public were told at the time that the camera had burnt out, the lens is still working? the camera didn't actually burn out at all.

The center portion of the field of view in Apollo 12's camera was permanently damaged. The entire vidicon wasn't damaged, just the portion of it upon which the sun's image was focused. This comprised most of it, rendering it fairly useless for documentary television coverage. "Burned out" is a simplification which suffices for the public.

Hoax believers do this a lot. They point out that the simplified explanations aren't entirely accurate. But that's why they're simplifications.

Apollo 15 astronauts weren't told to point their camera at the sun, but rather to point it up-sun, which is an entirely different thing altogehter. The LRV's camera had a lens hood to prevent the sun from shining directly into the lens.

...the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject.

No. While the camera was fairly firmly mounted to the RCU, the RCU was not fairly firmly attached to the space suit. "Strapped to their chest" is a gross overstatement.

A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing.

The "gauntlets" weren't pressurized. The heavy-looking gloves with the silicone rubber tips were protective gloves that slid over the slim, black gloves with the knobby knuckles that facilitated movement.

I can change my Canon lenses in work gloves just fine.

The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to...

No such precaution was mandated. The film was meant to be changed wherever and whenever it was needed.

How do you explain why the 'Sun' having a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?

Optics. There is no such thing as a perfect lens.

As stated earlier, two light sources would combine together and the shadows would still fall in the same direction

The assembled panorama has a horizontal field of view of about 150°. Maybe this has something to do with why the shadows appear to converge.

Contrary to the author's assertions, light sources that combine will cast two shadows, not single divergent or convergent shadows.

Dr. David Groves who works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used.

No, Dr. Groves has produced computations which are carried out to an unbelievable asserted degree of precision. His angles are measured in ten-thousandths of a degree, which would be sufficient to locate the hotspot on the boot to about 0.002 inch. The spot itself is much larger than that.

In fact Groves' analysis is based on a number of questionable assumptions which he buries in the back of Percy's book.

he has calculated that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.

Groves' purported accuracy is pure fantasy. He says 30 cm +/- 6 cm. In fact, 6 cm is far too small an error for his assumptions. In fact the light source could coincide with the photographer, and the EVA video confirms that Armstrong was standing in full sun when he took these photos. The most reflective thing on the lunar surface is an astronaut's space suit, so that's obviously what's making the hot spot.

The print was pushed in development too, so it appears brighter in the photo than it would have in real life.

If Groves' hypothesis were true, this would set up a near-phase point light scenario. Every amateur photographer is familiar with that if he uses a flash attached to his camera. His subject will be "framed" on one side by a hard-edged shadow that would closely follow the subject's contours.

None of those effects can be seen in the photos.

Further, the fill light for these photos clearly comes from below, i.e., the lunar surface.

Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.

Jan Lundberg is a mechanical engineer. He cannot be presumed to be an expert on lighting. Percy and Bennett use Lundberg as an "expert" in a number of things which don't relate to his expertise.

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia ...

Uncritical analysis at its best. The hoax believers cannot produce the newspaper articles they say were written about this. Nor can they explain the discrepancy between the "wee hours of the morning" in their story, and the fact that the live moonwalk was at noon in Australia.

He worked at Goldstone as a Comms Engineer during the Apollo missions ...

... and has completely dismissed David Percy's work as having any merit.

Air inside the module was pressurized to 1/3 sea level atmosphere, so why no sound and vibration?

Because the air inside the spacecraft is irrelevant to the production of sound. The air outside (or lack thereof) is what produces the roar associated with a rocket engine (or lack thereof).

The "bang" heard by shuttle astronauts is the ignition transient of the RCS thrusters. Apollo rocket engines have those same transients at ignition, but they do not persist in steady-state operation.

Further, the LM astronauts had their helmets on, isolating the microphones from ambient cockpit noise. And those mikes are designed to filter out ambient noise anyway. You have to be right up close to them in order to record sound through them.

The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas

Only when fired in an atmosphere. The reddish cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with ambient air. No ambient air, no reaction. Further, even on earth you don't get a sustained red cloud. That's only at ignition when you preinject N2O4 in order to smoothe out the ignition. After the propellant mix reaches normal proportions there is no smoke and very little visible flame.

The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today.

No.

The 5000 Fahrenheit of heat produced from the 10,000 lb thrust engine should have produced at least some volcanic rock.

5,800 F in the center of the combustion chamber, 2,800 F at the exit plane, and perhaps 800 F at the impingement.

10,000 lbf at full thrust, 2,600 lbf at hover thrust.

If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that was boiled at only 1000 Celsius.

... continuously for years and years and years, compared to a few seconds from the engine plume of the lunar module.

How did the Apollo 12 crew manage to capture footage of the Surveyor III craft that had landed at their landing site in April '67.

They didn't. David Percy can't tell the difference between a simulation done for the news reporters, and actual footage. What a brilliant photo analyst he is.

Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government?

The nadir of public excitement occurred at Apollo 15, not Apollo 12. So why wasn't Apollo 16 similarly sabotaged for public relations purposes?

If we look out of the window we see blue? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?

Scattering. What a concept.

the picture on the left shows the Odyssey after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.... ..do they look similar to you?

Not in the least. Those who actually know what they're looking at can tell which sector of the SM is involved. These pictures show diametrically opposite views of a service module.

In fact, if you look closely, you will see the light reflecting off the wires above the astronaut.

Funny how that reflection is exactly the same length and orientation as the VHF antenna, and doesn't point upwards as would have to be the case if it were taught and pulling the astronaut, nor catenary as would have to be the case if it were slack.

when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did Nasa only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly?

Perhaps because NASA knows more about radiation than the author or his mentors?

The doctors and dentists have to worry about occupational exposure, which is about 0.14% that of a lethal (LD 50/30). There is a very large difference between legal limits of exposure and biological factors of exposure.

Also, NASA knows the difference between particle radiation and EM radiation.

Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep.

The latter opinion, of course, having come from a vast amount of subsequent research in which Dr. Van Allen participated.

Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation.

Accepted by whom? And whatever happened to the six feet of lead we were told was required?

The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing...

Lead is the worst substance you can use to shield against the particle radiation discussed in this paragraph. By comparison the ISS uses polyethylene slabs two or three inches thick to protect from this same type of radiation.

Clearly this analysis was written by someone who has almost no clue about what kinds of radiation are in the Van Allen belts, how strong it is, what its effect on biological organisms is, and how best to shield against it.

The second piece of footage to the right was taken the next day...

Or so claims the narrator. The narrator is wrong. If the author had consulted the original downlinks, he would have seen his error. Unfortunately the hoax believers prefer to try to poke holes in secondary and tertiary sources rather than see if the primary sources support their contentions.

I would like to know how the TV signal from the Lunar Rover was relayed to Houston when the satellite dish it was sending the signal through was moving all over the place when the Rover was on the move?

The footage given as evidence is 16mm DAC footage, not downlink footage. There are only a few seconds of bona fide video footage of the rover in motion, and it's of poor quality as would be expected from a rover in motion.

It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface and what do we see... a flame... Therefore this piece of footage alone proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!

Tautological argumentation at its best:

no visible flame = hoax
visible flame = hoax

If these two observations are to be taken at face value, the only logical conclusion is that the presence or absence of a flame has no bearing on whether it was hoaxed; there is no discernible correlation.

It's difficult to tell whether we are seen a reflection or flame. In any case it would be quite within the behavior of an Aerozine engine of that size to flare for half a second during its ignition transient. If you see my web site

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

you can follow a link to a video from which I have extracted still frames that show the ignition of a Delta II second stage rocket -- almost identical in all respects to the LM ascent motor. You can see it ignite in a vacuum, sans red smoke. You can see it flare of a second and then settle into steady state.

In most LM liftoff footage the transient would be lost in the flurry of interstage materials.

It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow.

Most certainly it is due to the aperture being opened. It has all the hallmarks of a decrease in f-stop. Apparently the author believes a dark shadow should somehow have gotten lighter. That's not necessarily the case. One can open the lens by one or two stops without a dark shadow necessarily going from black to dark gray. Nevertheless Armstrong gets brighter, and the exterior bezel of the window gets lighter.

Clearly this person has no experience with photographic exposure.

Andrew
2002-May-27, 02:05 AM
Jay, I think you should post that over at their webforum:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/bcosmicconspiracies

JayUtah
2002-May-27, 02:24 AM
Just direct them here. I don't want to have to participate in Yet Another web forum.

David Hall
2002-May-27, 05:30 AM
Oh joy. They also have a copy of that hammer and feather dropping video someone made up. You know, the one with the fake (rubber?) feather that supposedly shows how they could have faked it.

Personally, I thought it failed to prove their point anyway. The fake feather obviously skews sideways as it drops, showing the presence of atmospheric resistance.

David Hall
2002-May-27, 05:40 AM
Ok, and some more. Down the page in the section called "The Hills are Alive" they show two photos with the same hills. Now they don't specify which missions the photos are from, but claim they are from two seperate missions. Without that info, I have to guess that either they are mistaken and the photos are actually from the same mission, or that the same hills (mountains actually) were visible from two different missions with only a little perspective distance. So which is right?

Then they go on to show that stupid Apollo 16 documentary gaffe where they mistakenly showed the same location but claimed it was on two different days. Just an editing goof there, but the HB's use it as if it were canon.

Oh, and hey! there's a section directly referring to us! I've gotta read part carefully. Back later.

JayUtah
2002-May-27, 05:48 AM
Now they don't specify which missions the photos are from, but claim they are from two seperate missions.

They have provided no proof that the photos were taken on two separate missions. Therefore their conclusion is summarily rejected. Photo ID numbers would be proof.

JayUtah
2002-May-27, 05:52 AM
Personally, I thought it failed to prove their point anyway.

Even if you take their demonstration at face value, showing that it's not impossible to fake the demonstration is not the same as showing that the demonstration was, in fact, faked.

That's like saying, "Your Honor, the witness could be lying." His Honor would expect you to show that the witness was lying, not merely suggest the possibility.

David Hall
2002-May-27, 06:30 AM
Ok. I read the Bad Astronomy "debunking" section. Pretty sad.

1: The photos of stars.

Didn't we discuss these before? I don't remember what we finally decided, but I seem to recall that it was some kind of film contamination. Probably cosmic ray hits or something, because the spots have been demonstrated to also be in areas of film that were not exposed to light.

Besides, they got the challenge wrong also. Nobody claims that stars couldn't be imaged, just that with the settings on the film and the conditions involved, the stars were not bright enough to show up on film. Under certain circumstances, it's possible to get an image or two of the brightest stars and planets out there.

2: Video footage from a moving rover.

Jay covered this one quite well. The footage shown as proof was actually film footage that wasn't developed until after the mission returned to Earth. Besides, video camera is visible in the footage claimed to be by the video camera. Neat trick there.

3: Flames visible from the rocket.

Once again, Jay explained it well above. There was probably a slight flash as combustibles ignited as the engine started up. But it sure wasn't anything like what would be seen in an atmosphere.

Well, that's that.


Ok, one final section to go. 32 "unanswered" questions. How much do you want to bet that every single one of these questions can be answered without blinking. Especially by someone really knowledgeable like Jay.

Peter B
2002-May-27, 08:10 AM
I emailed answers to most of the 32 points (or however many there are) about two months ago, and he hasn't seen fit to change anything. And yes, my answers are pretty much what Jay and others have said.

In fact, this was the site that prompted me to do the research into the supposed "West Australian" articles.

David Hall
2002-May-27, 01:48 PM
I went through those questions, and all but one of them I've seen answered here before. Heck, #24-31 aren't even questions. They are just some of the standard claims made by hoax believers, some of them ridiculous and others downright insulting. If you want more questions to ask, move on down into the conclusion.

As for the one that stumped me, it stumped me more for the blatant nonsense it expresses than anything else. I also haven't ever heard of it before now (and small wonder). Here's the quote:



2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?


Where did this idiocy come from? No supporting evidence, no explanation. Just a wild claim thrown out without backing or logic. Why would anyone make a casing out of a substance that reacts poisonously in an oxygen atmosphere? And even if they did, why would they carry one on a mission with just that kind of environment? I can hardly even believe that anyone would try such a flimsy story.

This has got to go into the funniest hoax claims thread. I'm headed over there to post it now.

johnwitts
2002-May-27, 09:45 PM
It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow.

Most certainly it is due to the aperture being opened. It has all the hallmarks of a decrease in f-stop. Apparently the author believes a dark shadow should somehow have gotten lighter. That's not necessarily the case. One can open the lens by one or two stops without a dark shadow necessarily going from black to dark gray. Nevertheless Armstrong gets brighter, and the exterior bezel of the window gets lighter.

Clearly this person has no experience with photographic exposure.

I'm assuming this is refering to the brightening of the film when Armstrong is going down the ladder. This is covered in the transcripts and the audio from the first EVA. From the Apollo 11 ALSJ...

109:23:25 McCandless: Buzz, this is Houston. F/2 (and)...

109:23:28 Armstrong: Okay, I'm at the...(Listens)

109:23:29 McCandless: ...1/160th second for shadow photography on the sequence camera.

109:23:35 Aldrin: Okay.

This coincides with the sudden brightening of the image.

Note: There is also evidence of radio delay, causeing Armstrong to stop what he is saying in the middle of his sentence. Of course, the delay effects would be reversed from the astronauts point of view, but we're hearing and reading the timings as heard from the ground.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-05-27 17:48 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-May-27, 10:02 PM
From http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html, he also ask these stupid questions:

If NASA was formed as a 'civilian space agency', why were so many NASA programs funded by the US Defence Department?

Why were all astronauts subjected to US military security regulations?

Why were all video and photographic evidence screened by the National Security Agency?

Why were all the radio communications screened by the National Security Agency?

After spending millions of taxpayers' dollars planning a 'Moon City', why has the Moon not been visited by NASA since 1973?

Why are some of NASA's top photographic technicians employed to 'airbrush out' anomalies caught on film?

Why are astronauts and other NASA employees threatened with long jail sentences if they 'speak out' about what was really discovered out there in space?

Do you realise that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?.

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 12:14 AM
These are all just "complex questions". A complex question is any of the form, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You can't consider the question without accepting the embedded allegation. I don't accept the allegations without evidence, so the questions are meaningless to me.

Andrew
2002-May-28, 12:44 AM
Do you realise that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?.

If this is true, how did the supposed photographic anomolies get through then? And why does that web page contentd that their are anomolies if they say this?

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 03:16 AM
Well, Andrew, that's a very good point. The whole whistle-blower notion is based on two premises:

(1) that the alleged whistle-blows (hundreds of them) were too subtle to be noticed by NASA inspectors and/or the U.S. intelligence community; and

(2) that the whistle-blowers had to resort to this method of communication because directly blowing the whistle would have gotten them killed.

If you're willing to kill someone in order to keep your secret, that's evidence of a strong motivation to protect the secret in other ways too, including looking for sabotage. Now if even one whistle-blow had been discovered by NASA, this would tip them off that their hoax workers were not especially loyal. It would also motivate them to very carefully check all the work to date, and exercise much more care while inspecting future work.

Now Mary Bennett and David Percy tell us that a great number -- perhaps a majority -- of Apollo photos contain anomalies they say could have been left by whistle-blowers. This amounts to thousands of "anomalous" photos!

Yet we're supposed to believe that all of this supposed intense scrutiny -- hell-bent on murder if the secret got out -- missed not just one or two anomalies, but missed thousands of anomalies.

Anyone who believes this can contact me for a bridge I have for sale in New York.

Peter B
2002-May-28, 03:57 AM
Interestingly, if you go to their Mars Anomalies site, you find this quote: "why does our generation find it so difficult to put a couple of probes into action around Mars, despite all the advantages of computers and 30 years of space technology advancement, when our predecessors successfully landed men on the Moon in a tin can?"

I wish they'd make up their minds.

pvtpylot
2002-May-28, 04:11 AM
On 2002-05-27 23:16, JayUtah wrote:
Yet we're supposed to believe that all of this supposed intense scrutiny -- hell-bent on murder if the secret got out -- missed not just one or two anomalies, but missed thousands of anomalies.

Or, that these same government agencies have allowed Sibrel and Kaysing to function, posing the greatest threat of all to the integrity of the Apollo "hoax" so far, without so much as even an malicious audit by the IRS. What's the good of sinister government spooks if you can't count on them to take out those getting too close to the "truth"? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Seriously, how do the HB's explain NASA and the government's apparent lack of interest in silencing the HB's themselves?

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 05:16 AM
According to my conversations with acquaintances of Bart Sibrel, he does in claim (in private) to have been kidnapped and drugged by the CIA. But since he doesn't make this claim publicly we're left with rebutting what amounts to hearsay. However, I corresponded briefly with Sibrel through an intermediary, and he confirmed that claim during the correspondence. But of course I can't prove that because Sibrel is not likely to grant me permission to publish his correspondence. Therefore I'm in the uncomfortable position of knowing myself, with some degree of assurance, that Sibrel claims to have suffered reprisals at the hands of the U.S. government, but being unable to prove it to anyone else's satisfaction.

In any case, I doubt Sibrel could substantiate his claim, so it makes no difference whether his claim is public or private.

As for Kaysing, I don't know whether he has ever claimed to suffer reprisals for his findings. I know of no claims of reprisals from Mary Bennett or David Percy.

Ralph Rene indirectly claims reprisals. On a radio appearance he blamed the U.S. government for his inability to acquire legitimate credentials in engineering or physics. He wasn't specific about what those impediments were.

Ironically Jack White claims that Clavius is a government attempt to smear his character. He has simply decided that our site is a government-funded attempt to silence him and salvage Apollo's reputation. His evidence, suggested by his friend Rich DellaRosa, is simply that Clavius is too "slick" to be a private site. That and the fact that his personal delusion is that anyone who opposes him must, ex hoc facto, therefore be a government disinformationist.

But the point remains. If the hoax believers are serious about their claims that such notable persons as astronauts and key officials have been murdered in order to keep them silent, then they must directly address the glaring discrepancy of their own continued state of non-death.

pvtpylot
2002-May-28, 06:01 AM
On 2002-05-28 01:16, JayUtah wrote:
Ralph Rene indirectly claims reprisals. On a radio appearance he blamed the U.S. government for his inability to acquire legitimate credentials in engineering or physics. He wasn't specific about what those impediments were.

Ironically Jack White claims that Clavius is a government attempt to smear his character. He has simply decided that our site is a government-funded attempt to silence him and salvage Apollo's reputation. His evidence, suggested by his friend Rich DellaRosa, is simply that Clavius is too "slick" to be a private site. That and the fact that his personal delusion is that anyone who opposes him must, ex hoc facto, therefore be a government disinformationist.


Of course, Rene's problems wouldn't have anything to do with his own inability to acquire legitimate qualifications in engineering and physics before asking for credentials, right?

Yeah, "slickness" is often a telltale attribute used to identify government websites.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

cosmicdave
2002-May-28, 11:07 AM
Hi guys,
Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window... qoute: 'and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window'. I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory??? Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency? or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth. Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello, after you posted this link on my message board.

Keep up the backslapping lads in your jolly little group!

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

Ta Ta For Now,
Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk

Andrew
2002-May-28, 11:51 AM
"Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

And yet, you were encouraging debate on this very topic as late as the 14th of April this year:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/fcosmicconspiraciesfrm2.showMessage?topicID=1.topi c

"Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window "

It's light scattering off of the window.

Andrew
2002-May-28, 01:24 PM
"Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?"

Various hoax proponents allege that the fact that there is no flame visible under the LM during ascent from the lunar surface is suspicious and suggests a hoax.

It is pointed out that the fact that their is no flame visible under the LM is not suspicious because the propellants used create little or no visible flame in a vacuum.

Hoax proponent then thinks by showing evidence of a flame proves debunkers wrong there-by proving the whole thing was a hoax?

Er, okay.

Anyway, it looks to me like sparks from the pyrotechnic bolts blowing and debris being blown around by the ascent engine, not a flame from the engine. WHere about in the video is the flame supposed to be visible?

pvtpylot
2002-May-28, 01:55 PM
Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

Airbrush??? A forty billion dollar conspiracy and NASA can't even spring for a copy of Photoshop?

jrkeller
2002-May-28, 03:17 PM
CosmicDave,

I just joined this BB about two months ago, so I have no idea of who you are.

BTW, what is your background? Are you an engineer, physicists, geologist, journalist or something else?

I do have a suggestion for you. Instead of using some unnamed air brusher, why don't you use Dick Underwood? If you don't know who he is, then you have no business evaluating any NASA photographs.

pvtpylot
2002-May-28, 04:43 PM
On 2002-05-28 11:17, jrkeller wrote:
CosmicDave,

I just joined this BB about two months ago, so I have no idea of who you are.

Pretty sure that was David Percy. Seemed the style; ignore or fail to comprehend 99% of what's been written in this thread, drop a hint about a major revelation to come, etc.

infocusinc
2002-May-28, 04:49 PM
I was doing some thinking (thats a scary thought!) about the blue tint of the LM windows and remembered an image that shows the blur tint of the window while the LM is on the moon. The image is AS12-46-6726. The window has the surface of the moon reflected in it and it is a very blue tint. The best image to view this is at GRIN. I think there is just a blue tint to the window. Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

Craig

Andrew
2002-May-28, 05:19 PM
How about this image? Taken en route to the moon during the LM inspection.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-36-5389.jpg
AS11-36-5389
ALSJ caption reads:This photo, taken during the initial LM inspection, on the day before lunar orbit insertion, shows the 16-mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) mounted in the LMP's window."

See the "blue sky"? You should epect to see this effect in any photo where the focal point is within the spacecraft's interior and there's a window in the background.
I think the consensus is that the windows scatter blue light much like our nitrogen atmosphere.

Also AS11-36-5390 is famous picture of Buzz Aldrin and is the next frame of the same magazine. There is the LMP's window in the background of that one too.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-05-28 13:25 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 05:43 PM
haven't you anything new or better to do?

I don't understand. Are you admitting that your theories aren't worth discussion? It is my understanding that you published your page and included "challenges" with the express intent that they would be discussed and answered.

Well, we're discussing and answering. Is this not what you wanted?

I moved on from this debate ages ago.

There are new people here now, and we have serious issues with your web site. You can either ignore the criticism, or you can take responsibility for your allegations and defend them against the criticism you solicited.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window.

How is Mr. Witts' answer "twisting" anything? He has pointed out a very salient fact which the hoax believers have not generally addressed.

I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory?

No. It is the hoax believers who assert that the blue glow seen in the windows can only be the nearby earth.

Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency?

First you must prove that there was a transparency before you can argue what, if anything, lit it.

or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

No, we are taking into account all the available facts, not just the ones that lead to the predetermined conclusion. You're a fine one to make that accusation. Your post is riddled with factual error, most of which have been pointed out to you. It is also filled with allegations of fact without any documentation or evidentiary support. What is your defense for that?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth.

Your proposition, as stated, is incorrect. A blue glow is noted. It is not established factually that the glow is being caused by the nearby earth. That is the assumption of the hoax believers, and it is not one that I share.

We've known for more than 25 years what causes that glow in the spacecraft windows, even when they are far from earth. And we've known for centuries why that glow is blue. It's the same reason the sky is blue. The sun puts out primarily yellow light. So why isn't the sky yellow? It's blue because blue wavelengths are the most susceptible to scattering.

Miles of air scatters the sunlight, so that the light we see indirectly is that which has been scattered. Similarly, contaminants on the spacecraft window (gasket outgassing, LES exhaust residue, and in the case of Apollo 13 condensed breath moisture) scatter the sunlight just as frost on the windshield on a cold morning scatters the sunlight and makes the windshield appear to glow no matter where in the car you're sitting.

Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Incorrect. For a time, aerospace engineering was my profession. I know when Aerozine-fueled engines should produce a visible flame and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should produce a reddish cloud and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should make a loud roar and when they shouldn't, and why.

Your page amply demonstrates that you understand none of these things. You're simply trying to stir up enough controversy that it seems you know something about this. I will be glad to discuss the combustion characteristics of the TR-201 engine to any degree of detail you wish.

The red cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with the atmosphere. It happens when you first light an engine -- in that atmosphere -- that uses this substance as its oxidizer. It is common to preinject oxidizer into a rocket engine's combustion chamber. You claim the red cloud should be visible under all circumstances. I want to know why your assertion contradicts both observed fact and theoretical predictions.

Because of the oxidizer preinjection and other factors, any rocket engine will burn unstably for a brief time. The transient for the space shuttle main engines, for example, is about six seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne J-2 is 3-4 seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne F-1 is a bit less than eight seconds.

TRW's documentation for the TR-201 gives its transient as 0.310 second to 90% rated thrust. Therefore we can expect to see a visible flame -- indicating sub-optimal combustion for that propellant -- for about a third of a second, perhaps a bit longer. After that, the engine reaches steady-state combustion at optimal propellant mixture, whereupon the flame is essentially transparent.

Had you studied even the most basic principles of rocket motor operation, you would have been introduced to these concepts. Contrary to your assertions, I understand rocket motors very well, and I can say with a large degree of assurity that your allegations are thoroughly ignorant.

Now you brought this up, so you can't turn around now and argue that you're no longer interested in this point. The question is whether you're mature enough to stand by your allegations and defend them against people with genuine expertise who have serious objections to them. Your choice.

I can't speak to the point of whether any Apollo defenders have made conflicting claims regarding whether a visible flame is expected. But I can speak to the point of your indecision about what the visibility of the flame means.

You originally argue that the absence of a flame proves it was a hoax. Fine; it's wrong, but it's a common misconception. But then when you think you see a visible flame, you argue that this also proves it was hoaxed. That quite flatly contradicts your original argument. They can't both mean it was hoaxed. So when you make up your mind what your argument is, come back and try to defend it. As it stands, it's quite preposterous.

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello

Well, you've done more than say hello. You've insulted us, you've attempted to poke fun at various explanations in the face of your own lack of understanding, and you've singularly avoided addressing any of the dozens of objections and inconsistencies that have been raised against your assertions.

And you think we're the ones wasting time?

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

As long as it's not the same old unsubstantiated gossip that's been floating around among UFO enthusiasts. We've all heard that one before. Unless you have the real name of a real person we can call up and talk to, don't bother.

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 05:58 PM
Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

There were anti-glare and anti-reflection coatings on the windows of the LM and also of the CM. These are not dissimilar from optical coatings on photographic lenses. When you see external photographs of the LM on the lunar surface, the image of the surface reflected bluishly in the LM windows is the effect of the anti-glare coating. Without the coating the image would be much brighter, and not blue.

However, this isn't the same phenomenon which causes the blue-tinted glow seen from within the spacecraft, illustrated in the photograph above. That is scattering caused by the glass itself and by contaminants on the glass. It is possible that the coatings contribute to this effect, but not likely.

We generally don't see this degree of scattering through windows on earth because it's frequently drowned out by directly transmitted light from the atmospheric scatter -- i.e., it's scattered by the atmosphere but passes directly through the glass.

The angle at which the light strikes the glass and the angle from which it is viewed inside the cockpit determine how visible this effect is.

Silas
2002-May-28, 06:07 PM
On 2002-05-28 13:43, JayUtah wrote:
I will be glad to discuss the combustion characteristics of the TR-201 engine to any degree of detail you wish.


Well, here's something I've wondered: did the ascent module engine have enough power to boost the AM into lunar escape orbit, or did the CM/SM have to do any maneuvering to meet it and "pull it out" of the moon's gravity well?

All of the NASA diagrams show the former procedure, which would be (quite a bit!) safer. But is that the way it was done?

(This has nothing to do with the Hoax, only with a detail of the mission that I didn't know. You've already set me straight on a couple of other ideas I'd had -- since 1969! -- that were wrong, for which thank'ee!)

Silas

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 06:26 PM
Hoo boy, lunar orbit rendezvous.

"Having enough energy" and "intended to be used that way" are really two separate questions. The APS was intended to put the ascent module into an orbit around the moon. That means a different trajectory than simply trying to exit the moon's sphere of dominant influence, which the APS might have been capable of, but I haven't done the computations to answer that. The ascent module pitched over after about ten seconds and started heading downrange. That's what you would do if you wanted to put the thing in orbit around the moon.

The ideal intended LM ascent orbit had most of the same elements as the CSM rendezvous orbit, except that their apsides were reversed. This was supposed to provide two rendezvous opportunities per rev. Or so the story goes. There was a whole slew of contingencies that involved the CSM swooping down and snatching the LM from the jaws of death, but none of these materialized.

Was that your question?

Addendum: I just re-read your post and I guess that was not your question. By "lunar escape orbit" I took you to mean a transearth injection, which, upon second reading was not your intent.

The answer, most definitely, is that the APS was intended to put the lunar module into a reasonably stable orbit. The LOR plan did not call for the CSM, as a matter of routine, to swoop down and save the astronauts from the jaws of death. If, for any reason, the APS failed to put the ascent stage into a stable orbit, there were various down-swooping manuevers that could be attempted, but that would be a contingency, not a nominal flight plan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:35 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-May-28, 06:26 PM
About one second after the LEM lifts off.

The message dated 14th of April was directed at readers to my site - not this one. What I meant was, I had forgotten all about our little debate on here months ago, but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it. All I read is 'this person said this and that person said that', so what. You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest? constant bickering won't get anyone anywhere.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 06:48 PM
but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it.

Actually the topic just arose again a few days ago. Your site gets period mention in various online forums. We haven't been discussing your site continuously since your departure.

And it's not a matter of "can't" stop talking about it. We like talking about space travel, and especially about Apollo. Many of us are considered experts in Apollo, or at least in some aspect of space travel. When you make preposterous allegations having to do with our fields of expertise, it's not strange that we would want talk about it, and that we should expect you to be fortcoming with support for your statements.

You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest?

Because some of us feel strongly enough about our expertise and education to correct the rubbish that's being said about it. You don't just insult someone and then tell them to lighten up about it.

The reason we don't agree with you is because we have professional and educational qualifications in the fields that apply to your statements, and we find your theories to be rather ignorant. Yet you profess to be right.

The issue is not agreement. The issue is which of us is most likely to be correct. Clearly you want your theories to be regarded as correct. Unfortunately you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes in order to establish that perception. You want to spread your statements far and wide regardless of whether they can be factually supported. And you seem to want to be able to do this without anybody objecting to it.

Got news for you: we do object, and trying to make us look silly for objecting won't get you very far. In the end it's you who looks foolish for trying to make public statements without backing them up and without dealing with criticism.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

The question is not whether one is convincing. That's a matter of rhetoric; one can be convinced of something that is not correct. The question is whether one is right or wrong. You have made allegations of fact. Those are either right or wrong. Those of us who are experts in the relevant fields have claimed that your allegations are wrong, and have provided various arguments to establish their point.

What can you do to prove you're right?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:49 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-May-28, 06:48 PM
Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe. Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day. Its all documented and indexed in the book. No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM? surely they would have told the artist what to draw? Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Oh and don't worry yourselves about speculating about my article about the NASA airbrushing before its released. I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

Cheers

Dave at CC

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-28, 07:03 PM
Percy and Bennett's book is so full of errors that my highlighter ran out of ink about 100 pages into it. I rewcommend people read it too, to show just how silly HB claims can be.

I'm just glad someone sent me their (gratis) copy, so I didn't have to pay for it.

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 07:11 PM
Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend ...

... and from whom you've uncritically cribbed most of your web site. I know. I have read the book and I have watched the video.

... and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe.

No. Bennett and Percy are masters of appearing to substantiate with expertise, while subtley avoiding any real expertise. For example, they ask Jan Lundberg -- a mechanical engineer -- questions about lighting and exposure. He is not presumed to be an expert in those fields, and people whose expertise in them are not questioned, disagree with Dark Moon.

The supposed rocket scientist gives his opinion that the F-1 engines weren't powerful enough, just by looking at the plume. However, he can't profess to having even seen an F-1 firing, much less done any computations to prove his point.

Did you know that the F-1 is used to concepts of current rocket engine design? It's considered one of the best rocket engine designs ever, and many people know about it. Why have none of these unquestioned experts come forward with their doubts? When you have one "expert" whom nobody's ever heard of contradicting the combined expertise of people who are household names, it's pretty clear what's going on.

Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day.

... and who have disavowed the conclusions in Dark Moon. Including those you mention by name.

Its all documented and indexed in the book.

No, very little of it is sufficiently documented to allow anyone to duplicate the research. It's just there to make you think they did their homework.

No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Passing the buck will not avail you. I suppose, then, that you really don't understand any of the arguments put forth in your web site.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM?

Oh, please! Do you understand what "artist's conception" means? What some artist thinks, believes, or chooses to depict has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually is. You claim that the video footage, is wrong because it fails to meet your expectations of reality. Clearly the substantiation of your expectations is crucial to your point.

So you saw a painting that depicted a fanciful scene, and you believed it. So you saw some photographs of red clouds without understanding where they came from. And so now you're an expert in Aerozine combustion.

Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

No, it is not. David Percy is not a rocket scientist. Mary Bennett is not a rocket scientist. Bill Kaysing is not a rocket scientist. These are the people laying out their expectations which you have uncritically subscribed to, and I want to know where those expectations come from. If all you can do is point to some painting, then you're on way thin ice.

Do you, or do you not, know anything about the operation of an Aerozine-fueled TR-201 engine in a vacuum?

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Upon what is your objection based.

I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

So if I were to call up NASA's personnel office and ask if this person worked there, and in what capacity, I would receive a satisfactory answer? And if I were to call up this person and ask him or her to produce evidence that he or she has retouched NASA photographs with the express intent of hiding material information contained therein from public scrutiny, I would not be disappointed?

If you can pull that off, I'd be impressed.

SpacedOut
2002-May-28, 07:13 PM
On 2002-05-28 14:48, cosmicdave wrote:
Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM? surely they would have told the artist what to draw? Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.


IMHO this statement belongs at the very top of What Moon Hoax Idea Has Made You Laugh The Most? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1221&forum=3&65)

Along with the simulated painting showing a crater under the LM as proof that one should appear in the photographic record!

[added crater reference]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-28 15:21 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-May-28, 07:18 PM
First of all, I do own your book "Dark Moon". I take it, it's the version released in England, since the price listed is in pounds.

I found this book very interesting, especially since it was trying to prove various scientific and engineering principles yet failed to provide the most basic engineering equations. Of course it failed. From reading this book, it is clear to me that the authors or their sources know nothing about heat tranfer, combustion, fluid mechanics, nozzle design, EVA glove design, EVA tool design. Or maybe they just choose to ignore it.

Dave, if you want more specifics, I'd be happy to give you some specific examples.

When it comes to your website, you obviously ignored information staring you in the face. For example, question 20. The Apollo space suit did not discharge water directly to a vacuum. These used a sublimator. Ice to vapor cooling. Why? Because boiling water which is what you have in a vacuum situation is explosive and unpredictable.

It took me five seconds to find this,

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/plss.html

Question 23. You just don't understand American politics. Webb was from the Johnson Adminstration and Nixon was coming into office so it was bye-bye.

Andrew
2002-May-28, 07:28 PM
"I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth."

I think this occured around 95 hours into the mission (around 6 or 7 hours before landing).

AstroMike
2002-May-28, 07:44 PM
Cosmicdave, Bill Wood, the tracking engineer mentioned in Dark Moon, has written this review at Amazon about it:

Total Garbage!, June 26, 2001
Reviewer: William O. Wood (see more about me) from Barstow, CA USA
I received a copy of "Dark Moon" directly from the authors as I gave David Percy and his assistant a tour of the Goldstone tracking facility and was interviewed on camera by David in December of 1997.

I worked at the Goldstone Manned Space Flight Network station during all Apollo missions and was an eyewitness to those events. However this book is filled with half-truths and total fabrications about the Apollo program. It will only be of interest to people who like things about "Area 51," "Crop Circles," Roswell "UFO's" and other weird "happenings."

Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of photography and physics can see through the so-called "facts" presented in this fabrication. It should be considered a work of fiction instead of an independent view of a historic event.

Bill Wood, Retired Tracking Systems Engineer, Barstow, CA

Andrew
2002-May-28, 08:05 PM
No sorry I lied there, it was actually 63 hours or so into the mission.

Silas
2002-May-28, 09:38 PM
On 2002-05-28 14:26, JayUtah wrote:
Hoo boy, lunar orbit rendezvous.

The answer, most definitely, is that the APS was intended to put the lunar module into a reasonably stable orbit. The LOR plan did not call for the CSM, as a matter of routine, to swoop down and save the astronauts from the jaws of death. If, for any reason, the APS failed to put the ascent stage into a stable orbit, there were various down-swooping manuevers that could be attempted, but that would be a contingency, not a nominal flight plan.


Aye! That was my question. I'm heartened to learn that there were plans for such contingencies, but, of course, much more heartened that they weren't necessary!

(You could write some hair-raising science fiction about that, since, with no atmospheric drag, such maneuvers could take place right down to the deck...)

Thanks for setting me clear!

Silas

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-28, 09:46 PM
On 2002-05-28 17:38, Silas wrote:
(You could write some hair-raising science fiction about that, since, with no atmospheric drag, such maneuvers could take place right down to the deck...)


As is usual with the Moon and orbits, Arthur C. Clarke already did write this. A guy is stuck in an orbiter without fuel to raise his orbit, and he is only a kilometer or two off the surface. He asks for help, and they tell him to jump for it...

... but I won't spoil the ending of this wonderful (very short) story. Anybody know the name of it?

johnwitts
2002-May-28, 10:46 PM
CosmicDave (Percy?)... I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window... qoute: 'and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window'. I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory???

Twisting things? A bit rich, don't you think?

A few years ago I had a car with a flat windscreen. In my wisdom I put spotlamps on the roof. They were far enough forward for the light from the lamps to hit the windscreen at a shallow angle. I thought I'd be OK because none of the light actually came in through the windscreen, ie, they didn't light up the top of the dash or the inside of the car. Now, the first time I tried them, I could no longer see where I was going, because the whole screen lit up in front of me and the glare drowned out the road. I fixed the problem by moving the lamps further back.

We also have a big patio light at the back of our house. When it's on, it shines down the windows on the same walls and you can't see out of them, particularly if they are a little dirty. The previously pitch black sky is now lit up like daytime as the double glazed panes scatter the light.

You don't have to be in a spacecraft heading for the Moon to see these things. They happen at home too.

Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency? or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

Well, we can never accuse the HB's of letting the facts get in the way of a good theory.

David Hall
2002-May-29, 12:25 AM
On 2002-05-28 17:46, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

As is usual with the Moon and orbits, Arthur C. Clarke already did write this. A guy is stuck in an orbiter without fuel to raise his orbit, and he is only a kilometer or two off the surface. He asks for help, and they tell him to jump for it...

... but I won't spoil the ending of this wonderful (very short) story. Anybody know the name of it?


I remembered reading that one too, but couldn't remember the name. I finally dug it up. It's called Maelstrom II and it's in The Wind From The Sun collection. It was written in 1962.

It's also in The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke, which I highly recommend as it includes every one of his short stories in one volume, including a bunch of his earliest stuff. I found mine (hardcover) for $8 at a used bookstore and never regretted it once.

<font size="-1">(Edited a minor typo.)</font>
_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it." (http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/whatnots/2001_feel_it.wav)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-05-28 20:26 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 02:00 AM
such maneuvers could take place right down to the deck.

On one mission, Apollo 8 I believe, they talked about inserting into a 60-mile orbit, only to notice the 70-mile tall mountain on the far side.

jrkeller
2002-May-29, 05:14 AM
CosmicDave,

Two questions

First, I need some clarification on a statement you made in your first post which was,

"Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US."

Are you saying that NASA still employs people to airbrush photographs or that they did? Please explain your statement.

Two, since the folks that wrote Dark Moon seem to be such experts in telling their readers what the temperature of the Hasselblad cameras would be on the moon, maybe you could tell me how they (or you) arrived at these numbers. What thermal analysis methods, techniques, modeling software, etc were employed to arrived at these temperatures?

cosmicdave
2002-May-29, 01:46 PM
I can honestly say that I don't know if NASA are still airbrushing out things that they don't want people to see. The NASA airbrush article that I am adding to my site soon is about a lady involved during the Apollo years right upto the start of the Shuttle missions.

I have heard many times from people such as Jeff Challender who records and scrutinises every shuttle mission, that certain anomalous objects (lets call them 'objects' for the sake of not starting yet another arguement), that appear in the 'Live' transmissions are cut from the reruns later in the day? I put 'Live' in speech marks by the way, because as we all know a lot of the Shuttle stuff that is supposedly live is nothing of the sort.

The interview that I will be posting to my site concerns a female slide technician, Formerly of NASA, who was the recipient of numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project, numerous other awards for her skill as a technical Artist, honors, awards and a 1994 recommendation by Texas Governor Ann Richards to the Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates.

Hope that clears a few things up for you,

Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
She has spent most of her professional life involved in the Space Program as a technical illustrator. She drew lunar maps, landing slides, she worked in the photo lab, Precision Slide Lab, reducing art work to one inch by one inch drawings. She drew launch sites, landing sites and was employed as a sub-contractor to NASA for over 15 years. She worked on flight manuals for astronauts & has the wonderful ability to put words into images but uniquely, learn to do everything backwards, including mathematical computations, the writing of words, to put it simply, this woman has seen just about all the different kinds of images one could see that are used in Space Programs.

Renaldo
2002-May-29, 02:30 PM
what's the address of your site, dave?

cosmicdave
2002-May-29, 02:37 PM
Some of you have questioned that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I know nothing about photography. I agree, I am not a photography expert, but I never claimed that I was one anyway. I can however, quote an expert in the field who does know what their talking about.

Here is a report on the effects that radiation and the fluctuating temperatures would have had on the Ectachrome film used on the lunar surface. Identical films were tested to that used during the Apollo missions.

The person who carried out the tests was Dr David Groves PhD who owns Quantec Image Processing in the UK and has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics. So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film, even if I am not... Sorry its a long post, but I want to show you that I do have the data in front of me and have not just pulled out my theories out of thin air!

Evaluation of Ionising Radiation (X0rays) on Extachrome ISO 160 Professional 120 Colour Reversal film - David Groves PhD

1) Introduction
I am informed that Extacrhome EF ASA (ISO) 160 high speed colour reversal film was used for lunar photography during the Apollo lunar surface EVAs.

2) Aims
This investigation aimed to establish the effect of ionising radiation on 'correctly' exposed latent images on fresh Extachrome 160T film.

3) Methods
A Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera was used for the tests. Five Ektachrome 160T film were exposed at the 'correct' exposure of a JOBO Labortechnik colour test chart. The chart consists of six colour patches (additive primary blue, green and red and subtractive complimentary colours yellow, magenta and cyan) and six neutral 'grey scale' patches from white to black with a density difference of one aperture difference (0.3D) between each.
For exposure the test chart was illuminated evenly using two 60 watt tungsten lights, one placed each side of the camera. 'correct' exposure (1/60th sec @ f5.6) was determined using a spotmeter on the mid grey tone to an accuracy beeter than 0.6 of a stop (0.18D). The exposed films containing latent images of the test chart were then exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays using a linear accelorator. The film was then E6 processed in the normal manner. The results are given in the next section.

4) Results
Film strip 8
Film strip 8 contains 'correct' exposures (1/60th sec @ f5.6) of the test chart which were then exposed to 25 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images, although visible are seriously damaged rendering them unusable.

Film Strip 9
Film strip 9 contains 'correct' exposures (1/60th sect @ f5.6) of the test chart which were exposed to 50 rem of ionisiing radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images are barely visible, the x-rays having near obliterated the latent images.

film strip 10
Film strip is the sam as above nad was exposed to 100 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images are completely obliterated by the x-rays.

5) Discussion
Ektachrome ISO 160 appears to be significantly sensitive to x-rays. Above 100 rem exposure to x-rays any latent image is completely obliterated. Between 50 and 25 rem exposure to x-rays the remaining image is visble but extremely faint. The estimated radiation dose required to degrade the image to the level produced by four hours exposure to the maximum temperature expected on the lunar surface (see below) is estimated from the above results to be in the order of only 5 rem.

6) Conclusion
Even a modest radiation dose to the film (5 rem and greater) would produce significant reduction of contrast and image density in the resulting Ektachrome ISO 160T transparencies.

EVALUATION OF HIGH TEMPERATURE ON EKTACHROME ISO 160 PROFESSIONAL 120 COLOUR REVERSAL FILM - Extract from report by David Groves PhD

1) Introduction
The following test was undertaken with fresh Ektachrome 160T film. According to NASA's own data, the temperature range the Hasselblad 500 EL/700 camera was subjected to whilst on the lunar surface was +180 F (+82.2C) to -180F (-117.8C).

This range of temperature is well outside Kodak's recommendation. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the behaviour of Ectachrome ISO 160 rill film when used at the high end of the temperature range.

2) Aims
This investigation aimed to evaluate the photographic behaviour of film at +82.2C by recording images at the 'correct' exposure to test the effect on the image density and colour hue.

3) Methods
The same Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera as was used for the radiation tests was employed for the image density and colour hue tests. Again the JOBO Labortachnik colour test chart was illuminated evenly using two 60 Watt tungsten lights. 'Correct' exposure was determined as before (again 1/60th sec @ f5.6) using a spotmeter on the mid grey tone to an accuracy better than 0.6 of a stop (0.18D). A test on the effect of persistent high temperature (+82.2C) on the latent image recorded on Ektachrome 160T was then carried out. A time of 4 hours was chosen as a number of lunar EVAs lasted this period. Film stip 7 contains 'correctly' exposed images recorded at room temperature as described above. After recording the latent images, the film was baked in an accurate temperture controlled oven for four hours at +82.2C.

4)Results
When compared to the control strip the resulting transparencies in test strip 7 show significant 'lightening' apparent both on the film between and to the side of each exposed image.

CONCLUSION
Extended exposure to the higher end of NASA's anticipated temperature range on the lunar surface may be expected to significantly decrease image density of the resulting Extachrome ISO 160 transparencies.

Hope this clears up a few things...

Dave at CC

cosmicdave
2002-May-29, 02:40 PM
My website is http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk

CJSF
2002-May-29, 02:59 PM
Dave,

You are either really ignorant or deliberatly trying to "get our goats."

Have you not read or listened to ANYTHING we have been telling you? The temperature of the Moon's ****SURFACE**** ranges from -118C to +82C, NOT...*******NOT******* the temperature of the camera or of the film or the astronauts or the near vacuum of the space above the lunar surface.

The test results you posted are irrelevant. The film and camera were not left laying on sunlit lunar soil for four hours at the maximum lunar surface temperature.

I can't speak to the x-ray test, but I am sure others can, and will. I suspect the lunar radiation environment bears little resemblence to the x-ray test at all.

CJSF
(hmm... my signature seems rather relevant here, assuming you are genuine)

pvtpylot
2002-May-29, 03:56 PM
The person who carried out the tests was Dr David Groves PhD who owns Quantec Image Processing in the UK and has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics. So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film, even if I am not...

The name of the school that supplied these degrees seems noticeably absent here. "Chartered Physicist" with what organization? And, what is the "Institute of Physics"? I believe there's an adjective missing from that title.

In any case you can run all the tests you want, but until you can show that the Apollo film was exposed to the same conditions you've tested for (it wasn't) it's a meaningless exercise. I can show you data that implies Kodak film can't survive being doused with dog wiz, but that has nothing to do with conditions on Apollo (at least, I sure hope not! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) Where's the data proving that the Apollo film was exposed to the conditions quoted in your tests?

Andrew
2002-May-29, 04:11 PM
"exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays"

8MeV? Where are 8MeV X-rays gonna come from?
8MeV X-rays will be very penetrating, there's no doubting that, but I don't think Apollo encountered such high-energy wave radiation. Only particle radiation of that much energy. But if you took high-school physics then you would know that particle radiation doesn't have anywhere near the same range.

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 05:20 PM
I am not a photography expert, but I never claimed that I was one anyway.

Nor, apparently, are you an expert in propulsion, thermal design, photographic analysis, engineering, or any of the other fields that apply to the page

I can however, quote an expert in the field who does know what their talking about.

But since you're not an expert, you have no way of knowing how representative this person's opinion is of the prevailing theories in the field, how applicable his expertise may be to the questions at hand, or the scope and magnitude of his assumptions.

As a matter of fact we have examined David Groves' research on a number of similar points and we have found it to be almost laughably inexpert. His claims of precision in his photogrammetry are completely indefensible, in the expert opinion of photogrammetrists I've consulted who are not being paid by a conspiracy theorist. But he needs that degree of precision in order to prejudice the results against the more natural and logical conclusions.

Further, he claims to be able to measure the depth of terrain features to within a fraction of an inch based on analysis of the apparent direction of shadows. Notwithstanding he does not have the required photogrammetric data in order to make that computation to that degree of precision, this contradicts the opinion of the other "expert" photographer, David Percy, who claims that terrain has no appreciable effect on apparent shadow direction.

To a real scientist this is quite plainly just polemical pseudoscience, the kind used every day to give the appearance of scientific support for some person's agenda. We're simply not fooled.

So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film, even if I am not.

Membership in organizations is only a partial indicator of qualification. Did Dr. Groves submit his research to peer review? Was it published in a refereed journal? Have any other scientists or engineers endorsed his findings?

In fact, this research was conducted specifically for David Percy and Mary Bennett for their book that attempted to prove the moon landings were falsified.

and have not just pulled out my theories out of thin air!

I don't think anyone is accusing you of pulling theories out of thin air, although some of your assertions do lack any sort of documentation. It's been apparent to anyone who has read you site that you pulled your theories out of the work of Bennett and Percy, and are now trying to shift the responsibility onto them for defending those theories.

Very well, they are their theories, not yours. But by advocating them you take some responsibility beyond just parroting them. Obviously Dark Moon and its video sibling make some very astonishing claims. What lengths did you go to in order to assure yourself that those highly controversial claims were backed up by solid science?

It looks to me like you simply took their word for it without applying any critical thought, or consulting any other experts.

I've had conversations with David Percy, and an ongoing indirect debate with him for more than a year. I have presented him with solid scientific findings, ample publishing theory, and empirical examples which clearly refute his theories, and those of Dr. Groves. I presented them on their web site, set up for that purpose. Do you know what their response was? They erased all that information, forbade me from contributing further, and carried on as if all that contrary evidence never existed.

This is not the behavior that characterizes a legitimate scientific inquiry. These people are out to prove their point regardless of any contrary evidence, whatever it takes. Just as the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit can produce actual doctors who are willing to testify to the extent and cause of the injury, people out to prove their political agenda will obtain whatever experts are willing to give the appearance of expert support.

If David Groves wishes us to believe in his Apollo findings, let him submit his work to any recognized scientific body that has demonstrated expertise in photogrammetry, and let him solicit their endorsements.

I am informed that Extacrhome EF ASA (ISO) 160 high speed colour reversal film was used for lunar photography during the Apollo lunar surface EVAs.

Actually a wide variety of films were used. The Ektachrome reversal film was provided in two ratings, ISO 64 and ISO 160, and supplied on the Estar base. The black and white negative film was provided in a very wide range of ISO sensitivity ratings, but not all missions carried all the varieties.

The trade description for the stock format is 70mm longroll, providing between 180 and 200 frames per roll.

A Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera was used for the tests.

Since the design of the Apollo Hasselblad film magazine, in which the film was kept continuously throughout its trip to and from the moon and during use by the astronauts, was modified to account for space conditions, this is the first major error by Dr. Groves. He has neglected to faithfully duplicate the conditions under which the Apollo film was used and stored.

A stock Hasselblad longroll magazine would have probably been sufficient, but since David Percy claims to have worked closely with Hasselblad in the production of his book and video, he should have been able to provide to Dr. Groves an example of a modified Hasselblad longroll magazine such as was used by the astronauts. At the very least he should have been aware that the magazines were modified with thermal and radiological properties in mind.

The exposed films containing latent images of the test chart were then exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays using a linear accelorator.

This is the second big blunder. As discussed above, the film magazine casing was intended to provide a measure of shielding against radiation, as well as thermal isolation. Further, the film spent most of its time in the MESA or in the lunar module, which is an added measure of protection.

This paragraph also contains the third big blunder. The average reader wouldn't be able to tell a MeV from a dingo dropping. Do you know what a MeV is? I do.

Would you know how powerful 8 MeV x-rays are? I do. Would you know whether that was a reasonable estimate for the amount of such radiation found in ambient cislunar space? I do.

Most celestial sources give off x-rays in the 0.5 to 5 keV range. As you can imagine, a keV is 1/1000 of a MeV. The average cislunar x-ray energy is 3 keV, according to various published sources.

So ambient x-ray energy in space is about 0.0375% as strong as the horrendous blast of energy to which Dr. Groves subjected his film strips. No wonder he cooked his photos.

Now the energy of the x-rays in question are important for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the more energetic the x-ray, the more it's going to fog the photographic film. It's just like bright light versus dim light.

Second, and less obviously, the amount of shielding required depends on the energy of the x-rays. That's the thing about x-rays. Everybody gets paranoid about the lead aprons at the dentist's office. And that's because lawmakers are equally paranoid. The legal dosage limit for the average joe is about half a rem a year. The lethal dose is about 350 rem. Clearly the laws are very, very conservative. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But the lead apron is there to comply with the law, just in case you end up needing twenty or thirty x-rays that year. It's not because you're going to turn into Spiderman without it.

While we're on that subject, have you ever wondered why they have to put the x-ray machine right up next to your face? That's because if it were any farther away, the x-rays wouldn't even make it to your face. That's right. 3 keV x-rays will only penetrate about 12 cm in air. That's right, air. To be sure, a dentist's x-ray is on the order of 30 keV, but the point is still the same.

Even if Dr. Groves had used a realistic amount of x-rays, the fact that he neglected to test any kind of shielding, including the shielding known to have been used on Apollo, makes his study completely inapplicable to the Apollo environment.

... which were then exposed to 25 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays).

... or about 22 times the estimated dose on the outside of the film magazine due to all combined radiation sources for the journey, including two passages through the Van Allen belt!

Ektachrome ISO 160 appears to be significantly sensitive to x-rays.

Based on this experiment, this is like saying tissue paper is significantly sensitive to the heat of a blowtorch.

Sure, this will fool laymen, but it doesn't fool scientists. Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual experience of film on the Apollo missions. It's polemical pseudoscience designed to convince people of the desired conclusion, not to discover the truth.

According to NASA's own data, the temperature range the Hasselblad 500 EL/700 camera was subjected to whilst on the lunar surface was +180 F (+82.2C) to -180F (-117.8C).

No. This is the temperature estimates given by NASA for the lunar surface -- that is, the rocks and dust which make up the natural surface. It is not the expected temperature range for any or all objects similarly situated. This is because thermal factors of material such as absorption and emissivity dictate the equilibrium temperature that material will reach.

NASA does not specifically say the film is expected to suffer thermal excursions through that range of temperature. The figure cited is only the extremes for lunar surface material.

Since there is no air on the moon, comparison of this temperature to ambient air temperatures on earth is meaningless. Right now the ambient air temperature outside my house is 75 F. But my asphalt parking lot, albedo 12%, is at 130 F. Why? Basic thermodynamics, which Dr. Groves has either forgotten, never learned about, or is convenienty ignoring for the purposes of this experiment.

The Apollo Hasselblad film magazines were coated with polished aluminum. The thermal properties of aluminum, specifically those having to do with radiant and conductive heat transfer, are radically different from those of lunar surface minerals, to which, and only to which, NASA's temperature estimates apply.

Polished aluminum reflects away a great deal of the radiant energy that strikes it, absorbing only a very small percentage. The lunar surface material, on the other hand, absorbs 70-80% of the radiant energy that strikes it.

Since there is no air to pass along the heat to the film via convection, the only paths of heat transfer available to photographic film inside a magazine in the lunar environment are radiant transfer from the inside of the magazine -- negligible in this case -- and conductive transfer through the winding mechanism.

Since the aluminum doesn't get very hot to start with, it can't pass much heat on to the winding mechanism and therefore to the film. At any rate, the film generally touches the winding mechanism only at by its edges.

Someone who holds a B.S. in applied physics would surely have learned about thermodynamics. Thus Dr. Groves is expected to know how NASA derived its temperature estimates, and how applicable they would be to film. On the contrary, the preamble to this section of the report demonstrates almost complete ignorance of thermodynamics. We are left with one of two possible conslusion:

1. Dr. Groves' credentials should be challenged and considered for withdrawal because he clearly demonstrates little understanding of the applicable sciences, or

2. Dr. Groves is fully aware of the thermodynamics of this situation but chooses to misrepresent them for polemical purposes.

A test on the effect of persistent high temperature (+82.2C) on the latent image

Why persistent? This is another inexplicable assumption. Does Dr. Groves believe the astronauts simply stood still facing up-sun for four hours to provide "persistent" heating for the magazines.

In fact the astronauts were moving about, turning, passing from shade to sunlight. The cameras cannot be assumed to have been in total exposure for the whole time. This is absolutely vital, for as anyone familiar with thermodynamics can tell you, as soon as you put that camera in the shade it will begin to cool radiatively. And if you bring it out into the sunlight it does not instantly rise to the equilibrium temperature.

A time of 4 hours was chosen as a number of lunar EVAs lasted this period.

A reasonable enough assumption, except that the astronauts frequently changed magazines. The magazines not in use went into space suit pockets or on later missions into the underseat storage compartment of the rover. In either case the magazine is out of direct sunlight and therefore not being heated.

After recording the latent images, the film was baked in an accurate temperture controlled oven for four hours at +82.2C.

Completely, totally, utterly, and unmistakably wrong. An oven works by convective heat transfer, which is unquestionably a mode of transfer not available on the moon due to its lack of atmosphere.

If Dr. Groves believes he can accurately simulate the conditions in which the film operated on the moon, by baking film in an oven, his research is completely without any degree of applicability to Apollo.

Hope this clears up a few things...

Yes, it clears up two things:

1. You apparently are completely unable to distinguish bogus pseudoscience from actual science. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem. Most layman fall into that category. But it means we can't trust your opinion on who is a good scientist and who is not.

2. Dr. David Groves doesn't know a darn thing about thermodynamics or high-frequency EM radiation in cislunar space. Or to be more specific, he may know about those things, but his motivation to get the desired answer instead of the right answer seems to outweigh his motivation to accurate represent the applicable sciences.

Let me be perfectly plain. I have made a very detailed study of Dr. Groves' work. I am qualified in many of the same areas of expertise that he is. I have also consulted other professionals. I completely reject his findings as presented in Dark Moon and the accompanying video. I have found significant misrepresentation, significant unjustified assumptions, significant bias that materially affected the results, and considerable lack of understanding of some basic principles. I do not accept him as an independent expert witness on the moon hoax.

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 05:39 PM
I can honestly say that I don't know if NASA are still airbrushing out things that they don't want people to see.

I do.

Since the advent of space photography NASA has either directly through its own employees or indirectly through contractors employed various means to alter photographic material which is then delivered to the public.

The catch is that this is a natural outgrowth of public relations. The fact that NASA does this, or causes it to be done, is itself immaterial. The question of why it is done is at hand.

We can point to photos of the Saturn V on the launch pad with the moon in the background, for example, which we can be pretty sure are composite images. Either that or the moon came up in the north that night. We can point to photos that have been likely "pushed" in the darkroom to bring out details that would otherwise be dark. We can point to cropped photos, rotated photos, composed panoramas, and even a small amount of "joke" photos put together for humorous effect. We can even find Apollo photos from which things like lens flares and other undesirable artifacts have been removed.

All this is done in the name of presentation. Some people who use Apollo photographs want those photographs to look good. They aren't as interested in the details of historical documentation. Several books have come out now with photographs having been retouched or flipped or otherwise arranged for the sake of presentation. These are not intended as primary historical sources, although hoax believers sure like to pretend they are.

History is another question altogether. If I can go to the JSC archives and obtain the unmodified image, that's all that's required.

The question is whether any modifications to Apollo photographs have been undertaken with the express intent to remove significant material content so as to deceive any and all viewers into falsely believing it is a fully accurate depiction, and the unmodified photo is never released.

Painting out lens flares doesn't count. Cleaning up a photo for picture books doesn't count.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-29 13:41 ]</font>

Jim
2002-May-29, 05:40 PM
On 2002-05-29 10:37, cosmicdave wrote:
Some of you have questioned that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I know nothing about photography. I agree, I am not a photography expert, but I never claimed that I was one anyway. I can however, quote an expert in the field who does know what their talking about.

...

The person who carried out the tests was Dr David Groves PhD who owns Quantec Image Processing in the UK and has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics. So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film...


Well, no, he isn't necessarily qualified. Quantec Imaging deals in x-ray imaging of medical patients; that doesn't make its owner - no matter how well-degreed - an expert on film photography.

There's an old caveat... If you want to install a ceiling fan, get an electrician to install the wiring, not an electrical engineer. We have the same principle at work hear.

Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the actual conditions to which the film was subjected. It was very well insulated against temperature and radiation, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this Board and various sites.

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 06:02 PM
Quantec Imaging deals in x-ray imaging of medical patients; that doesn't make its owner - no matter how well-degreed - an expert on film photography.

The "Quantec method" is actually a well known method of feature and contour extraction from certain types of medical imaging, including x-ray and visible light photography. However in this cited study Groves is clearly outside his stated area of expertise.

Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the actual conditions to which the film was subjected.

No, it goes much deeper than that. Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the various characteristics and behavior of x-rays. He is also apparently unaware of the most basic principles of thermodynamics, a topic most prospective scientists learn in their teens.

Everything is sensitive to radiation if you hose it with 100 rem!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-29 14:02 ]</font>

Silas
2002-May-29, 08:03 PM
re dosing the film with x-rays, 8MeV is the "intensity," but what was the duration?

It's like saying, "I exposed the film to a 40W light bulb." Um... For how long?

Silas

Karl
2002-May-29, 08:29 PM
On 2002-05-29 16:03, Silas wrote:
re dosing the film with x-rays, 8MeV is the "intensity," but what was the duration?

It's like saying, "I exposed the film to a 40W light bulb." Um... For how long?

Silas


It's not even the intensity, more like the 'color'. The intensity was given in terms of "rem", which is not the appropriate unit for the test. The exposure should be given in Grays or rads, which could then be converted to rem if the test subject was a human.

jrkeller
2002-May-29, 09:50 PM
Dave,

I look forward to your article about the air brushing. I hope you are going to give us a name, instead of the usual unnamed source. I also hope that you give us some detailed information, like where she worked, how long she worked, her boss, etc. The reason I say this is that I live in the heart of manned space flight here in Houston and I know many people, from grunts to big wigs who worked on Apollo. I'll see if her credentials check out.

I hate to say this but I tricked you on the Hasselblad question. Mainly to see if you know what you are doing. When someone states "did you do a thermal analysis of the camera," anyone who is a thermal person immediately knows what that means. That does not mean subjecting a piece of hardware to an arbitrary temperature range, it means determining the temperature range that a piece of hardware attains under various environmental conditions. As Jay has already pointed out, a black asphalt road is much hotter than its surroundings. On the moon, this asphalt surface would be much hotter because there is no convection to the air and conduction through the lunar soil is very low. The question that needs to be asked here is this "If you were going to test the asphalt what temperature would you use, the temperature of the surrounding air or the temperature that the asphalt reaches during a full sun condition?" The answer's quite obvious.

In space, the temperature of an object is determined by how much solar energy it absorbs, how much infrared energy it absorbs and how much infrared energy it emits to deep space. (For you purists, I made my comments simple and one could state that the geometric factors are already included in my statements.) So to keep an object cool (or make it hot) in space, all one needs to do is to coat it with the right materials.

Since you quote Jan Lundberg quite extensively he could probably give you the thermal analysis report for the Hassalblad camera. Then you would know exactly what temperature to use. There is one very telling statement in your own website, "Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine." From my viewpoint as a thermal person, that sounds like NASA wanted to added some protection to avoid excessive tempertures.

BTW, if I find a thermal analysis report on the Hasselblad camera, I be more than happy to send you a copy. You'd be amazed as the things I find here at garage sales.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-29 17:57 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 10:44 PM
8MeV is the "intensity," but what was the duration?

I assume it's expected to be inferred from the given dosages: 25, 50, and 100 rem. Since all three exposures were using the 8 MeV x-ray emitter, we must assume dosage was varied by varying the exposure duration. In any case, his x-ray energy is three orders of magnitude higher than ambient cislunar. That alone invalidates the experiment.

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 10:52 PM
It's not even the intensity, more like the 'color'.

But that might be confused with wavelength. Various actual wavelengths qualify as x-rays. Given that there is an intuitive correspondence between the electron-volt measurement and its ability to penetrate various substances, "intensity" is not too inaccurate a characterization. But I see your point. If we're going to be picky, we might as well be picky.

Jim
2002-May-29, 10:54 PM
On 2002-05-29 09:46, cosmicdave wrote:
... The interview that I will be posting to my site concerns a female slide technician...


You mean Donna Tietze? Here's a link to a partial transcript of her radio interview. You may notice she never disputes that Apollo happened or that men made it to the moon. Her claims of "air brushing" have to do with the removal of evidence of UFOs from various photos, Apollo and others.

She also says she was told that Aliens may have caused and definitely rescued Apollo 13.

http://www.cowan70.freeserve.co.uk/space_moon/nasa_airbrushed_photos.html

johnwitts
2002-May-29, 10:55 PM
It sounds to me like a bit of 'reverse engineering'. Percy goes to Groves and asks for data concerning how much radiation is necessary to fog the film. He then uses this data to feed back in radiation values into his argument.

Film fogs at 25 rems, so for our argument to succeed, cislunar radiation must be at that level. This would fog the film. (It would also make the astronauts ill, damage the spacecraft electronics, etc etc, blah blah). Trouble is, the universally accepted values are nothing like this high, not even close.

I left my laptop in the car yesterday, and the sun came out. It's in a bag. It's also got a shiny metal cover, and it was in the footwell, in the shade. The inside of the car was roasting when I got in it. You know, when you can't even hold the steering wheel it's so hot. I took the laptop out of the bag to check it hadn't melted or anything, and it was cold. Obviously, some strange advanced cooling system has been developed by Samsung to keep their laptops cool in cars. Or it could have been in a bag in the shade. You decide.

(More twisting of the truth from John Witts)

BTW, Nice of you to type in the whole of page 540 from 'Dark Moon'.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-05-29 18:57 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-29, 11:30 PM
You mean Donna Tietze?

Yes, that's the gossipy story that's been passed among UFO enthusiasts for quite some time. Unfortunately Ms. Tietze has not made herself subsequently available for discussion or further questioning. Her story remains completely unsubstantiated.

Therefore we have no choice but to evaluate her credibility based on the plausibility of her story. And again unfortunately, her story is not plausible.

1. Someone who held a security clearance and who was privy to secrets which are still secrets would be extremely foolish to reveal those secrets on a public radio broadcast, especially those to which her clearance did not strictly give her access. This is tantamount to going on the radio and saying, "I set houses on fire," or "I am a child molester."

2. If an activity is protected by compartmentalized security, one cannot just "wander in" to the areas where that activity is being undertaken without presenting suitable credentials.

3. Her depiction of security procedures is laughably implausible. She claims she was given a guided tour of this facility and the work that was being done there, but the worker adopts a cloak-and-dagger approach when it comes to talking about details. This is not an accurate depiction of compartmentalized security. If she were not cleared to know everything that was going on there, she would not have been admitted to the room.

4. Her testimony regarding UFOs and Apollo missions and NASA spacecraft being "tailed" by alien spacecraft is third-hand hearsay. It also has nothing to do with the photographic alterations she claims to have witnessed in her earlier statements. She does not say she believes she is looking at pictures of the lunar surface, or any other Apollo mission. In fact, she gives indications (e.g., "pine trees") that she believes she is looking a photo of terrestrial terrain.

This is not compelling testimony. It seems more likely that she is telling exciting stories to willing and gullible audiences, not recounting what she actually heard and saw. Sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that.

jrkeller
2002-May-30, 12:25 AM
I just did a search of the NASA libraries and couldn't find a thing about her. Not even her name in a document. I'll check some of my Apollo documents to see if she's there. I suspect that she was just one of many people that worked for NASA during the Apollo era.

The listing of her awards are nothing either. Everyone who works for NASA has several of these types of awards. If she had a Silver Snoopy or a Space Flight Awareness Award, which are given typically for career service then I'd be impressed. Of course these awards are very traceable.

For example,

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/media/rel/Past-News-Releases-93-94-95/93-059A.DOC.html


I checked all the NASA press releases for an award for her and of course didn't find one. Nothing about her award from governor Ann Richards in the Austin (Texas capital) paper archives, or the local paper archives. Makes me wonder. Of course, a google search only comes with UFO/HB websites.

JayUtah
2002-May-30, 01:48 AM
But obviously since she had top secret clearance in the photo archives where they were falsifying the photos, all record of her employment would be naturally erased. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

This is one of those stories that just stretch all the factors of credibility. It's mostly hearsay: "Yeah, I know a guy who says the astronauts told him they were chased by UFOs." And what isn't hearsay can't be corroborated and makes no sense. Plus, it's quite convenient: someone claiming to be from NASA, claiming to have exactly what the UFO buffs need in order to corroborate their story.

Plus, it quite clearly contradicts nearly every thing else on Dave's page, and written about by Bennett and Percy. The astronauts with whom Ms. Tietze's guard friend was sequestered weren't, according to Bennett and Percy, anywhere near the moon. So it makes it hard for them to have been tailed there by UFOs.

Sorry, but I have little patience for arguments that can't even be reconciled with themselves, much less with the known facts.

Anne Elk
2002-May-30, 02:01 AM
Thanks CosmicDave that is an entertaining site. Much the same as the X-files is entertaining. Using methods of observation similar to those presented as proof that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon, I find that I actually did not go on my last vacation. Bummer! I thought it was fun but the backlighting and the angle of the lights....

Johnno
2002-May-30, 05:40 AM
hey cosmicdave, perhaps you should read what we actually say, so that you could remove the silly stuff off your webpage that we've proven wrong.

"How could the Rover camera have sent a picture when the dish was not pointing in one specific direction."

Answer: it DIDNT, because you can see the camera in the video, clearly the camera didnt transmit the footage. And yes Dave, you're still a liar.

Silly Dave, really silly. But then again, that's the level of intelligence I would expect from you.

We've debunked your entire site, but you refuse to change anything at all... perhaps when adding new stuff youll remove your old silly claims?

Hauteden
2002-May-30, 06:56 AM
Mrs. Anne Elk . . . I mean 'Miss' Anne Elk R U An Expert on Dinosaurs. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I haven't heard that skit in years.


Oddly enough I haven't been able to verify the credientials of Donna Tietze Hare. Not of lack of trying but I can't find one of the organizations she recieved recognition to namely Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates. Granted after 8 years it could be going by some other name but I figure the Texas online website would have some info but I couldn't find it.


Hauteden



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hauteden on 2002-05-30 03:03 ]</font>

Jovianboy
2002-May-30, 08:15 AM
On 2002-05-28 14:26, cosmicdave wrote:

Your (sic) not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.


Oh, please! Don't write as though there's some kind of stalemate between equally compelling arguments! The faulty reasoning in every single assertion you have made has been all but pulverized by the contributors to this board (most expertly by JayUtah).

You cannot deny that your arguments have been shown up as weak, illogical, and on occasion, smack of dishonesty (just like those of all moon hoax conspiracy theorists).

There can never be any intellectually equal debate between hoax believers and those who defend the reality of the Apollo program. Why? Because all hoax believers are either incapable of comprehending the facts supporting the evidence for the Apollo program, or are deliberately ignoring the evidence in order to deceive people with their ranting and raving. I suspect it to be a combination of both.

You have lost, Cosmic Dave. You never had a hope of successfully defending your arguments. When faced with incontrovertible evidence and the intellectual capacity to comprehend it, the minds of the public will invariably see nothing other than the reality of the Apollo program. Ergo, hoax believers will ultimately always fail in their efforts.

Time to give it up, Dave. Your inane drivel is becoming tedious. Get with reality.

JB

jumbo
2002-May-30, 12:09 PM
Hello everybody, this is my first post here (or anywhere for that matter)
This is slightly off topic but i may be able to clear up one query in this thread. The instiute of physics is a UK based organisation that promotes physics education and research to other scientists and the public. Membership of the institute of physics has several grades. The affilate grade is open to anyone with an interest in physics, other grades require proof of a physics qualification. For example i was a graduate member of the institute as i graduated with an astrophysics degree, i had a chartered physicist to act as a supporter and sent off my cheque for membership. Membership of this organisation does back up your credentials but does not mean you are an expert in all areas of physics.

2002-May-30, 02:17 PM
<pre>dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21)
</pre> 6:13 A.M. Pst lemme !rattle your cURRENT cage
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=612&forum=1&10#20020218.7:37

cosmicdave
2002-May-30, 02:58 PM
Ok, so it seems like its just little old me against the rest of the World. I have taken onboard some of the points that have been discussed on this forum and have (if you'd care to read) added some of your 'facts' to my Apollo Hoax article, when I updated it a few months ago. I AGREE that there could be 2 light sources acting on the Moon, (Earthglow and the Sun), so please don't patronise me. I do not however, agree with the two light sources being able to cast shadows at 2 completely different angles, and any one of you who is going to come back and debate that this is the case is simply talking (expletive deleted by the Bad Astronomer). Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions. The two light sources would converge, otherwise with your theory, every object would have 2 shadows.

I really like the way that you guys say that I shouldn't be commenting because I am not an astrophysicist, rocket engineer or anything else in the space rocket/science field. Its really like saying, 'If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be watching it'!. I am none of the above, but I do have common sense and I am quite entitled to have my own thoughts on the Apollo missions and if I am not trained in a certain field, whats wrong with me reading someones report who is. Its obvious that you are going to tear anyones evidence to shreds even if they are scientifically trained in that area, because this board is run by sceptics for sceptics. Some of my friends really couldn't believe that I had the balls to come onto this group in the first place to discuss the Apollo stuff - but there you go - its a good job were all not alike.

People on this board keep setting me challenges and when I meet them you pick holes at it, even if it comes from a qualified professional, who none of you know, but sure are quick to jump on their backs. I do incidentally personally know Mary Bennett who co-wrote 'DarkMoon' and if I had her Email address I'm sure she would happily come on here and answer your questions.

For the record, it was asked earlier on in this debate about the Australian newspaper which ran the coke bottle story during Apollo 11. I and Mary have both written to the newspaper, but they prefer not to correspond. I cannot investigate this part of the story any further unless of course I travel to Australia, which I don't plan doing, so please before you speak your opinions have a little respect.

I don't need anyone here to tell me what I can or cannot put up on my own site - unless of course one of you is willing to pay my internet expenses and electric bill.

Your right, you have explained some of the stuff I've questioned very well, but on the otherhand, other questions that I keep asking and asking are simply forgotten about or not answered to my satisfaction.

I am not surprised that you cannot find this airbrush artist in any NASA books. Since 9/11 and some of the stories i've read, it doesn't really surprise me some of the lengths that the US goverment will go to cover things up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-05-30 12:53 ]</font>

Silas
2002-May-30, 03:40 PM
On 2002-05-30 10:58, cosmicdave wrote:
I AGREE that there could be 2 light sources acting on the Moon, (Earthglow and the Sun), so please don't patronise me. I do not however, agree with the two light sources being able to cast shadows at 2 completely different angles, and any one of you who is going to come back and debate that this is the case is simply talking bull****. Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions. The two light sources would converge, otherwise with your theory, every object would have 2 shadows.


Haven't you seen the photographs, taken on earth, that show the exact same phenomenon? Shadows appear not to be parallel in many situations; they converge or diverge.

Have you ever seen a fan of sunbeams? They don't look parallel. But they actually are. It's an artifact.



I really like the way that you guys say that I shouldn't be commenting because I am not an astrophysicist, rocket engineer or anything else . . .


Nope. We're saying that you aren't learning. You're repeating the same errors, over and over, and you won't acknowledge them.

Silas

JayUtah
2002-May-30, 04:32 PM
Ok, so it seems like its just little old me against the rest of the World.

Yes, it does. You know, there's an old saying: "If one man calls me an ***, I can ignore him; but if ten men call me an ***, perhaps I'd best shop for a saddle." Now I'm not trying to call you an ***, but when it seems that many, many people can adequately respond to your challenges and questions, perhaps it's time to rethink your theories and discover just how supported or unsupported they really are.

Now it's plain that your theories are basically just those of Mary Bennett and David Percy. We could go on and on through all 500-odd pages of Dark Moon and all 200-odd minutes of What Happened on the Moon? and show you page after page, minute after minute, of deception, pseudoscience, misrepresentation, and faulty logic.

But if you learn anything, it ought to be that when a theory disagrees with your preconception, you check it out, but when a theory agrees with your preconception, you check it out even more vigorously. Don't accept a faulty conclusion just because you like how it sounds.

I have taken onboard some of the points that have been discussed on this forum

It seems to me that you bring them up just to mock them. Further, it sounds as if there are more answers here now than when you last visited. For example, when you said there was no explanation for the blue windows, half a dozen people or so said "scattering" in chorus. That's a pretty clear indication that you're the only one who doesn't know what causes that.

I AGREE that there could be 2 light sources acting on the Moon, (Earthglow and the Sun), so please don't patronise me.

Well, earthglow is not photographically significant at the camera settings used in most of the photographs. But if you want, I can dig up some pictures from my collection which are photos of the moon taken from lunar orbit using nothing but earthglow as the light source.

The primary source of lighting on the lunar surface is, obviously, direct illumination from the sun. The secondary source of lighting is sunlight reflected from various surfaces, most notably the space suits and the lunar surface itself.

But you're talking about shadows, of course, and reflected light will not account for your allegations of shadow convergence and divergence.

Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions.

Absolutely false. Light from the sun does indeed run parallel, but that does not mean the shadows should always appear parallel when photographed or observed directly. You must account for the effect of terrain in some cases and of perspective in all cases. In fact, shadows appear parallel only when the line of sight is exactly perpendicular to the line of illumination. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.

See, for example, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

On Monday I took about 100 photographs showing exactly the types of suncast shadows that you find in lunar surface photography, taken right here on earth in normal sunlight. I'm in the process of scanning them right now, so I can't point you to any of them. But you may also want to consult the more theoretical treatment of perspective and photography at

http://www.clavius.org/perspshdw.html

That page is still under construction, unfortunately, but the first section should explain to you exactly why shadows which are parallel don't always look parallel when photographed.

Its really like saying, 'If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be watching it'!.

No, it's not like that at all. You're trying to say what's possible, impossible, expected, and anomalous in these various fields. That's not merely a passive experience with those sciences. If you don't know how a rocket engine works, then you have no business telling anyone that some particular rocket engine isn't working correctly. That is essentially what you're doing. If you can't describe how much and what kind of radation is to be found on the moon, then you have no business telling us it would fog the film. If you have never worn a space suit then you have no business telling anyone that it's impossible to operate a camera while wearing one.

The kinds of allegations you're making require detailed and expert knowledge of the equipment, procedures, and scientific fields that bear upon them. You don't have that knowledge, which is why you're deferring to the authors from which you've cribbed your allegations. Unfortunately those authors don't have the required knowledge and expertise either.

We, collectively, do have that knowledge. So it's not a matter of dismissing us because you think we're skeptics. It's a matter of who has the expertise and is therefore best qualified to make a judgment.

I do have common sense

That's not enough. Common sense will not compensate for lack of aa law degree if you happen to be defending someone in court. It will not compensate for lack of pilot's training if you're behind the controls of an aircraft. It will not compensate for a lack of surgeon's degree if you're holding the scalpel.

You cannot simply assume that your common sense will tell you everything you need to know about science and engineering. The allegations you're making are not suitably supported merely by common sense.

... and I am quite entitled to have my own thoughts on the Apollo missions

Quite true. Yet you are not justified in claiming that your opinions are better founded and more accurate than those who have trained for a lifetime in the fields in which you are not qualified. Yet that's essentially what you're doing in your page. You bring up various anomalies. You say those anomalies prove the Apollo record and possibly the missions themselves were falsified. You don't consider the possibility that your "anomalies" derive from your own lack of understanding and that of your sources.

...and if I am not trained in a certain field, whats wrong with me reading someones report who is.

Nothing is wrong with reading whatever you can find. However, it is rather dangerous to assume that everything you read is on the up-and-up. There is a vast amount of pseudoscience available to be read, and so it's best not to rely on one expert or one paper.

A paper prepared specifically for a conspiracy theorist for inclusion in his book is not generally a good source of reliable scientific information.

Its obvious that you are going to tear anyones evidence to shreds even if they are scientifically trained in that area

But David Groves isn't trained in that area. Do you know what his PhD is in? It's in the extraction of three-dimensional features based on two-dimensional depictions. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics or radiology. And, predictably, those of us who do have training in thermodynamics and radiology have serious problems with his findings.

That's your problem. You're swooning over his PhD and so you forget to check his work to see if it's actually correct, or actually applies to his expertise. "Gee," you say, "he's got an advanced degree and he's a member of this organization, so he can't possibly be incorrect."

I assure he most certainly can be incorrect, and most certainly is in this case. And the sad part is that you're so bruised over having your "expert" witness attacked by whom you perceive to be die-hard skeptics that you haven't even stopped to think that maybe our scientific rebuttal actually does make sense and that maybe David Groves is just a guy being paid by a conspiracy theorist to dress up a cockamamie idea with some pseudoscience.

You don't have to trust me. Go ask anyone of your acquiantance who is a bona fide expert in thermodynamics whether Groves' assumptions of the lunar environment are correct and whether baking film in an oven is identical to using a film magazine on the lunar surface.

Go ask anyone of your acquaintance who is an astrophysicist whether two weeks' worth of ambient x-ray exposure would result in a 25-100 rad absorbed dose.

You want to claim we've attacked David Groves simply because we're skeptics. Why not consider that we've attacked David Groves because he has conducted bad science?

People on this board keep setting me challenges and when I meet them you pick holes at it

That's because you're not sufficiently meeting the challenges. You have apparently very little idea what it takes to prove a point using evidence, and especially when that evidence is scientific in nature.

If you can't walk the walk, it's foolish to talk the talk. I think there are a lot of people here who would be willing to answer your questions if they had some assurance that you would actually listen to their answers.

Why do you think I'm here? I'm here because I love talking about science and engineering and space travel. I like sharing what I know with people. Why don't you ask me about space travel instead of just assuming I'm here to talk trash about people?

... even if it comes from a qualified professional, who none of you know, but sure are quick to jump on their backs.

In the first place, I know who David Groves is and what his expertise is.

In the second place, you don't need to know who someone is in order to evaluate his claims. In fact, evaluating someone's claim based on knowing him can actually be a form of ad hominem fallacy. The best analysis of David Groves' work would be done not knowing who wrote it.

You keep hammering on the notion that David Groves is qualified. He is, in various sciences not having to do with bombarding photographic film with x-rays. But I am not a stranger to the ivy-clad halls of academia and I can assure you I am not intimidated by a doctorate, nor unduly impressed by one. If a PhD gets his science wrong, I will unabashedly call him on it.

David Groves has got his science wrong in this particular report, and nothing you can say about his qualifications will change that.

See, expert witnesses can in most cases stand on their qualifications and credentials. A doctor, for example, would be considered an expert on diseases and injuries, and his opinion on matters that come down to opinion would be considered evidentiary. But when the matter at hand is not a question of opinion, but of accepted fact, then expertise does not provide an excuse for getting that fact wrong.

David Groves' qualifications do not allow him to rewrite the rules of thermodynamics. They do not allow him to change the observations of x-ray energy and flux in cislunar space.

I do incidentally personally know Mary Bennett who co-wrote 'DarkMoon'

Then you should be able to tell us what her qualifications are for writing a book discussing highly technical details of the Apollo mission and space exploration in general.

if I had her Email address I'm sure she would happily come on here and answer your questions.

Well, I happen to have David Percy's e-mail address, and I can assure you that the last thing he wants is to appear in a debate with us. I know this because Percy has stopped corresponding with me, and he has essentially forbidden me from pointing out the flaws in his theories on his web site. He further erased all my prior comments, most of which provided material contrary evidence.

I know Bennett and Percy make a big show about wanting to have their faith in Apollo restored and wanting people to disprove their arguments. I also know it's just a big show. I have had private dealings with them, and I can assure you that in private they are quite intent on protecting their little conspiracy theory dynasty and milking it for as long as it lasts.

But since you know Ms. Bennett personally, perhaps you can extend a personal invitation for her to come here and defend her theories. There are many people here who would like to ask Bennett some questions about her findings.

I and Mary have both written to the newspaper, but they prefer not to correspond.

Very strange. Most newspapers are quite anxious to confirm or disavow having run or not run a particular story, especially when it is being alleged that they did, in fact, report something which they may not have reported.

I cannot investigate this part of the story any further unless of course I travel to Australia, which I don't plan doing

So why do you continue to publish an allegation which you know has not been confirmed by its source? You are doing nothing but supplying rumor as if it were fact. The very least you could do is to annotate your page and say that you have not confirmed the story. If you are not sure whether something is true or not, you have the ethical responsibility to convey that uncertainty to your readers.

When you make an allegation of fact, as yuo have done, you are representing that you have investigated that fact and determined that it is true. You have not done so in this case. The truly honest thing to do would be to remove the story altogether pending confirmation. But it would be honest of you simply to say, "I haven't been able to determine whether this actually happened."

please before you speak your opinions have a little respect.

Did you fail to notice that a reader here, who lives in Australia, has examined the archives of that newspaper from the likely dates in question and has found no trace whatsoever of any story resembling the one you allege?

We respect you as a person who legitimately believes what he claims, but you must admit at this point that you're simply repeating gossip which is highly improbable on its face, has several factual inconsistencies in it, and for which there is credible evidence that it is indeed false.

Consider that your page makes a number of allegations of fact which can be construed as accusatory or offensive to those in the aerospace industry, or others who worked on the Apollo program and continue to work in space exploration. While your request for respect is not out of order, consider that your entire page is, in a very real sense, disrespectful by nature.

I don't need anyone here to tell me what I can or cannot put up on my own site

Free speech is your right, and along with it comes the responsibility of dealing with criticism. If you want to say or print something in public, then you had better be prepared for the public's reaction. In your case, the public's reaction is that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

This is especially acute since you are levelling accusations -- fraud, misappropriation of funds, scientific dishonesty, perjury. It is typically impolite to make an accusation with such flimsy evidence.

on the otherhand, other questions that I keep asking and asking are simply forgotten about or not answered to my satisfaction.

Some of that is just the nature of debate. I don't think anyone is intentionally dodging your questions. But these sorts of discussions do tend to bounce around a lot.

Tell you what. If you think we're ignoring your questions, or giving bogus answers to them, just simply point out those questions. Start another thread, if you have to.

As for me, I'll put my money where my mouth is. You may have visited my web site

http://www.clavius.org

Within a few days I'll respond there to the 32 or so questions on your site that you say remain unanswered. I'll post a link to my answers here, and I'll discuss them here with you to any length you wish. Would this convince you that we indeed take your allegations seriously?

I am not surprised that you cannot find this airbrush artist in any NASA books.

It's more than just that. There is no trace of her anywhere that would be consistent with her claims.

Her claim is absurd on its face, and her credentials are in question. What would a reasonable listener conclude in that case?

... it doesn't really surprise me some of the lengths that the US goverment will go to cover things up!

Sorry, you can't compensate for the failure of your initial conjecture by simply adding more conjecture to it. Contrary to what you see on television, the U.S. government cannot simply make people disappear without any remaining trace.

If you believe her claims are true, and that the U.S. government has "erased" her, you must provide evidence for that theory. A more straightforward theory, requiring less conjecture, and already mosly proven, is this: her claims are exaggerated.

The acceptance of her story was based on the condition that you could substantiate her identity and claims of employment. You can't, so we reject Ms. Tietze as an expert witness on allegations of Apollo photograph retouching.

infocusinc
2002-May-30, 04:48 PM
CosmicDave,

I'm a lot like you Dave. I'm not an expert in almost all of the areas of science that are involved in the Apollo missions. Thats why I ask a lot of questions and review the answers given by people who do know. Many times the answers supplied from a number of different sources all jive and at least to my feeble mind give me a good idea of what was taking place. If I have any doubts then its my job to do the study and see if they are right or wrong.

The one area in which I am reasonably astute is photography. I can say with complete certanity that the shadows we see in the Apollo photographys are exactly how they should be. Of this there is absolutly no doubt. The shadows the HB community seems to think are strange in the lunar photographs can be replicated in the sunshine right here on earth. In fact they are next to impossible to create with studio lighting. I spend a lot of time creating very complicated studio lighting setups. I have studied the Apollo images in great depth and if they were studio shots with many lights (or even two for that matter) the evidence of that would have been plain to see. Its just not there. The shadow issue is really a non issue. The shadows have been discussed at great length here and my other places as well. The conclusion is always the same, at least by those who really know what they are talking about. If you choose not to believe or fail to test it yourself then that is your choice. Just dont expect me to to take your words as fact.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-30, 04:57 PM
On 2002-05-30 10:58, cosmicdave wrote:
Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions.

"Could not possibly"? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then how do you explain this picture? It was taken in a park next to my house, and the only source of illumination is the setting Sun.

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_4728633/non-parallel+shadows+on+Earth.jpg?bcVvl98Ax63937br

You seem very sure of yourself, yet you are wrong in nearly everything you claim. It's really that simple, and this picture should be a pretty clear indication of that fact.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-05-30 12:58 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-30, 05:04 PM
The instiute of physics is a UK based organisation that promotes physics education and research to other scientists and the public.

Thanks for that clarification. Would you know if the institute provided peer review services for publications by its members? If so, it might be advantageous for Dr. Groves to submit his findings to other members of the institute for review.

Membership of this organisation does back up your credentials but does not mean you are an expert in all areas of physics.

I personally do not doubt that Dr. Groves holds the degrees he claims. I know of Quantec's work, and something of Groves' contribution to them. I also know he is or was on the faculty of a U.K. university.

His PhD is irrelevant to anything covered in the referenced paper, but it is relevant to his other work undertaken for Dark Moon. That does not mean that we don't find flaws with it, but it does mean we have to give Groves the benefit of the doubt where his expertise may apply.

His BSc would be relevant to much of this analysis, but in this case it is irrelevant.

Someone who holds a PhD in history might say that the American revolution was fought in the years 1852-1855, but he'd be wrong. His advanced degree does not excuse him from misrepresenting fact. Similarly a professional mathematician could assert on the basis of his credentials that 1 + 1 = 3.

Groves' qualifications do not ensure that his interpretation of NASA's statements regarding temperature on the moon is properly applied to the photographic film and that his experiments therewith are valid. They do not ensure that his simulation of the lunar environment is faithful and justified by thermodynamics.

And it's a sad fact these days that science can be bought and sold. There's a big business in science for hire. Private research corporations all over make their money on conducting those "independent surveys" that indicate preference for the client's product -- surveys we all suspect of being far less than independent. I remember reading in a scientific journal several years ago a document which leaked from one of these private companies that listed procedures for falsifying findings: numerical manipulation, subtle sampling biases, etc.

I know for a fact that Quantec is no such company. And I have no evidence that David Groves intended to produce findings he knew would be incorrect. His study is seriously flawed, and therefore inapplicable. That's all I can say given what I know. But the nature and extent of those flaws raise suspicions.

SpacedOut
2002-May-30, 05:41 PM
Cosmicdave-

I just reread the “results” Dr. Grove’s tests you posted – IMO a classic case of misleading the public using scientific facts.

The only time he mentions the NASA or Apollo in the X-ray testing is when he states that he used a film stock similar to that used on the moon.

The only mention of NASA info for his heat test is that the film was exposed at the high end of the lunar surface temperature range for 4 hours.

He does NOT say (at least in what you posted) that his tests represent the actual conditions that the film experienced – but does say IF the film had been exposed to the conditions presented the any pictures taken would have been unusable. He does not misrepresent any facts but he does leave it up to the reader to figure out for him/her-self whether or not the test conditions reflect the real environment. Which they DON’T!

Here in the US we are bombarded with this kind of misinformation on a regular basis in many forms – Advertisement as mentioned is one. Another is the news reporting of statistical data, usually in the likelihood of your contracting some disease or another. The report will state ‘if you are X then you are 2 to 3 times more likely to contract disease Y’. Scary! What you are not told is what the actual probability of getting disease Y if you are NOT X. If the 30% of the population will contract the disease then a 2 or 3 fold increase is VERY disturbing. If only 0.5% will get the disease then 3 times that isn’t much to worry about. The base line information is very important.

cosmicdave
2002-May-30, 07:22 PM
Quote: 'That's not enough. Common sense will not compensate for lack of a law degree if you happen to be defending someone in court. It will not compensate for lack of pilot's training if you're behind the controls of an aircraft. It will not compensate for a lack of surgeon's degree if you're holding the scalpel'.

Are you sure about the above statement, because I am sure that I could do a better job than some of the cases taken before a court that I have seen. It really seems that some Judges do lack common sense sometimes.

But seriously, I am finding this debate forming into two different sides. For instance, if I said to anyone in this debate 'well if I did this experiment on Earth', the first thing you would say is 'but the Earth is nothing like the Moon, so therefore you cannot use experiments be it with light or radiation on Earth', or at least that was the gist of the answers I got the last time I discussed the shadow anomalies. There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test. Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right, so I am turning the tables... whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

To give you a good example and to answer the guy who said 'you cant simulate the shadows on the Moon footage with artificial light', I was watching 'The Sky at Night', a program which has been on the BBC here in the UK for a very long time and which discusses space and astronomy. On this particular episode, the host (Patrick Moore) was talking to none other than Douglas Arnold, the very same Mr. Arnold who appeared on 'What happened on our Moon'. But surprislingly, he was in the same camp as you guys and said that all the anomalies could be explained. Now considering that this was not his stance when the video was made 3 years ago, I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise. Anyway, during the show, Arnold tried to show viewers how the shadows could be reproduced in the studio, proving that they weren't hoaxed, but for me, he proved the very opposite. Here he was moving small models of the astronauts in front of the LEM under studio lighting... of course it looked similar to the Moon footage because both were filmed under studio lights.

Hope you enjoyed that one folks!

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-30, 07:34 PM
I suspect I am wasting my time, but...



On 2002-05-30 15:22, cosmicdave wrote:
There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test.

This is incorrect. The Earth in the lunar sky is not bright enough to cast visible shadows in the lunar photographs. The Sun is far, far brighter, and would wash those shadows. The only source of light bright enough to cast a shadow visible in the pictures is the Sun. Therefore, you only need one light source in modeling the shadows.

The airless conditions and lower gravity do not play a substantial role in the converging shadows; only perspective does.

If you want to now think about the shadow filling that ocurred, then you can consider secondary light sources, because that is where they become important.

Some of the things on the Moon can be modeled simply on the Earth (shadow converging, shadow filling) and others cannot (flag fluttering, temperature measurements). You grossly oversimplify the situation when it suits you and make it more confusing when it suits you. The world doesn't work that way.

Donnie B.
2002-May-30, 08:42 PM
On 2002-05-30 10:58, cosmicdave wrote:
...
I really like the way that you guys say that I shouldn't be commenting because I am not an astrophysicist, rocket engineer or anything else in the space rocket/science field. Its really like saying, 'If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be watching it'!.

Not exactly. What we're saying is more like, "If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be going around claiming that it's impossible for a TV to work at all."

Your views about Apollo are very much like those of someone who knows nothing about electronics, RF transmission and reception, cathode-ray tubes, electrophorescent phosphors, or video signal encoding, who then swears that there's no way that moving pictures and sound could appear from out of nowhere on a box in his living room.

The only difference, really, is that I can plug in a TV set and prove that fellow wrong in seconds, without his having to learn about electronics, RF transmission, et. al. Unfortunately, the evidence for Apollo is less direct -- but to most of us, no less compelling -- than the latest episode of "The Simpsons".

It's a shame we can't take a little trip to the moon to see the Apollo landing sites in person. Until that time comes, people like us who are interested in space exploration will have to learn a little bit about science and engineering to understand how the Apollo landings were accomplished.

To return to the TV analogy, it's as if all TV broadcasting stopped in 1974, and the only way to convince you that TV was real was to teach you the details of the underlying theory. Common sense might tell you it couldn't have happened, and all those photos of people gathered in front of their sets to watch "I Love Lucy" must have been faked.

But just like Apollo, it could happen, and did, and still could again.

pvtpylot
2002-May-30, 08:56 PM
On this particular episode, the host (Patrick Moore) was talking to none other than Douglas Arnold, the very same Mr. Arnold who appeared on 'What happened on our Moon'. But surprislingly, he was in the same camp as you guys and said that all the anomalies could be explained. Now considering that this was not his stance when the video was made 3 years ago, I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise. Anyway, during the show, Arnold tried to show viewers how the shadows could be reproduced in the studio, proving that they weren't hoaxed, but for me, he proved the very opposite. Here he was moving small models of the astronauts in front of the LEM under studio lighting... of course it looked similar to the Moon footage because both were filmed under studio lights.

Hope you enjoyed that one folks!

Or instead of a large sum of money maybe just a small dose of reality was all that was needed. What Arnold was demonstrating was that what hoax believers like to trumpet as "anomolies" are really nothing of the kind. They're just normal properties of light and perspective that can be reproduced in simple, everyday experiments. You remind me of the medieval church claiming for centuries that heavier objects fell faster, but never bothering to actually drop two objects and see. You tell me, Dave, what should shadows from the moon really look like and why you think you should see that?

Aodoi
2002-May-30, 09:08 PM
...Now considering that this was not his stance when the video was made 3 years ago, I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise...Oh, come now. Surely death threats is an equally valid reason for him to change his mind. After all NASA has supposedly bumped off numerous astronauts, why not this guy? Or maybe they grabbed him and did a bit of the old "Manchurian Candidate" routine on him. Money is so... prosaic. While we're tossing around utterly unfounded accusations, might as well argue they got some of those ear burrowing things out of Star Trek (III? beats me) and are using one to control him. Or one of those shapeshifting critters out of Star Trek: TNG or DS9 (or SW: Episode II, not that it really came up in more than passing).

C'mon, if you're gonna argue at least make it interesting! Because if you're going to be boring you might as well postulate that he changed his mind based on the evidence, or that he hasn't changed his mind at all but has been misrepresented (or misinterpreted by you) in one of the 2 occasions you mention.

Actually, this post is mainly to thank JayUtah... gotta love the time and effort you're willing to put in on this. Thanks a bunch, I've learned stuff I didn't even know I didn't know. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-30, 09:16 PM
Are you sure about the above statement?

Yes, I am. In fact, I'll say it again: Common sense does not substitute for the lack of specific necessary knowledge and understanding. You say you have common sense. Very well, I have common sense and an science education. Which of us is most qualified to comment on science questions?

if I said to anyone in this debate 'well if I did this experiment on Earth', the first thing you would say is 'but the Earth is nothing like the Moon ...'

Proper scientific understanding will tell you when it is applicable to apply an earth experiment to lunar conditions, and when the earth environment is unsuitable. The answer, in fact, is that sometime experiments are applicable and sometimes they are not. There are people who know about such applicability. They're called scientists, and the scientists say you're wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.

There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test.

Things like shadow direction, shape, and coherence can be fully and accurately reproduced on earth with no lack of fidelity whatsoever. This is because sunlight is just as parallel on earth as it is on the moon.

Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right, so I am turning the tables... whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

No. You're just quibbling with our results because you don't like them. You can't intelligently discuss any error in our methods or strategy. You're just trying to throw mud at them in hopes some of it will stick.

On the other hand, we can show very precisely, according to common and reliable principles of the physical world, exactly how and why Dr. Groves' experiment is wrong. You seem utterly amazed that people here would have more expertise on matters such as thermodynamics and radiation exposure than Dr. Groves.

I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise.

Oh, please! The principles of perspective have been known since about 1400 a.d.! Just because David Percy doesn't understand them, and by extension neither do you, doesn't mean everyone is so terribly ignorant. You've been shown theory, you've been shown example. Yet you still persist in thinking this is all just a matter of opinion.

of course it looked similar to the Moon footage because both were filmed under studio lights.

No, you have missed the entire point of the discussion. David Percy and others claim the misdirected and misshapen shadows they're seeing can only be produced with studio lights. In fact, both with theory and with example we can show that they can only be produced with direct sunlight and cannot be produced with studio lights.

Most of The Sky At Night dealt with things like the intensity of diffusely reflected light, which can be simulated on a small scale with studio lighting.

What cannot be simulated in the studio is the simultaneous effect of stark shadows cast by parallel light rays onto tens of thousands of square feet of reflective surface.

With every post you demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the behavior of light, either on earth or anywhere else. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't keep insisting you are right.

johnwitts
2002-May-30, 10:26 PM
If you watch Douglas Arnold in 'What Happened on the Moon?', you will see that none of his statements support the hoax. How his statements are taken out of context, and manipulated, makes him look like he doesn't know which way to point a camera. Also, we never get to hear the questions he's been asked, or his whole reply. I'll bet he's mortified on being included in such a video, with his statements used to support the HB's arguments.

JayUtah
2002-May-30, 11:04 PM
There are numerous examples of manipulative documentary production in What Happened ...?.

The "duel" between Jan Lundberg of Hasselblad and Brian Welch of NASA over the reseau fiducials is the best example. Welch says that under certain circumstances the fiducials can be used to measure objects in the photo. David Percy then goes to Lundberg and says, "NASA claims you can use those fiducials to measure objects in the photo. Is this possible?" To which Lundberg replies, "No, you would need stereo pairs."

At this point the video moves on to something else, leaving us with the impresion that the Hasselblad expert has dismissed NASA's claim. Of course Percy neglected to pass on Welch's crucial qualification: "... under certain circumstances." And for some reason, after obtaining Lundberg's opinion that stereo pairs would be required, he didn't go back and ask Welch, "Was that the 'certain circumstance' you were talking about, and did astronauts take any of those stereo pairs?"

Of course, both Welch and Lundberg are talking about photogrammetry, but Percy isn't going to make sure we understand that. Further, the astronauts indeed took hundreds stereo pairs, and David Percy knows this -- he claims to have exhaustively examined the Apollo record and would surely have seen at least one such pair.

David Percy makes sure it looks like Brian Welch and Jan Lundberg are saying completely different things. Foul!

AstroMike
2002-May-31, 12:12 AM
Here's a point. Since these hoax believers have never been to the Moon and don't understand the science behind it, they wouldn't know a Moon landing simulation from a real Moon landing, right?

Karl
2002-May-31, 04:23 AM
On 2002-05-29 18:52, JayUtah wrote:
It's not even the intensity, more like the 'color'.

But that might be confused with wavelength. . .


There would be no confusion, wavelength is exactly what determines the energy. The energy of a photon is related to the wavelength by Planck's constant.

The intensity, or flux of the photons is the rate at which they occur. The fluence corresponds to the integrated flux, equivalent to exposure.


If we're going to be picky, we might as well be picky.

Peer review is more meaningful because the people doing it understand what you are doing. I've beem blasted out of the water on this forum more than a few times for making errors.

Peter B
2002-May-31, 05:30 AM
cosmicdave

Perhaps you might tell us what, if anything, would convince you that Apollo happened exactly as NASA said it did.

And would you be willing to tell us what, if anything, might convince you to remove some or all of your 32 points.

Incidentally, I'm the person who emailed you a month or two ago, challenging most of your 32 points.

I'm also the person who looked up the "West Australian" on microfilm, and found nothing about a Coke bottle being seen on the Moon during Apollo 11. I found lots of reports about the mission itself, much discussion of whether West Australians would see Apollo 11 live on TV, and a few letters to the editor, roughly equally split on whether the missions should proceed. But nothing suggesting, or even speculating, that the missions were faked.

Now it's easy to imply that the microfilm records have been changed, thus adding to the conspiracy, so I hope that if that claim is made, there's some evidence to go with it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter B on 2002-05-31 01:36 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-31, 05:40 AM
There would be no confusion, wavelength is exactly what determines the energy.

Well, yes, but let me try to supply my prior mindset. I'm trying to decide how best to explain this to someone for whom Planck is a unit of lumber. You know, kind of the same way some people use the properties of water as analogues to electrical wattage, voltage, and amperage. I didn't make that very clear earlier.

The ability of a photon, proton, electron, or steamed carrot to penetrate some certain substance to a given depth is a fairly intuitive concept. And relating that to energy is an intuitive leap. Color and wavelength have an equivalence, and also with energy, but it's not intuitive. You don't naturally think of color as relating to penetrative ability.

And that's were it becomes counterproductive to substitute an analogy. Which is why I agreed to your point. It's best, in the long run, to rely less on analogy and more on explanation. I've always prided myself on the ability to distill difficult concepts into some suitable analogue, but this time it's not working.

The intensity, or flux of the photons is the rate at which they occur.

And actually we haven't even discussed flux yet in relation to this issue. We are dealing in ambiguous terms such as "intensity" which could be applied to several characteristics that relate to exposure.

The fluence corresponds to the integrated flux, equivalent to exposure.

... and from thence to absorbed dose. Unfortunately Dr. Groves doesn't give us any specifics of how he went from 8 MeV to 25 rads (assuming he meant rads).

I've beem blasted out of the water on this forum more than a few times for making errors.

Haven't we all? That's what it's all about. What the conspiracy theorists don't understand is that we don't just pick on them; we pick on each other too. And that's how science works. I may be wrong at times, and you may be wrong at times, and the Bad Astronomer may be wrong at times, and so forth. But the chance that we'll all be wrong together on the same question is fairly remote.

Renaldo
2002-May-31, 08:24 AM
let me start by saying that i really enjoy this discussion.

i'm not a rocket scientist either, but i enjoy a decent logical debate and hold the opinion of more experienced people in the highest regard. thus i only posted a few messages, but i've been following this debate for ages.

it's been interesting to see a person like Jay disecting dave's statements in essay format. nice going boet!(boet is an Afrikaans word meaning brother)

however, what makes a debate a debate? someone to oppose your opinion. i would hate to be the opposing party in this argument. especially if lacking technical knowledge on the subject.

so here's a non-technical question for dave.
one portion of your site is dedicated to prove the apollo hoax, another to prove the theory of an alien presence on the moon(experienced by apollo astronauts). which is it now? hoax or aliens?

4-Lom
2002-May-31, 11:52 AM
This is incorrect. The Earth in the lunar sky is not bright enough to cast visible shadows in the lunar photographs. The Sun is far, far brighter, and would wash those shadows. The only source of light bright enough to cast a shadow visible in the pictures is the Sun. Therefore, you only need one light source in modeling the shadows.]
Also, its not the intensity of secondary light-sources, but the nature of the source. The sun is effectively a point source, and as a result produces distinct shadows. Indirect illumination from the lunar surface/atmospheric scattering on earth is going to be a diffuse source and hence won't produce any shadows. On a sunny day you get sharp shadows because the sun is main (point) light source, on an overcast day you get no shadows, because the clouds are a diffuse light source.
I think what Dave needs to explain is exactly what kind of lighting conditions he believes would cause non-parallel shadows.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 4-Lom on 2002-05-31 07:58 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-May-31, 12:44 PM
On 2002-05-31 07:52, 4-Lom wrote:
[quote]
I think what Dave needs to explain is exactly what kind of lighting conditions he believes would cause non-parallel shadows.


More specifically – non-parallel but single shadows since the photographic record only shows single shadows for each object.

Jim
2002-May-31, 12:52 PM
For instance, if I said to anyone in this debate 'well if I did this experiment on Earth', the first thing you would say is 'but the Earth is nothing like the Moon, so therefore you cannot use experiments be it with light or radiation on Earth'

I don't recall anyone saying you cannot perform any experiments on earth, only that those experiemnts must take into account the actual... actual ...conditions experienced on the moon. Dr. Groves' experiemnts fail not because they were conducted on earth, but because he used the wrong set of conditions; he assumed the film was left unprotected on the lunar surface. It wasn't.

There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test.

Why "night", Dave? The Apollo landings took place during lunar day, with the sun in the sky. A good approximation on earth would be a sunlit day at the beach, or on a glacier, or any similarly highly reflective surface.

Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right...

As stated in many posts, he didn't get them right; he used the wrong conditions. (I doubt anyone here would dispute that, had the film been left unprotected on the lunar surface for four hours, the photos would have been damaged. But it wasn't and they weren't... except, IIRC, for one roll of film that was damaged when it was removed from its protection briefly. Can anyone confirm? I think Keith mentioned it long ago.)

... I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise.

Boy, I gotta admire your chutzpa, Dave! It couldn't have been that he was taken out of context in the video, it couldn't have been that he reviewed the facts and changed his mind, he must have been "bought off"!

Hope you enjoyed that one folks!

Immensely! I now have something for that "funniest hoax believer statement" thread. Thanks.

jrkeller
2002-May-31, 01:37 PM
CosmicDave,

First of all, I don't care if you don't even have a high school diploma (or the UK equivalent). The smartest and most sucessful man I know, never graduated from high school, he decided that fighting in WWII was more inportant than that. This man (not my father) eventually created an international manufacturing business which makes a variety of fiberglass/resin products. He did not, however, just stumble into this, he spend about ten years of his life running a bridge painting company and about ten years researching composites materials and how to make them. My point is this, it takes time to become an expert in a field but you don't always have to go to school to suceed.

If you look at my first post directed to you, you will see that I asked you what your background is/was.

My own background is that I have 20 years of experience in thermodyanmics, heat transfer and fluid mechanics, from basic fundamental research to computer modeling. Of those 20 years, 12 years have been devoted to a NASA contractor in Houston, 5 1/2 years in college and the remaining years split between General Motors Research Division, the Army Corps of Engineers and a software computer. I've done just about everything one could do in the world of heat transfer. I also used to teach at a local college in Denver in the evenings. More recently, five years in August, I worked on the designs of various EVA hardware which is being used assemble the ISS. I know a lot about space suit glove design and the space suit in general. One can't make a tool which damages the suit or the crew member inside.

About 17 years ago (it lasted for 4 years), I was involved in research on melting and solidification processes and at one point I was considered an expert in this field, but since I haven't done reaserch in that area in about 10 years I would no longer make that claim. When I read about people like Bill Kaysing saying that the rocks were cooked up in a ceramic oven, I know that they have no idea about what they are talking about. The crystalline structure of a solid is a function of the fluid flow in the melted liquid which is in turn a function of the Earth's gravity. A rock from the moon will have a distinct and non-terrestrail structure.

As you can see, when I made the comment that the authors of "Dark Moon" or their sources had no background in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics or EVA glove or tool design, it was made with 20 years of experience. Not all of it with a NASA contractor either. I also read you website and feel the same way. Part of me feels that you took people's word for things without checking them out. I would agree with you that traveling around the world to verify every claim would be extremely expensive, but what I would do is find someone who feels like you do and have them do the legwork. Like I also said earlier, if I ever find the themal analysis report of the Hassalbald camera, I will send you a copy.

Here's an example,

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and
that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM. I don't have the documentary, so I could be making a fool of myself right now, but I'll admit to that and that I'm wrong.

The LEM in Space Center in Houston hangs from the ceiling about 20 feet up and there is no access to it. In my many trips to this place every year, its always been there. How were these measurements made then? To me it sounds like you used some else's information. Also this LM was a trainer version and may not be the same as the actual LM. My NASA experience has been that training versions are close but not the same. There are two moon versions of the LM in still around and these should be examined. Do you see the problem here? You're making claims that this couldn't have happened, because you're using the wrong piece of hardware.

Now on to Donna Tietze. I searched all the NASA servers and couldn't find a trace of her anywhere. If you want to believe that NASA erased her name from various documents that's fine; however, I have many documents which precede 9/11 or her 1995 interview and she doesn't appear either. I also can't find her in any of the newspaper archives in Texas.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-31 09:42 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-May-31, 03:45 PM
Ok, thats a hell of a lot of questions pointed my way, so I'll answer all the ones that I can remember.

Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles. As anyone knows who lives on Planet Earth, the Moon is not bright enough to cast any shadow here in the day, so this renders any experiment using natural light on Earth from two different sources impossible. Now, if this is wrong you only have yourselves to blame, because as I said in an earlier post, this was news to me, but I added this theory to my site.

However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions, then I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths.

Someone asked me about the two Apollo pages on my site, one of which talks about the Apollo hoax and the other about photos taken around the Moon of UFOs. That's quite easy to explain actually. All of the pictures that appear on the Moon photograph pages (except one) show UFOs whilst in orbit and thats exactly fits in with my theory that man didn't land on the Moon. The picture that does appear on that page shows Aldrin (I believe its Aldrin) with a bright light above him, so whos to say that this light is not a lighting gantry?

I could easily turn the tables on this debate with all the allegations flying around about my lack of qualifications to comment and that you are all scientifically qualified to have your say. I could easily point out that none of you have been to the Moon so how do you know that what you take as textbook in experiments on Earth, happens exactly the same on the Moon which lacks air or an atmosphere?

What would convince me that Man went to the Moon...erm, let me see....? a few pictures of the landing sites perhaps which could have been taken by the Clementine probe or spy satellites. Yes, before anyone shouts out that such pictures exist, I have seen them too, but am not convinced by a small blob measuring a few pixels across that could really be anything. Before any of you reply about the incapability of any such satellites being able to take such pictures, how come that spy satellites can take clear pictures of things on Earth the size of a pencil and yet not capture an object weighing several tons on the Moon? The satellite wouldn't have any trouble trying to spy through clouds either.

Does anyone on the group know if the remote cameras used to film the LEM taking off from the lunar surface worked for very long after it was left there? And whats stopping a probe landing with new cameras powered by solar panels to take other pictures?

Hope this has explained a little.

SpacedOut
2002-May-31, 04:06 PM
On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles.


Your profile states that you joined the BABB on 5/28/02 – what was your screen name when you were on this board discussing Apollo a few months ago. I only ask because I wanted to find the thread you were referring to.

Andrew
2002-May-31, 04:07 PM
"However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions, then I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths."

JayUtah deals with this "anomoly" on his internet site here:
http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html

pvtpylot
2002-May-31, 04:08 PM
What would convince me that Man went to the Moon...erm, let me see....? a few pictures of the landing sites perhaps which could have been taken by the Clementine probe or spy satellites. Yes, before anyone shouts out that such pictures exist, I have seen them too, but am not convinced by a small blob measuring a few pixels across that could really be anything. Before any of you reply about the incapability of any such satellites being able to take such pictures, how come that spy satellites can take clear pictures of things on Earth the size of a pencil and yet not capture an object weighing several tons on the Moon? The satellite wouldn't have any trouble trying to spy through clouds either.

Let's throw some numbers in this statement and see if I can help you answer your own question. Why can't a spy satellite, in low earth orbit a couple of hundred miles from it's target, get pictures just as clear from the moon 180,000 miles away? Are you beginning to see the problem?

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be trying to work both ends of the argument. Earlier you complained about comments stating that sometimes conditions are different on the moom then on earth, now your saying things are different on the moon, but how would we know how different so therefore you must be right. You ask about a bright spot in a photo and ask who's to say it's not a lighting gantry. Aldrin, NASA and a bevy of other scientists say it's not. I've seen their evidence. Where's your more convicing evidence that it is a lighting gantry?

JayUtah
2002-May-31, 04:24 PM
My point is this, it takes time to become an expert in a field but you don't always have to go to school to suceed.

Right. School gives you a leg up, but it doesn't guarantee your success. One of my friends who lives in Italy is a millionaire CEO of an oil company, which he runs out of an office that looks like an explosion at an office supply store. He has a basic high school education, yet he is one of the smartest and most insightful people I've ever met.

My philosophy is that you are never too old to learn, and never too smart to make a mistake. And those are primarily maxims I apply to myself. I've learned many things without getting a degree in that field or without sitting in a classroom.

I said earlier that common sense does not substitute for specific detailed knowledge of a particular field. That's still true. But it doesn't mean you have to get a degree in the subject in order to acquire that specific, detailed knowledge.

More that a library full of books, more than a wallet full of money, more than the most erudite professors on the planet -- the single most effective resource for gaining wisdom is the willingness to be taught. The actual information is almost always readily available.

Scientists, engineers, and other highly trained people can sometimes come off as arrogant. In fact, science begins with the observation, "Hey, that can't be right." A scientist can't be successful scientist until the point at which he is willing to admit he may be wrong about something.

Of course that doesn't mean we have to go back and question first principles every time. As I said, the very basic laws of thermodynamics are not likely to be wrong.

But what I'm trying to get at here is the notion of "teachability". That's really a synonym for humility. Scientists have to have a certain amount of it, otherwise they'll fail. And in fact anyone who wants to learn something has to first realize that he doesn't know it, but would like to.

At age 35 I decided I wanted to learn about theatrical lighting design. So I volunteered at a local theater where I studied it under their chief lighting designer. Now this guy didn't have a college degree whereas I did, and as part of that had studied the physics of light. On top of that I had taught illumination modeling to graduate students at a university that produced such household names as Gouraud and Phong. One could, in a certain sense, call me an expert in illumination.

But I didn't know a scoop from an ellipsoidal, or how to wire a resistance dimmer, or any of the specific skills that were necessary to the job. Nor did I understand the vast amount of art that has to go into such an endeavor. And so while I could comfortably stand in a college classroom and discuss topics such as irridescence, diffusion, and specularity, I was completely at the mercy of this relatively uneducated master of his art, who had a wealth of information, skill, insight, and who with careful experimentation had observed empirically many of the phenomena that I had learned theoretically.

I could have approached this experience with the notion that I knew it all already and that there was little this old fellow could have taught me. But instead I chose to be teachable.

As you can see, when I made the comment that the authors of "Dark Moon" or their sources had no background in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics or EVA glove or tool design, it was made with 20 years of experience.

And when I said they knew nothing of aerospace design, that's from my ten or so years consulting for design engineers from TRW, Morton Thiokol, Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, and others.

And when I said they know nothing of perspective, that's partly from having grown up in a family of architects and having learned to draw accurately as soon as I could hold a pencil, and partly from having taught principles of numerical projective transformation to college graduate students. After learning it myself, of course.

It's also simply from observing perspective in the real world. See, I can slam out the linear algebra that defines a conical projection through a lens from affine space into projective space. But Bennett and Percy wouldn't understand the proof. If they did, they wouldn't be making the arguments they're making. So my training in this type of geometry is really only good for discussing the subject with other people who have had similar training.

Proof in this case is probably best accomplished by means of empirical evidence. That is, myriads of photographs that show that parallel lines -- be they features of objects, lines painted on the ground, or shadows cast in sunlight by parallel objects -- only rarely appear parallel in photographs.

I would agree with you that traveling around the world to verify every claim would be extremely expensive

As would I. But thanks to the miracle of the Internet the people who live in Australia or England or Indiana or Houston can do the research. Thanks, guys!

Like I also said earlier, if I ever find the themal analysis report of the Hassalbald camera, I will send you a copy.

I have several hundred megabytes and several shelf-feet of printed material having to do with many aspects of Apollo. Just tell me what you wish you had available, and I'll either be able to supply it or find it.

The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston

Are you talking about LM-9?

The LEM in Space Center in Houston hangs from the ceiling about 20 feet up and there is no access to it.

Yeah, you can look right up its skirt.

The upshot is that there's no actual LM anywhere in the world that you can just walk up to with a tape measure and start taking measurements.

Collier measured the hatch on a LM cockpit simulator, which he just assumed was cut to the same dimensions as the flight hardware.

My NASA experience has been that training versions are close but not the same.

The sine qua non of any cockpit simulator is the positioning of the controls. Everything else is negotiable. The main goal of the cockpit simulator is to give the pilot the "blindfold touch" experience. That is, pilots generally have to be able to sit (or stand, in this case) in a cockpit blindfolded and reach out and touch a specific control without fumbling for it.

Now on to Donna Tietze.

It's a staple fantasy of the conspiracy theory crowd that the government can make all traces of someone disappear just by the push of a button. It makes for great Hollywood movies, but it's impossible as a practical measure to accomplish that.

And ironically, the more notable someone is, the less possible it is to "erase" them. Ms. Tietze apparently had a long and distinguished career at NASA. People who have long and distinguished careers have to interact with other people in their field. They write papers, they go to conferences, they send letters to people, they win awards.

Someone somewhere will have a copy of the paper she wrote, her name in a conference proceedings, letters, articles, books. Someone will remember attending her awards ceremony.

Now in terms of inductive proof, it's impossible to prove she didn't work for NASA in the claimed capacity. The absence of evidence is generally not evidence of absence. But it can be, depending on the thoroughness of the search and the objective probability of any such search turning up the information.

If Ms. Tietze did do all she said, there would definitely be a pretty hefty paper trail of it, much of that in private hands where the government doesn't even know it exists. To find no traces anywhere of Ms. Tietze to substantiate her claim is indeed very highly suspicious.

But we've got the cart before the horse. Since a search for her identity would be conclusive only if exhaustive -- and that would be impossible -- it falls to Ms. Tietze to offer substantiation. In short, it can't be proven that she didn't work for NASA, but it can be proven that she did, if she did. Let her produce a pay stub, or the names of employees who would have known her, or an offer letter, or some other reasonably uncontestable bit of evidence that shows she did what she said she did.

Sadly, often investigation must proceed along the lines of what can be proven, not what ought to be proven.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-31, 04:32 PM
On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:

[...]I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths.


The very fact that you would ask this, and in an accusatory tone, indicates very strongly that you have not done any research on these topics! This claim by the HBs has been debunked thoroughly, and in many places, including (as has been pointed out) JayUtah's clavius.org site.

And here we see the core of the problem. Many HBs, and that includes you, cosmicdave, find a site you like, making claims you want to believe in. Then you mirror them, but do not do any work on your own to find evidence that supports or does not support the theory.

Scientists are different. We look for that evidence. I went out and took pictures showing non-parallel shadows. I have other pictures showing how natural sunlight can produce a spotlight effect, which both Sibrel and Percy claim is evidence for fakery (I'll note they both also claim to be award-winning photographers, a claim I find very difficult to take seriously).

I looked up how the spacesuits worked in a vacuum environment. I read up on heat transfer (a topic with which I was already familiar as well). I did some basic math showing that speeding up the footage by a factor of 2 should make the astronauts look like they are moving in an Earthlike environment. I could go on and on.

People with hoax sites like yours almost never do anything to support their ideas other than make accusations and claims with no factual evidence to support them.

Do yourself a favor: go to JayUtah's site (http://www.clavius.org). Read it. Thoroughly. Then honestly look at your site and and see what makes sense and what doesn't. Until you look at your own claims honestly, you cannot honestly say they are correct.

Jim
2002-May-31, 04:39 PM
Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles.

I've been following the hoax debates on this Board since before the Fox TV show. I cannot recall anyone ever saying that the shadows were cast by different sources. I do recall statements that the different angles were the result of perspective (and several links to "earthly" photos showing this), that the different lengths were the result of one astronaut standing on lower ground than the other, and at least one statement that - if there were multiple light sources as many HBers claim that there would be multiple shadows.

Any serious discussion of "multiple light sources" has been to explain why the shadowed areas are lighted (by lunar surface or equipment reflections... indirect and diffuse light that would not necessarily cast a shadow).

As anyone knows who lives on Planet Earth, the Moon is not bright enough to cast any shadow here in the day, so this renders any experiment using natural light on Earth from two different sources impossible.

There was a discussion about stadium lighting casting multiple shadows from multiple sources. This was to refute the HBers claim about "multiple studio lights" and not about shadows at different angles.

Try htis page http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm for detailed explanations and examples.

Now, if this is wrong you only have yourselves to blame, because as I said in an earlier post, this was news to me, but I added this theory to my site.

No, you have only yourself to blame for not reading what is posted here. I'm not sure what you added to your site, but my guess is it's wrong.

However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions, then I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths.

(sigh) This was done already. One astronaut was staning in a depression.

Someone asked me about the two Apollo pages on my site, one of which talks about the Apollo hoax and the other about photos taken around the Moon of UFOs. That's quite easy to explain actually. All of the pictures that appear on the Moon photograph pages (except one) show UFOs whilst in orbit and thats exactly fits in with my theory that man didn't land on the Moon.

So we went to the moon but didn't land on it? Okay, I may have another candidate for the funniest statement thread.

The picture that does appear on that page shows Aldrin (I believe its Aldrin) with a bright light above him, so whos to say that this light is not a lighting gantry?

Also explained previously.

I could easily point out that none of you have been to the Moon so how do you know that what you take as textbook in experiments on Earth, happens exactly the same on the Moon which lacks air or an atmosphere?

Ah, that's the great thing about science and engineering! Once you understand the principles involved, you don't need to do it yourself to know it can be done or to accept or refute the claims of those who say they did it!

What would convince me that Man went to the Moon...erm, let me see....? a few pictures of the landing sites perhaps which could have been taken by the Clementine probe or spy satellites.

Well, that's a better (and more respectable) answer than Kaysing's "Nothing."

As explained before, the camera on Clemintine did not have the resolution necessary to show the LM. However, the "smudge" is easily explained as the result of the landing. The location matches, the explanation fits... Occam's Razor.

Also as explained before (and above), no spy satellite in earth orbit can take adequate pictures of the moon. And there are no spy satellites in orbit around the moon. And there are no plans to send any there.

Perhaps the upcoming mission(s) will satisfy you.

Does anyone on the group know if the remote cameras used to film the LEM taking off from the lunar surface worked for very long after it was left there? And whats stopping a probe landing with new cameras powered by solar panels to take other pictures?

I believe it did and funding.

JayUtah
2002-May-31, 05:01 PM
I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles.

No, I think you must have misunderstood. But that's not really important. The divergent or convergent shadows are not caused by multiple light sources -- either natural or artificial.

However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions

I hasten to caution that some can and some can't. Which is to say, I can reproduce convergent and divergent shadows quite easily in sunlight on earth. And I can reproduce the reflective effects on a small scale here on earth, using both sunlight and artificial light. But I can't do that on a large scale simultaneously with reproducing convergent and divergent shadows.

That's the kicker. You can use one setup to reproduce one effect, and another completely different setup to reproduce another effect, but there's no setup that reproduces both effects simultaneously, and that's what makes it hard to believe the lunar photographs, film, and video were taken in a studio.

I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths.

You've already got the URL to my site, which discusses this at some length (pun intended).

Artifical light would actually cause the opposite effect -- the astronaut closest to the light would cast the shortest shadow. Further, the shadows would diverge markedly as the astronauts separate.

Unfortunately the best I've been able to do for duplicating it is the computer graphics simulation, which may not be convincing in the least to you. And I would understand if it weren't. I've only just recently started taking loads of photos to duplicate specific Apollo photos. This one is on my list to duplicate, but as you can imagine it requires a bit of ingenuity to reproduce at full scale.

I would need two people, a spot of suitable terrain in the right orientation with respect to the sun, and some means of photographing them from 20 feet in the air.

If you would accept a proof photo taken in miniature, I can supply that for you relatively quickly.

thats exactly fits in with my theory that man didn't land on the Moon.

No. If you buy into Dr. Groves experiments, then according to him there's no way that photo could have been taken outside the Van Allen belts. The film would have been speckled by passing through the Van Allen belts, according to the hoax theories, and then it would have been fogged by the intense x-ray environment they say was out there.

Of course I don't buy into Dr. Groves' experiment, but you haven't said whether or not you still agree with it.

I could easily point out that none of you have been to the Moon so how do you know that what you take as textbook in experiments on Earth, happens exactly the same on the Moon which lacks air or an atmosphere?

Because scientists know how and why things happen on earth. We know what factors of the earth environment affect experiments and structures and other feats of science and engineering. And therefore we know what the difference would be when those factors are different or missing.

The problem, for example, with a lot of the shadow arguments has absolutely nothing to do with the moon. The proponents of those arguments don't know how shadows behave on earth either.

how come that spy satellites can take clear pictures of things on Earth the size of a pencil and yet not capture an object weighing several tons on the Moon?

Well, they can see objects as large as the length of a pencil -- i.e., several inches across -- but not as small as the thickness of a pencil.

If you're asking why spy satellites in earth orbit can't see something as large as the descent stage on the moon, the answer is obvious: distance. It's why you can see a penny on the sidewalk a few feet in front of you, but you can't see a semi truck ten miles away.

Let's say a spy satellite is 150 miles above the earth, and it can see a hubcap one foot in diameter from that distance. The angular distance across the hubcap is 0.000072&deg;, which is pretty impressive optical resolution. But at that optical resolution the hubcap would have to be about 1,600 feet across in order to be visible on the lunar surface from earth orbit.

Now if you're talking about putting a spy satellite into lunar orbit, that's a different story. If one could be put into a lunar orbit that overflew the landing sites, there would be no question of its ability to see Apollo hardware there.

Unfortunately the cost would be quite prohibitive. Spy satellites are not cheap. Further, getting it there would be a trick. It takes a heavy-lift booster just to put a spy satellite into low earth orbit. They're heavy. It would take something we don't have in our fleet to get one to the moon. Plus, how will it navigate there? How will it go from a 32.6 degree orbit into a hybrid orbit? How will it insert itself into lunar orbit?

Clearly this thing would need a guidance system, and propulsion system, a different communication system, and it would also have to be hardened against the Van Allen belts. Basically you're talking about re-engineering the spacecraft from the ground up, and that will take a minimum of six years.

And why would anyone do this? No one is going to pay billions of dollars to put a KH-whatever in lunar orbit just to take snapshots of old Apollo hardware. Yes, the pictures would be nice to have, but not at that price.

Besides, most hoax authors have already advanced the notion that by the time clear photos are taken of the Apollo hardware, NASA will have sent it there by unmanned rocket.

Does anyone on the group know if the remote cameras used to film the LEM taking off from the lunar surface worked for very long after it was left there?

"Very long" is subjective. The LRV cameras worked for several hours after the liftoff. In fact, there is video footage online either at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or the Apollo Archive of Ed Fendell panning the Apollo 17 camera around after the crew's departure.

The cameras were switched off a few hours after the liftoff. Since the Manned Space Flight Network is rather expensive to operate, you don't want to keep those people sitting there while you play with the remote camera, especially when you have a crew to bring home.

The LRV batteries wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway -- they would probably have been dead by the end of the second day after liftoff.

And whats stopping a probe landing with new cameras powered by solar panels to take other pictures?

Money, and lack of interest.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-31, 05:34 PM
Oh, I almost forgot about something. You said:



On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
What would convince me that Man went to the Moon...erm, let me see....? a few pictures of the landing sites perhaps which could have been taken by the Clementine probe or spy satellites.

Kaysing used to say the same thing (on the Fox show, he mentions using Hubble). But you know what? I don't believe you. You don't believe the thousands of pictures taken by the astronauts while they stood on the surface of the Moon. Why would you believe images taken by some other source?

You have already shown a profound distrust (and limited understanding) of photography by NASA. This makes me very skeptical about your claims that that you would trust any further images by them.

AstroMike
2002-May-31, 05:52 PM
CosmicDave, I am curious. How do you explain this global view from Apollo 11

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a11_h_44_6667.gif

compared to this one from Lick Observatory.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/fullmoon_lick.jpg

The HBers never seem to talk about the global view photos.

Donnie B.
2002-May-31, 07:08 PM
On 2002-05-31 13:52, AstroMike wrote:
The HBers never seem to talk about the global view photos.

Fascinating.

It took me a minute or two of comparing the photos before I realized why the Apollo image was significant. For anyone who doesn't see it, the Lick photo shows the familiar view of the Moon from the Earth, whereas the Apollo photo is taken from a considerably different angle... some 60 degrees around to the "east". It's quite easy to match features, and determine that it shows parts of the lunar surface that can never be seen from the Earth.

Of course, a hoax believer has incredible powers of rationalization. The Apollo photo could have been taken by an unmanned probe, or could even have been faked on a computer. After all, the "known" features could have been mapped onto a sphere (in a computer graphics model) and then rotated 60 degrees. The "unknown" areas can be filled in with anything you like; who's to say it doesn't look like that?

It's sad, really. I have a hard time understanding the psychology of someone who finds it more exciting to "uncover a hoax" than to appreciate the thrill of knowing that we really did go there, and understanding how we did it.

Donnie B.
2002-May-31, 07:33 PM
On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
I could easily point out that none of you have been to the Moon so how do you know that what you take as textbook in experiments on Earth, happens exactly the same on the Moon which lacks air or an atmosphere?

Good heavens. This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if there's the slightest point to our discussion here.

Cosmicdave, consider what happened on July 16, 1945, at a place called Alamogordo, New Mexico. On that day, the very first nuclear weapon was detonated. It had never been done before, not on any scale. Yet it was no accident -- far from it. The people gathered there to witness it knew almost exactly what to expect. They stayed many miles away, and protected their eyes from the flash and their equipment from the blast. When they went into ground zero later, they protected themselves from radiation exposure.

They understood what would happen in advance because they had used the princples of science and engineering to predict the effects of the explosion. It was, after all, the very goal of their project.

In exactly the same way, the Apollo project used the principles of science and engineering to predict the conditions in cislunar space, lunar orbit, and the lunar surface to plan and execute the manned landings. Just as in the Manhattan Project, they built on a long tradition of knowledge and used proven techniques of extending that knowledge into new areas. When there were unknowns they couldn't predict from basic principles, they did small-scale experiments to get data on which to base large-scale predictions. And just as at the Trinity test, the Apollo landings worked the very first time.

That's why people who understand science and engineering can state without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that Apollo was real. Every single detail of the program (and a vast amount of detail is publicly available) fits perfectly with those same basic principles of science and engineering. You don't have to go to the Moon yourself to verify that. Everything you need is right here on Earth, in the nearest University library.

Donnie B.
2002-May-31, 07:39 PM
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious...

In the Apollo global photo shown above, there is a very unusual surface feature. It's a bright impact crater, above and slightly to the left of center, just to the left of the round mare.

The unusual part is that it seems to have asymmetric rays. About 2/3 of the ray pattern is normal enough, but from about 180 to 300 degrees, there are no rays at all.

Does anyone know anything about this crater? Specifically, how is that ray pattern supposed to have been formed? I can think of a few possibilities, but I'd rather not jump to conclusions...

Joe Durnavich
2002-May-31, 10:25 PM
There is a photo of what seems to be that crater in Apollo Over the Moon. It says craters like that can be formed by the projectile impacting at a very low-angle trajectory. Another possibility is that there is an abrupt lateral change in the composition of the bedrock.

JayUtah
2002-May-31, 10:51 PM
It's quite easy to match features, and determine that it shows parts of the lunar surface that can never be seen from the Earth.

On the near side I always use Mare Crisium as my first reference point. To see Mare Crisium centered in the disk is quite a thrill.

Of course, a hoax believer has incredible powers of rationalization.

The enumeration of alternatives is the beginning of investigation, not the end of it. Unfortunately the hoax believers have this strange notion that simply pointing out an alternative, without supplying substantial evidence for it, constitutes a serious challenge to a more straightforward and supportable explanation.

It's sad, really. I have a hard time understanding the psychology of someone who finds it more exciting to "uncover a hoax" than to appreciate the thrill of knowing that we really did go there, and understanding how we did it.

I have sympathy for the conspiracy theorists in some cases. It's certainly more exciting to suppose that alien beings have an obsession with terrestrial cow lips. And it seems anticlimactic to believe that a disgruntled ex-Marine picked off one of our most noted presidents.

But in the case of the Apollo landings I can't see how the fiction is more exciting than the truth. Good heavens, there is a remarkable amount of ingenuity and technology in the Apollo hardware and procedures. Some friends and I are in the process of going over the source code for the CSM computer programs. This is incredibly tight, robust, and ingenious code. And it should be; the spent years developing it.

The great thing about Apollo is that there's some innovation there for everyone. Many occupational fields can point to some surge of innovation or key breakthrough that derived from Apollo.

Donnie B.
2002-May-31, 10:58 PM
On 2002-05-31 18:25, Joe Durnavich wrote:
There is a photo of what seems to be that crater in Apollo Over the Moon. It says craters like that can be formed by the projectile impacting at a very low-angle trajectory. Another possibility is that there is an abrupt lateral change in the composition of the bedrock.

The low-angle impact was one of the three explanations I came up with. The bedrock composition wasn't. I also considered the possibility that there was a vertical feature -- a cliff -- that blocked the dispersal of the ray material to the west-southwest, or that subsequent processes (such as a magma upwelling) had erased the rays in that area.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-01, 06:28 PM
On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
Ok, thats a hell of a lot of questions pointed my way, so I'll answer all the ones that I can remember.

What's the matter, your "back" button on your browser broken? That's a pretty weak excuse to limit the discussion to just shadows.


Hope this has explained a little.


Actually, no. Perhaps you could just answer the very first question asked on the thread. If the "blue light" is actually the earth outside the window,shot from earth orbit, why can't we see any movement? If you see any shot of the earth from the shuttle, it moves at a pretty good clip below it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 14:28 ]</font>

Johnno
2002-Jun-01, 06:36 PM
"What's the matter, your "back" button on your browser broken? That's a pretty weak excuse to limit the discussion to just shadows."

Or why not just open up a second window where you browse the thread, and then just reply in the other thread, that way you can pick out quotes as you like and answer them.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-01, 06:56 PM
Perhaps the reason why you cant see any movement outside of the window is because the camera is focused on the astronaut rather than whats happening outside the window, making any detail outside a blur or out of focus? The shuttle footage is focused to pick up details on Earth as it passes overhead. Also todays cameras are of a far higher quality than were used on the Apollo 13 mission.

Regarding the spy satellite, of course it would have to be placed near the Moon to take the shots of the landing areas... how good do you guys think these cameras really are?

Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon, as I guess most HBers would, but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released. Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?

AstroMike
2002-Jun-01, 07:27 PM
On 2002-06-01 14:56, cosmicdave wrote:
Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?

No, have you ever been to Area 51? Can you show us the map since we do know what the landing sites look like?

As Jay can attest, the soil near Area 51 has simply the wrong color and wrong consistency, and it does not have Heiligenschein (http://www.weather-photography.com/Atmospheric_Optics/heiligenschein.html), which the soil in the Apollo photographs do.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-01, 07:47 PM
Regarding the spy satellite, of course it would have to be placed near the Moon to take the shots of the landing areas... how good do you guys think these cameras really are?

Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon, as I guess most HBers would, but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released. Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?

Um, you were the one who argued that a spy satellite should be able to see the Apollo sites right now. Remember: Before any of you reply about the incapability of any such satellites being able to take such pictures, how come that spy satellites can take clear pictures of things on Earth the size of a pencil and yet not capture an object weighing several tons on the Moon? The satellite wouldn't have any trouble trying to spy through clouds either. Stop trying to play both sides of the debate, please.

As for Area 51, no, I haven't seen a map of it and neither have you. It's not like the Air Force passes out tourist guides for cryin' out loud! They don't even admit the place exists.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-01, 10:00 PM
On 2002-06-01 14:56, cosmicdave wrote:
Perhaps the reason why you cant see any movement outside of the window is because the camera is focused on the astronaut rather than whats happening outside the window, making any detail outside a blur or out of focus? The shuttle footage is focused to pick up details on Earth as it passes overhead.

Actually, when I speak of shuttle footage, I'm specifically referring to footage of the astronauts themselves within the shuttle. In those shots, you can see the earth moving below. But even if it were a blur, you could easily pick out the movement from blue to white, as the cloud cover changes.

That brings up two other questions. First, why don't we see that change of color? Close to the earth, you see blue change to white, it isn't a homogenous blue color. And second, how did they cover up moving from dark to light? While orbiting the earth, there is a constant moving from night to day. Why don't we see that?


Also todays cameras are of a far higher quality than were used on the Apollo 13 mission.

Perhaps they have more bells and whistles now, but the optics of the still film cameras and movie cameras are pretty much the same. But please tell us how this "higher quality" is going to have any difference on something so simple as picking up the earth out a window.


Regarding the spy satellite, of course it would have to be placed near the Moon to take the shots of the landing areas... how good do you guys think these cameras really are?

Of course, and your point is?


Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon, as I guess most HBers would

Considering Percy, Sibrel, Kaysing, et al. have a financial interest in keeping this hoax charade alive, your statement is utterly ridiculous.


but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released.

Rephrase that. You have a hard time UNDERSTANDING some of the evidence. And the phrase "that NASA has released" makes it sound like they are holding on to certain pieces of information and dribbling it out a little at a time. Of course that is also extrememly misleading, as all the pictures and video have been available since the '70s.


Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?


I've seen the terrain surrounding "Area 51" and I've seen many pictures of all the Apollo missions, and I can state categorically that the two are not ever remotely alike. As a matter of fact, the fact that you do find them "uncannily" alike, betrays your bias and your very poor perception.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-01, 10:48 PM
Hey pvtpylot
You must either be very niave or dont know what your talking about when it comes to Area 51. Of course the place exists. Just because your own country doesn't release pictures do you think that will stop anyone else releasing them? Ill point you towards my page on it at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicarea51.html

The pictures there were actually taken by Russian spy satellites. Until a few years ago you could actually drive up onto nearby mountains and take pictures of it with powerful camera equipment, so it definately exists. I saw the Area 51/Apollo landing sites comparison on a recent UFO documentary here in the UK and I also seem to remember coming across it on a website not so long ago. I will try and dig the video up to see it again and give you more details.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-01, 10:51 PM
Perhaps the reason why you cant see any movement outside of the window is because the camera is focused on the astronaut ...

Then you admit there is no visible motion outside the windows in any of the Apollo shots, as would be expected if it were the earth from low earth orbit. Now you're just trying to come up with conjectural explanations for why it looks exactly like what we say it is, and why it doesn't look anything like what you say it is.

Your argument is along the lines of, "I know it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck; but it's really a toadstool."

The shuttle footage is focused to pick up details on Earth as it passes overhead.

No. The shuttle footage we're thinking of is documenting what's going on in and around the space shuttle. It accidentally picks up details of the nearby earth. It looks nothing like what you say.

Also todays cameras are of a far higher quality than were used on the Apollo 13 mission.

Granted, but perhaps you would consent to applying your expert knowledge of the difference in chrominance and luminance response among vidicon, CCD, and 16mm film to the notion that you're seeing sun scatter through window contamination in the Apollo film footage.

Perhaps you would also like to compare the 16mm film footage of the early shuttle flights with the 16mm film footage of the Apollo flights and give us your expert photo analysis opinion on the similarities, if any, between them.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The footage in question has all the hallmarks of what we say it is (sun scatter) and none of the hallmarks of what you say it is (the earth seen from LEO). You have bandied about for three or four days here without providing any substantive evidence that your hypothesis is correct and ours is wrong. Your argumentation has consisted of nothing but attempted excuses for why it really is what you say, but instead looks very much like what we say. This point began with you telling us we could not come up with any explanation for the window glow. It's all too apparent that it is you who you cannot come up with any reason for why your hypothesis ought to be believed.

of course it would have to be placed near the Moon to take the shots of the landing areas... how good do you guys think these cameras really are?

The details of your proposal were not clear. It certainly sounded like you were arguing the Apollo debris should be visible to spy satellites in earth orbit.

Now that I have explained to you some of the problems in imaging the landing sites using spy satellites in lunar orbit, I wonder if you would be so kind as to explain just why we should undertake such a mission and who's going to pay for it? You just off-handedly remark that it could be done and ought to be done as if it's suspicious that it hasn't already been done. Well, I know why it hasn't already been done -- it would cost a huge amount of money and provide almost no benefit.

Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon

No, I don't think so. You are going to extreme lengths to employ conjecture in order to explain away a vast amount of evidence that very clearly and nearly conclusively points to the conclusion that the Apollo missions were successful. People who want to believe in a certain proposition do not ignore solid scientific reasoning that favors it and instead embrace pseudoscience that supports the converse. They do not delve into colossal amounts of speculation in order to evade the natural conclusion.

It's quite clear that you prefer to believe it was hoaxed.

...but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released.

Only because you have already decided to believe something else. And we have demonstrated that your disbelief derives mostly from your lack of understanding of what you're seeing, your lack of scientific understanding for what you expect to see, and your strong compulsion to believe a different conclusion regardless of the evidence.

There is absolutely no merit to the allegations that there is something somehow "wrong" with the Apollo records. It can be quite easily shown that the so-called inconsistencies and anomalies are merely the hoax believers' misunderstanding and ignorance of common scientific principles.

Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?

I've done one better. I live not too far from Area 51, and in any case I'm very familiar with the deserts of western Utah and Nevada. I can say with first-hand authority that the soil and terrain characteristics of this terrain is nothing like what is visible in the Apollo photographs, films, and video downlinks.

You cannot fart in these deserts without raising a visible cloud of dust. Yet no such clouds are visible in any of the Apollo coverage, even when the astronauts are walking and scuffling through the regolith. Evidence of wind erosion -- lee scouring, dunes, etc. -- is ubiquitous in these deserts and totally absent in the Apollo coverage.

You're talking about the terrain where I have lived for ten years, and I can say conclusively that you are wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-01, 10:55 PM
You must either be very niave or dont know what your talking about when it comes to Area 51.

No, it is you who is naive. I live near it. You've obviously never been there. The notion that the Nevada desert could pass for the lunar surface in dozens or hundreds of hours of EVA footage is completely ludicrous. The soil is the wrong color, the wrong consistency, has none of the optical properties visible in the EVA footage, none of its mechanical properties, and displays the common response to wind and displacement that is so conspicuously absent in the EVA footage. Further, the stark difference between shadow and light is most notably absent in the Utah/Nevada deserts.

Once again it is you who don't doesn't know what he's talking about.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-01 18:56 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-01, 11:15 PM
Hey Tomblvd,
You got it exactly right, NASA are keeping things from us and are releasing it slowly, how long will it take you to sit up and take notice? For instance lets take the water on Mars as an example. I seem to recall hearing this from a scientist in the late 80s, why did it take NASA over a decade to tell the general public if they aren't hiding anything? Also lets consider the latest mission that mapped Mars. It was only after many people protested that NASA finally relented and decided that it would photograph the Cydonia region, namely the face on Mars and the D&M Pyramid areas. If NASA hadn't been pressurised by people like me they wouldn't have even bothered to map the place again, leaving us all to ponder that wonderfull image of the face from the Viking pictures.

My site is done as a hobby, theres no money involved... sorry to disappoint you. Percy and Co may be a different kettle of fish, but I am in the UFO field purely because I have a great interest in the subject, nothing more, nothing less.

Your argument about the blue sky turning to white is invalid. I have watched hundreds of hours of live shuttle footage and many times have seen just blue sky from out of the windows, especially if they are over a hot country where cloud cover would be at a minimum. Secondly, I was watching the latest shuttle mission 'live' when the crew were told that within the next few minutes they would be going to be talking live on a local news channel to a college who had questions to ask. I can tell you, I was really amused that within a minute before they went live on air on US TV that the shutters came down on the windows of the room that the astronauts were occupy..now why would this be when they had not done so for the hour or so that I had been watching previously?

As regards to your Area 51 quip... check out the above reply from me to another guy. I like the way that you say that I have poor perception when you haven't even seen the pictures. I really hope that I can dig up the pictures so that you will eat your words.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-01, 11:24 PM
On 2002-06-01 18:48, cosmicdave wrote:
Hey pvtpylot
You must either be very niave or dont know what your talking about when it comes to Area 51. Of course the place exists. Just because your own country doesn't release pictures do you think that will stop anyone else releasing them? Ill point you towards my page on it at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicarea51.html

The pictures there were actually taken by Russian spy satellites. Until a few years ago you could actually drive up onto nearby mountains and take pictures of it with powerful camera equipment, so it definately exists. I saw the Area 51/Apollo landing sites comparison on a recent UFO documentary here in the UK and I also seem to remember coming across it on a website not so long ago. I will try and dig the video up to see it again and give you more details.



Oh, be serious. You've got a some ariel shots of an airport along with a bunch of of text claiming it's Area 51. It could be any of four dozen fields out west. I know because I've flown over many of them (most US bases are in Class D airspace) and they all look very similar, expecially to non-pilots who aren't used to such perspectives.

Area 51 is a designation that was invented by UFO believers. No Air Force facility was ever known by that name.

Try some supporting evidence, cosmicdave. It works better. Give me a Lat./Lon. location for these photos and I'll look them up on a VFR chart and tell you what you're really looking at.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 19:34 ] forgot something...</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 19:59 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-01, 11:25 PM
JayUtah,
Perhaps I should have explained that the Area51/Apollo comparisons are from the air and not on solid ground. The shots that I have seen were aerial shots, that could be superimposed over one another and perfectly fit. Considering that most of the pictures of the Moon from Space are black or grey and white, soil comparisons could not be made.

As regards to this sun scatter theory... if one was to look directly out of the window, would the sky still look blue? even if the camera was placed directly at the window? or does this effect only happen when the camera is focused on the window from a distance?

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-01, 11:34 PM
On 2002-06-01 19:15, cosmicdave wrote:
Hey Tomblvd,
You got it exactly right, NASA are keeping things from us and are releasing it slowly, how long will it take you to sit up and take notice? For instance lets take the water on Mars as an example. I seem to recall hearing this from a scientist in the late 80s, why did it take NASA over a decade to tell the general public if they aren't hiding anything? Also lets consider the latest mission that mapped Mars.

Since we are talking about the Apollo missions, can you give me specific examples of what informaiton was withheld initially, only to be released later? You can't, because ALL the still film, motion picture film and video was released almost immediatley.


It was only after many people protested that NASA finally relented and decided that it would photograph the Cydonia region, namely the face on Mars and the D&M Pyramid areas.

And found nothing.....


My site is done as a hobby, theres no money involved... sorry to disappoint you. Percy and Co may be a different kettle of fish

MAY! What do you mean may? Those guys are in this for one thing and one thing only, MONEY. And since you made the statement that most HBs want to believe it wasn't a hoax, my comment stands. You may not be in it for the money, but most others are.


Your argument about the blue sky turning to white is invalid. I have watched hundreds of hours of live shuttle footage and many times have seen just blue sky from out of the windows, especially if they are over a hot country where cloud cover would be at a minimum.

Now you're just making things up as you go along. Since the "hot country" is not blue, why would we see blue when the shuttle went by? You would expect to see a brownish color reflected. You also neglected to mention how they covered up going from dark to light.


Secondly, I was watching the latest shuttle mission 'live' when the crew were told that within the next few minutes they would be going to be talking live on a local news channel to a college who had questions to ask. I can tell you, I was really amused that within a minute before they went live on air on US TV that the shutters came down on the windows of the room that the astronauts were occupy..now why would this be when they had not done so for the hour or so that I had been watching previously?

What are you talking about? What were they trying to hide if the entire mission was broadcast, (as they all are)?

Are you trying to say that they tried to cover up the evidence by pulling the shades when the newscast was on, but they didn't feel the need to cover up the rest of the hundreds of hours of video?

As regards to your Area 51 quip... check out the above reply from me to another guy. I like the way that you say that I have poor perception when you haven't even seen the pictures. I really hope that I can dig up the pictures so that you will eat your words.




Please point out to me where I said I didn't see the pictures? There was a website, long since defunct, that hed the picture on it. It was an aerial picture with craters, wow.



But you miss the point, as you are so apt to do. I was saying, rather clearly, I thought, that I've seen the Groom Lake area, and I've seen thousands of pictures and videos of the moon surface, and the two could not be less compatable if one were made of peanut butter (chunky). There are virtually no similarities.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 19:37 ](damm sppeling)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 19:38 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-01, 11:49 PM
Perhaps I should have explained that the Area51/Apollo comparisons are from the air and not on solid ground.

Exactly. You're looking at a photo taken from 150 miles above Area 51, and we're talking about thousands of photos taken from an altitude of five feet.

The shots that I have seen were aerial shots, that could be superimposed over one another and perfectly fit.

Then put your money where your mouth is. Take the Area 51 photo, superimpose it over the landing site, and show us that they perfectly fit.

Then explain why, if we can have hundreds upon hundreds of genuine photographs taken from lunar orbit, why NASA would have to try to pass off a photo of the Nevada desert as it if were the lunar landscape. If, as has been implied, NASA can obtain many close up views of the actual lunar surface by means of unmanned spacecraft, why would it need earth photos?

Further, since the Soviets undoubtedly had lots of interest in Area 51 and their photo experts would undoubtedly be quite familiar with that area looks like from space, why do you think NASA would believe it could sneak "lunar" photos of Area 51 past the Soviets, whom NASA was supposed to be fooling with its hoax?

Considering that most of the pictures of the Moon from Space are black or grey and white, soil comparisons could not be made.

That's the point. The lunar surface and the earth's surface in the region where I live look totally different from an altitude of five feet, and from an altitude of two hundred miles. You're the one trying to argue they're identical.

if one was to look directly out of the window, would the sky still look blue?

If you could eliminate the effect of scatter and of reflection from internal images and light sources, the sky would appear black.

It is less a function of distance from the window and more a function of the angle at which light strikes the window, and the angle at which it is viewed from inside.

There is also a difference in how the eye perceives this phenomenon and how the camera perceives it, largely because there is a difference between eye and film in perceiving nearly everything. Film is accumulative, while the eye is not. Film does not adapt to ambient chromatic variation, while the eye does.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 12:00 AM
pvtpylot,
Yeah thats right, it could be any US airport... how many US airports do you know with a 6 mile long runway? How much evidence do you want? I know people who have filmed the base from mountains as I have said before. If this base doesn't exist, why did the US government buy several more thousands of miles of land around it to stop people getting anywhere near it and why is the place designated as a no fly zone if it doesn't exist? Doh!

Were talking about Russian intelligence here, remember... the same guys who beat the US to putting everything else up in space except a man on the moon!

I'd go and read a bit more before making silly comments.

If the Shuttle is over an ocean you would see blue - no? I am talking specifically about the Apollo 13 footage on my site which shows blue sky outside when the camera is filming directly out of the window, the Apollo 13 is supposedly 8 minutes away from the explosion and around 200,000 miles from Earth. Could sun scatter create blue outside with the camera filming right against the window?

Tomblvd,
You did not say first of all that you were talking about the Apollo missions when talking about NASA keeping things back from the public.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 12:06 AM
JayUtah,
I will really try my best to track down those photos for you. I know I saw it on a site about 4 months ago, but which one?

Wish me luck.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 12:09 AM
On 2002-06-01 20:00, cosmicdave wrote:
pvtpylot,
Yeah thats right, it could be any US airport... how many US airports do you know with a 6 mile long runway? How much evidence do you want? I know people who have filmed the base from mountains as I have said before. If this base doesn't exist, why did the US government buy several more thousands of miles of land around it to stop people getting anywhere near it and why is the place designated as a no fly zone if it doesn't exist? Doh!

Six miles?? Your own website says the runway is 11,960 feet. Doh, indeed. Do the math. The US currently has 65 public use fields and 38 military bases with runways at least that length or longer. Again, give me a lat./lon. for those pics so I can tell you if the airspace is restricted or not, and what ARTCC controls it. How much evidence do I want? How about something that doesn't require me to take your work for it.

(corr. spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 20:11 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 12:25 AM
Hey pvtpilot
Check lower down the page where it shows the whole base in a dry bed lake. It also says a 6km runway! (I worked in miles because we do here in the UK, my mistake, was working from memory). It is the size of Switzerland!

Also, if you dont believe the info on my site, check out http://www.area51researchcenter.com/
which is probably the most comprehensive database on the area. It also has maps so you can pinpoint the base.

If the place doesn't exist, how come I have all the military frequences used there on my site and also pictures of warning signs and surveilance equipment on the way to the base? Why also are jets chartered from Las Vegas everyday to the base if it does not exist?

If you have the answers I'd be interested to know.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 12:34 AM
pvtpylot,
If your a pilot, why not try flying over the region of this imaginary base. See how long your aircraft lasts before the F16's shoot you down... lol

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 12:49 AM
Ahh, I found the map coordinates for the area... here they are:

Rachel, NV (Research Center) 115š44'00"W 37š38'30"N
Groom Lake Base, Bldg 170 115š49'00"W 37š14'00"N
Freedom Ridge 115š38'30"W 37š20'30"N
White Sides Mtn. 115š37'30"W 37š22'00"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š21'30"W 37š21'00"N
Papoose Lake (northernmost shore) 115š51'30"W 37š07'30"N
Groom Lake, center of lake bed. 115š47'30"W 37š16'30"N
Black Mailbox 115š29'00"W 37š27'30"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š22'00"W 37š21'00"N
Janet 737 Terminal (Las Vegas) 115.16450šW 36.09212šN
Area 51 Nightclub (Las Vegas) 115.17714šW 36.12340šN


Items in format 115š22'00" are from map (to nearest 30"). Items of format 115.12345š are GPS coordinates, precision unknown but usually within +/- 200 feet.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 01:06 AM
Also, if you dont believe the info on my site, check out http://www.area51researchcenter.com/
which is probably the most comprehensive database on the area. It also has maps so you can pinpoint the base.

Here's a quote from the webmaster of the Area 51 Research Center: I now consider all alien claims, or government conspiracy stories associated with "Area 51", as lies, disinformation or simply misinterpretations or wishful thinking from the minds of a sub-culture of paranoia. The majority of the "true believers" who have claimed an alien presence at Groom Lake, wanted it to be real, thus it was real, to them at least. One thought became pervasive during my research- Truth Is Subjective.

My own personal belief is that the Groom Lake facility is nothing more than a top secret testing area for advanced aircraft and weapon systems that the government and the military would much rather keep secret than to have in the public eye. The rest, I believe, is disinformation or pure rubbish. I think that speaks for itself.

If the place doesn't exist, how come I have all the military frequences used there on my site

You have a list of frequencies. Some are wrong (Reno FSS is 122.00 and is a civilian agency), some appear to be nonsense frequencies, the rest are unverifiable.

pictures of warning signs and surveilance equipment on the way to the base?

Selfridge ANG Base in Michigan has similar signs. Suppose they filmed Apollo segments there? Anyhow, nothing in the pics associate the signs with any particular location.

Why also are jets chartered from Las Vegas everyday to the base if it does not exist?


Says who? Why would someone fly to a secret military base from a civilian field if they were trying to keep it a secret?

If your a pilot, why not try flying over the region of this imaginary base. See how long your aircraft lasts before the F16's shoot you down

If someone could tell me exactly where it is I might try it.../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Of course, right now methinks I've got a better chance of getting shot down straying too close to a stadium or a high rise.

I've flown out west many times, and yes there are Restricted, Prohibited, and MOA areas there, just like in most areas of the country. The presence of which does not imply a secret UFO base, or that Apollo was hoaxed there.

You have a picture of an airport. It may even be a military airport. It may even be a top secret, US military airport. So what? This is America, we have lots of them. My point is simply that I don't believe it's the fabled "Area 51" because I don't belive any such place ever existed in the context described by UFO and Apollo conspiricists (thanks for that word, JayUtah! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ). To convice me otherwise you'll have to more provide than just a picture of a runway and some frequencies gleaned off of a few websites. The claims your page makes and that you've made here require a lot more verifiable evidence than you provide.

(added last para.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 23:19 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 23:23 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-02, 01:36 AM
Tomblvd,
You did not say first of all that you were talking about the Apollo missions when talking about NASA keeping things back from the public.


This is what I said:

And the phrase "that NASA has released" makes it sound like they are holding on to certain pieces of information and dribbling it out a little at a time. Of course that is also extrememly misleading, as all the pictures and video have been available since the '70s.

Your "misstatements" are getting more and more tenuous. It would be obvious to a four year old I was talking about Apollo, especially since this ENTIRE THREAD is about Apollo.

I would still appreciate an explaination as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 21:37 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Jun-02, 04:14 AM
On 2002-06-01 19:25, cosmicdave wrote:
The shots that I have seen were aerial shots, that could be superimposed over one another and perfectly fit.

The question is do you know what the landing sites look like? How can you be sure that the photos you saw weren't doctored? A lot of HBs do that.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 05:05 AM
If this base doesn't exist, why did the US government buy several more thousands of miles of land around it to stop people getting anywhere near it

Nobody is claiming it doesn't exist. The claim is that the U.S. military and the civilian companies that operate there do not acknowledge its existence. There's a difference.

The reason they don't talk about it is because that's where most of the high-end aerospace technology is tested. Not space alien technology, just the stuff we don't necessarily want our prospective enemies getting a good look at before they have to go up against it.

The point is, just because it's secret doesn't mean you get to make up stories about what you think goes on there and assume they're true until proven otherwise.

Were talking about Russian intelligence here, remember... the same guys who beat the US to putting everything else up in space except a man on the moon!

No. Russian intelligence is not the Russian space program.

And the Soviets did not do "everything else" in space except to put a man on the moon. They captured a few early, high-profile aerospace records. Hoax believers generally stop comparing Russian and American space accomplishments after about 1966 because that's when the Americans started capturing the important records. These records weren't as high-profile, but they are much more important toward getting to the moon.

It's not hard to see that the Russian space program was more geared toward show than toward go. Sure, they nabbed the record, for example, for the first three-man spacecraft. Do you know how? By taking their two-man capsule, ripping all the safety equipment out of it, cramming an extra couch in there, and taking away the cosmonauts' space suits.

The Americans, on the other hand, designed and built a spacecraft that was intended from the start to carry three astronauts in reasonable safety and comfort. Whose space program is better?

I'd go and read a bit more before making silly comments.

LOL! Take your own advice.

Could sun scatter create blue outside with the camera filming right against the window?

Yes.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 05:17 AM
I know I saw it on a site about 4 months ago, but which one?

Oh, well, if you saw it on a web site then it must be true.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to prove, and I don't think you do either. Are you saying that aerial views of the Groom Lake environs were displayed for the public with the story that they were supposed to be the lunar surface? If this is true then those photos would have the standard NASA photo ID numbers. If you cannot supply the relevant photo ID numbers then I will not examine your evidence.

While you're trying to find your site that gives me the conclusive proof I seek, please answer my previous question:

Given that by late 1969 NASA had already acquired several hundred photographs allegedly of the lunar surface at a range of as close as 10,000 feet altitude, and these can be correlated to known features of the lunar surface, it is reasonable to conclude one of the following:

1. NASA had by that time acquired the ability to take close-range photos of the actual lunar surface, by whatever means, or

2. NASA had by that time perfected the art of falsifying pictures allegedly of the lunar surface at the ranges above given.

Under color of either of these, can you explain why NASA would need or want to use photos of earth terrain and try to pass them off as photos of the lunar surface? If they could legitimately obtain actual lunar surface photos, or falsify them convincingly, what possible advantage would this give them?

There is no clear advantage, and considerable risk of discovery from those both inside and outside the United States who might be very familiar with that terrain as seen from the air. Believing your hypothesis requires me to believe that NASA would do something incredibly stupid with no clear motive for doing it.

Alan G. Archer
2002-Jun-02, 05:44 AM
On 2002-05-27 09:48, David Hall wrote:
I went through those questions, and all but one of them I've seen answered here before. Heck, #24-31 aren't even questions. They are just some of the standard claims made by hoax believers, some of them ridiculous and others downright insulting. If you want more questions to ask, move on down into the conclusion.

As for the one that stumped me, it stumped me more for the blatant nonsense it expresses than anything else. I also haven't ever heard of it before now (and small wonder). Here's the quote:

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

Where did this idiocy come from? No supporting evidence, no explanation. Just a wild claim thrown out without backing or logic. Why would anyone make a casing out of a substance that reacts poisonously in an oxygen atmosphere? And even if they did, why would they carry one on a mission with just that kind of environment? I can hardly even believe that anyone would try such a flimsy story.

This has got to go into the funniest hoax claims thread. I'm headed over there to post it now.



Please let me know if this question has been answered, but I believe Dave Cosnette was confused when he published question number two on his Web site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html). Bennett and Percy wrote in their crappy book, "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers," that one of the modifications made to the Hasselblad cameras that were used for the Apollo missions was the removal of the leatherette coverings out of concern that the material could outgas potentially poisonous fumes in the oxygen-rich environment of the CM and LEM.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 01:58 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:13 AM
You got it exactly right, NASA are keeping things from us and are releasing it slowly

I know you're talking about Mars, but I don't care about Mars. The Apollo materials have been available to researchers since the early 1970s. The reason for the resurgence of the hoax theories is that more and more information is now being made available on the web where any unqualified yahoo can download it, crown himself King of Photo Interpretation, and make up whatever story he wants.

If you want to yell about selectivity, yell at the hoax believers. They're the ones that show you one or two photos which appear to support their points while ignoring six dozen which clearly dispute it. They know that their average reader won't check up on their research, even if that were possible given their haphazard documentation.

I am in the UFO field purely because I have a great interest in the subject, nothing more, nothing less.

But why can't you believe in UFOs and simultaneously believe that Apollo might just have done what it claimed to do? You are just unthinkingly buying into a whole web of unsupported conspiracy because it's commonly presented as one huge parcel. It's quite clear that you believe in the moon landing hoax because that's what you perceive as part of your duty as a UFO enthusiast.

Think for yourself. You obviously haven't been dragged away from skepticism toward your belief by any evidence. What you're citing as evidence is merely post-justification for a conclusion you had already decided upon.

especially if they are over a hot country where cloud cover would be at a minimum.

No. "Hot countries" with no prevailing cloud cover appear tan from orbit. Ocean looks mostly bluish black on video, with a specular bluish highlight where the sun hits it. On film it looks more blue than black.

now why would this be when they had not done so for the hour or so that I had been watching previously?

For the same reason you get your hair cut and wear a nice pressed shirt if you are going on television, as opposed to dressing casually to go to a movie. People will be looking at you in either circumstance, but you are expected to make a better impression in the former case.

You imply they're trying to hide something by drawing the shades. If that is your argument, state what it is you think they're trying to hide, and what evidence leads you to conclude that the astronauts' drawing of the shades is actually intended to hide that thing, as opposed to any other purpose.

Further, reconcile that argument with the notion that on-orbit video of the shuttle is routinely broadcast continuously over NASA TV, which is available uncoded from satellites, available on Dish Network, available on many cable systems, and frequently viewable online from NASA web sites. Clearly NASA goes to great lengths to allow people to watch what goes on in their spacecraft, shades open or closed.

Now consider this hypothesis. If the shuttle is in LVLH guidance mode, which would be most of the time, the motion of the orbiter will cause sunlight to shift and move across a video frame. Now the astronauts know that they're pretty much always on camera. So they're not necessarily going to take any steps to improve the image quality during the mundane parts of their work.

But during a designated media broadcast there is some motivation to produce as high a quality picture as possible. If you have a square of sunlight moving across your frame, or even just sitting in it, it's distracting and it causes exposure problems for the camera. So they draw the shades to temporarily provide a controlled and homogeneous lighting environment in order to put their best feet forward for a media opportunity.

But they can't have the shades drawn all the time, and they can't always pay close attention to making a good media impression. But the notion that they're hiding something by drawing the shades is awfully weak in light of the fact that anyone who wants to can see what's going on up there at any given moment.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:26 AM
... that one of the modifications made to the Hasselblad cameras that were used for the Apollo missions was the removal of the leatherette coverings out of concern that the material could outgas potentially poisonous fumes in the oxygen-rich environment of the CM and LEM.

That sounds familiar. But the notion that the atmosphere in the CM and LM is "oxygen-rich" is the problem. The partial pressure of oxygen was 5 psia in each spacecraft, about the same as you'd find anyplace on earth. The rest of the normal sea level pressure on earth is supplied by the relatively inert nitrogen. Chemically the oxygen in the spacecraft isn't going to react much differently than the oxygen in normal earth air.

Now there are a couple of exceptions to this. First, during the plugs-out test in Apollo 1, the pressure was set at 5 psig, which would be nearly 20 psia, using pure oxygen. This would be a very different chemical situation from earth normal, and may cause outgassing of oxygen-sensitive compounds. And then there is the obvious combustion risk which was tragically demonstrated. With such a high concentration of oxygen, combustion would be supported to a much greater extent.

This leads to the second point. For some chemical processes, the nitrogen is important because it inertly absorbs energy that would go toward other purposes in a single-gas environment. A 5 psia oxygen-only atmosphere is a greater combustion risk than an oxygen-nitrogen mix. The nitrogen absorbs energy by increasing molecular vibration. In the absence of nitrogen, that energy would contribute toward the activation energy of some certain combustion. Thus it's easier to ignite things in an all-oxygen atmosphere, even if the partial pressure of oxygen is the same. But that doesn't mean that all chemical reactions are similarly affected. For those whose rate of reaction depends solely upon the partial pressure and temperature of the gas, the rate of reaction remains largely unchanged.

The lunar surface cameras were coated with aluminum for thermal reasons, precluding any faux leather coverings. Any modification to the cameras to preclude potential outgassing would have been done to the CM cameras only, and to the one CM-type camera carried on the Apollo 11 LM but not used during EVA.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:47 AM
Why would someone fly to a secret military base from a civilian field if they were trying to keep it a secret?

There are flights allegedly to the Groom Lake facility from private airfields near Las Vegas. The military relies on several private companies to supply technology, evaluation, and support. While the private company in question will neither confirm nor deny that its employees are involved with Groom Lake activities, it is not farfetched to make that hypothesis.

If people were transported to the Groom Lake facility via military aircraft, this would confirm that the site had a military purpose. (As if there were any doubt.) But by using civilian aircraft they can avoid conveying that explicit idea.

The presence of which does not imply a secret UFO base, or that Apollo was hoaxed there.

True, but at the location commonly referred to as "Area 51" there is indeed a facility which has been photographed indistictly by photographers situated at ground level. This portion of the Groom Lake area is commonly believed to be a test site for highly advanced aircraft. But of course there is no official information, and so nothing conclusive can be said aside from that which can be generalized from observation. The facility appears to be some type of airfield.

However, there is nothing whatsoever to support the notion that alien spacecraft are being housed and/or flown there, or that the Apollo landings were falsified there. In fact, I believe I have pointed out that such a facility would be completely inadequate to supply the "exteriors" for a faked lunar landing.

Bill Kaysing and others have argued that the hangars there were used as soundstages, but that's a different story.

This is America, we have lots of them.

Also true, especially in this area of the country. Much of this land is unsuitable for continuous habitation, and so it is cordoned off for use as bombing ranges and secluded test facilities.

To convice me otherwise you'll have to more provide than just a picture of a runway and some frequencies gleaned off of a few websites.

Agreed. While I don't believe it's fruitful to argue that no facility exists in the Groom Lake area, I strongly believe that it is the responsiblity of the hoax proponents to substantiate that the aerial photos they allege are of this facility, truly are of it. It is also their responsiblity to substantiate that what they say goes on there, actually does.

Being shown two photos -- one allegedly of the Groom Lake facility and the other allegedly of some Apollo landing site -- and told that they match exactly is not convincing. I must be able to authenticate each photo, and I will judge for myself whether, in my opinion, they match exactly.

Alan G. Archer
2002-Jun-02, 09:13 AM
On 2002-06-02 02:26, JayUtah wrote:
... that one of the modifications made to the Hasselblad cameras that were used for the Apollo missions was the removal of the leatherette coverings out of concern that the material could outgas potentially poisonous fumes in the oxygen-rich environment of the CM and LEM.

That sounds familiar. But the notion that the atmosphere in the CM and LM is "oxygen-rich" is the problem. The partial pressure of oxygen was 5 psia in each spacecraft, about the same as you'd find anyplace on earth. The rest of the normal sea level pressure on earth is supplied by the relatively inert nitrogen. Chemically the oxygen in the spacecraft isn't going to react much differently than the oxygen in normal earth air.

Now there are a couple of exceptions to this. First, during the plugs-out test in Apollo 1, the pressure was set at 5 psig, which would be nearly 20 psia, using pure oxygen. This would be a very different chemical situation from earth normal, and may cause outgassing of oxygen-sensitive compounds. And then there is the obvious combustion risk which was tragically demonstrated. With such a high concentration of oxygen, combustion would be supported to a much greater extent.

This leads to the second point. For some chemical processes, the nitrogen is important because it inertly absorbs energy that would go toward other purposes in a single-gas environment. A 5 psia oxygen-only atmosphere is a greater combustion risk than an oxygen-nitrogen mix. The nitrogen absorbs energy by increasing molecular vibration. In the absence of nitrogen, that energy would contribute toward the activation energy of some certain combustion. Thus it's easier to ignite things in an all-oxygen atmosphere, even if the partial pressure of oxygen is the same. But that doesn't mean that all chemical reactions are similarly affected. For those whose rate of reaction depends solely upon the partial pressure and temperature of the gas, the rate of reaction remains largely unchanged.

The lunar surface cameras were coated with aluminum for thermal reasons, precluding any faux leather coverings. Any modification to the cameras to preclude potential outgassing would have been done to the CM cameras only, and to the one CM-type camera carried on the Apollo 11 LM but not used during EVA.



Thank you, JayUtah.

From what I have read at http://www.hasselblad.com/general/Items.asp?secId=585&itemId=1235 and elsewhere, the Hasselblad EC 500EL carried by Apollo 8 was painted black, while the Hasselblad EDC (called the Lunar Data Camera by NASA) used for the later Apollo lunar surface missions were painted matte silver. I do not know the exact composition of the finish used on the cameras.

Assuming that the Hasselblad EDC had an aluminum alloy body, the matte silver finish most likely enhanced its thermal properties.

Albert J. Derr wrote in "Photography Equipment and Techniques: A Survey of NASA Developments," page 21:

All of the early cameras were painted completely black to minimize disturbances caused by the reflection of polished surfaces in the high solar intensity of outer space. The only exception to the rule is the Lunar Data Camera, which was painted matte silver to minimize the absorption of thermal radiation and to assist in maintaining a reasonably constant temperature environment within the camera.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-02, 03:02 PM
Aside from the possibilities already mentioned, I can think of two possible reasons that the Apollo version of the Hasselblad camera had no leatherette cover. One of them even matches up with cosmicdave's claim, though in a rather distorted way.

1) Weight savings. Apollo designers shaved every ounce of unnecessary weight. Why include a camera part that was nonfunctional in its intended use?

2) Elimination of flammable materials. I assume that "leatherette" is a man-made material that feels like leather, but isn't. Such a material could very well be flammable. (For that matter, real leather might be, in a 5psi pure-O2 environment). Getting flammable materials out of the spacecraft was an obsession after the "Apollo 1" fire.

Perhaps Dave's claim makes sense -- if you add the words "should it catch fire" to the original phrasing.

[Added] Hmmm, re-reading his claim, I see that he seems to think the leatherette cover was present on the Apollo missions' cameras, but that it would have emitted toxic fumes. Does anyone know whether the leatherette cover was or was not actually present on the Hasselblad? If it was, it must have been covered by the shielding -- in which case it makes even less sense to leave it on. Of course, I'd like to see some evidence that there would have been any toxic fumes at all...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-02 11:29 ]</font>

infocusinc
2002-Jun-02, 03:08 PM
The leatherette covering on the Hasselblad camera body is cosmetic and also give a person a bit better grip on the camera. Since the lunar cameras were attached to the suit and were used in that configuration for the most part, providing as bit better grip seems non essential to me. Besides the cameras looked really cool (pun intended) painted matte silver! I only wish they had brought a few of them back from the moon. What a collectors item they would be!

If I remember correctly did'nt they take a gold Hasselblad to the moon on Apollo 11?

BTW I am looking for a used 60mm C T* Hasselblad lens to add to my system. If anyone sees one for sale please let me know.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: infocusinc on 2002-06-02 11:11 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 04:09 PM
I do not know the exact composition of the finish used on the cameras.

I know the active ingredient in the EVA cameras' outer layer is aluminum but I don't know how that finish was applied. There are several means available for depositing a thin layer aluminum on various surfaces.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 04:16 PM
Elimination of flammable materials. I assume that "leatherette" is a man-made material that feels like leather, but isn't. Such a material could very well be flammable.

Good point. Typically someone who pays that amount of money for a camera (they're selling used for about $1,300 on E-bay) could demand real leather. But if the material supplied by Hasselblad were polyurethane or any similar substance, it would most certainly be removed from the camera for reasons of combustion, not so much for its potential role as fuel, but because of the toxic fumes those substances give off.

The post Apollo 1 materials audit concentrated just as heavily on the toxicity of combustion products as on the propensity of materials to ignite or fuel a fire.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-02, 04:30 PM
On 2002-06-02 11:02, Donnie B. wrote:
Aside from the possibilities already mentioned, I can think of two possible reasons that the Apollo version of the Hasselblad camera had no leatherette cover. One of them even matches up with cosmicdave's claim, though in a rather distorted way.

1) Weight savings. Apollo designers shaved every ounce of unnecessary weight. Why include a camera part that was nonfunctional in its intended use?


Another good point – many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight. I don’t know if this process was used on the CM or SM but I would not be surprised if it was.

[spelling /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-02 12:31 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 04:54 PM
If I remember correctly did'nt they take a gold Hasselblad to the moon on Apollo 11?

No, you're probably thinking of the Gold camera, named after astronomer Tommy Gold. Its official name was the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC) This is the camera used to take extreme stereo close-ups of the lunar surface. It's the thing that looks like a very large walkie-talkie in some of the Apollo 11 photos, and the object sometimes used by David Percy to show allegedly occluded reseau fiducials.

The Apollo 11 crew took the Gold camera, a lunar surface (silver) Hasselblad, a black Hasselblad which stayed in the LM cabin and with which Roll 37 was shot, the 16mm DAC, and the custom television camera.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 05:23 PM
many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight.

And other materials too. Chem-milling was extensively used on the LM, and less so on the CSM, but North American had it in their toolbox.

Very often the exact shape of a part depends on the limitations of the process likely used to produce it. In consumer mass production you can use die casting and other such processes to produce metal parts quickly and cheaply. These processes are typically not appropriate for aerospace because they introduce stress microfractures that weak the part and provide paths for tearing, corrosion, and exfoliation. Thus mechanical machining from a billet of precise composition and treatment is one of the preferred means for producing parts for critical applications. This limits the designer to the geometries than can be produced by this process.

The mechanical designer is usually aware of the precise load paths that exist in any part he is designing, but he cannot design the optimal part because there would often be no way to manufacture it given the required milling process. Therefore the part ends up being more massive than required because the designer has to leave extra material around the load paths to compensate for the inability to remove it without intruding upon the load path.

Chem-milling provides a method for removing excess material non-mechanically. It cannot be used where precise surface finishes are required (e.g., bearings, bushings, slide paths), but because it can be precisely applied and precisely controlled, it can suffice to remove material from elsewhere on the part.

Advanced manufacturing techniques are the hallmark of aerospace, and got a big boost during Apollo. About ten years ago I used a wire EDM machine to cut the passage in a feedhorn that proved to be about 15% more efficient than the one it replaced.

Imagine a solid billet of aluminum. Draw a square on one face and a circle on the opposite face. Now cut a hole through the billet which blends smoothly between the square and the circle. The normal way to manufacture one of these is to make it two halves where normal milling equipment can cut matching channels in two billets, and then the parts are fastened together to form the whole (and the hole). Unfortunately the least error disrupts the flow and diminishes the efficiency of the feedhorn. And over time the parts slip and fall out of tolerance.

A wire EDM is a device which uses a very thin wire and huge amounts of electricity to burn away the metal surrounding the wire. Or as I explained it to mechanical engineering students: it's a cheese-cutter for metal. You drill a hole through your billet with a regular tool, then you thread the EDM wire through it and connect it to the take-up spool. Then you connect the electrode to the billet, start the spools up and turn on the current, and the arms holding the spools move according to program you have loaded. The material a couple thousandths of an inch around the wire is vaporized. It's really cool.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-02 13:25 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 05:39 PM
JayUtah,
There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

'My point is simply that I don't believe it's the fabled "Area 51" because I don't believe any such place ever existed in the context described by UFO and Apollo conspiricists.'

or


'Area 51 is a designation that was invented by UFO believers. No Air Force facility was ever known by that name. Try some supporting evidence, cosmicdave. It works better. Give me a Lat./Lon. location for these photos and I'll look them up on '.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence. What other evidence other than photos or map references could I tell you about?

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?


Heres some more info for you:

On 17 April 2000 Aerial Images posted on its Web site 2-meter imagery of Area 51 acquired by Russia's Space Information KVR-1000 satellite system. The Area 51 images were acquired as part of the company's deal with Sovinformsputnik, a commercial arm of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency.

FAS (Federation of American Scientists)ordered an IKONOS 1-meter resolution image of Area-51 in mid-February 2000. As of early April 2000 SpaceImaging stated that the request remained "in collection" and had offered a variety of explanations as to why it has taken over two months not to collect imagery. On 18 April 2000, SpaceImaging released the requested image, which had been acquired on 02 April 2000.

This article also appeared in The New York Times on April 18th, 2ooo.

Satellite Images of Area 51 Are Being Put on the Web
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALEIGH, N.C. -- The first detailed satellite images of Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base in Nevada, known to U.F.O. buffs as Area 51, were released on the Web yesterday by Aerial Images Inc. of Raleigh, N.C.

The company's president, John Hoffman, said the photographs, at http://www.terraserver.com, revealed runways and buildings "but there aren't any little green men or super-secret aircraft to be seen."

Aerial Images Inc. -- in collaboration with Microsoft, Kodak, Digital Equipment Corp., Autometric Inc. and the Russian agency Sovinformsputnik -- posted five images of the location on Monday.

The partners launched a Russian satellite from Kazakstan in 1998 to map Earth's surface. An open-skies agreement signed in 1992 by 24 nations, including the United States and Russia, made the effort possible.

"The site is being hammered," said Mr. Hoffman. "This is the first glimpse into the most secret training and testing facility for the Air Force."

The Air Force only recently acknowledged that Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base even exists. The 8,000-square-mile base is 75 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in the arid, rugged Nellis Range.

Beginning with the U-2 spy plane in the 1950s, the base has been the testing ground for a host of top-secret aircraft, including the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117A stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber.

The base's airspace is restricted; aircraft aren't allowed to fly over it. But satellite overflights are allowed as part of an agreement to verify arms-control compliance.

Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps. They believe unidentified flying objects are hidden at the base, where their parts are copied for U.S. prototypes.

The images, with resolution good enough to distinguish a car from a truck, are better than earlier telephoto shots from nearby mountains. The only other known image purportedly was shot by a satellite in the 1960s.

Several government agencies are aware of the images and haven't responded, said Hoffman, 52. "I've had no feedback from anybody that indicates anybody gives a hoot," he said.

"We acknowledge having an operating site there, and the work is classified," Air Force spokeswoman Gloria Cales said. The work involves "operations critical to the U.S. military and the country's security."

From Aerial Images surfers can click on the Area 51 pages. Viewing the images is free; downloading them costs $8.95 and up. Kodak will print photographs for $20 to $30.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground. There are hundreds of buildings, living quarters, tennis courts, a baseball field, a track and a swimming pool.

There are no paved roads and no parking lots; buses are the only visible vehicles, raising the question of how employees get to and from work. Unpaved roads disappear into cliffsides, suggesting a possible underground network.

Even Chris Carter, creator of "The X-Files," apparently was skeptical when Hoffman told him of the site. Some of the show's favorite themes are UFOs and secret government activities.

"He clearly didn't believe me," Hoffman said. "From his tone, you could tell he didn't believe me that we had Area 51 and we had the whole area covered."

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 05:41 PM
Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-02, 06:01 PM
Dave, since you seem to have ample time to discuss the ins and outs of the Groom Lake Test Facility, could you also start defending some of the fallacious statements you made about the Apollo missions on your web site?

You seem very adept at changing the subject, but I'm going to keep reminding you. You have made some serious accusations, some of which have been thoroughly rebutted here, and it is incumbent upon you to either defend them or remove them from your website.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 06:14 PM
I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

Not even close. I repeat my point that "Area 51" is a term invented by UFO conspricists that pop culture has since associated with an actual location. No Air Force post ever carried any such designation. I would also point out that over the last several decades UFO consiricists have claimed that several sites were the mythical "Area 51". Groom Lake is simply the "Area 51" en vogue until enough evidence forces them to find another site to host their conspiracy theories.

In any case, we're losing focus. What happened to your evidence that portions of the Apollo 11 landing were filmed in the Nevada desert?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:22 PM
There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

If you actually read his comments, he's saying that what's there is not necessarily what you say is there. That is, the photos taken on the ground from some distance away, and the photos allegedly of the facility taken from orbit, do not show anything like UFOs or storage facilities that must be for UFOs, or any indication that anything having to do with UFOs or the falsification of moon landings has occurred or continues to occur.

There is an incredible amount of mythology that has been built up around the Groom Lake site, and this provides conspiracy theorists with a myriad of "facts" which they use to support their theories.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence.

I will stipulate that the map references are of the Groom Lake facility, but that does not prove that your photo is of that map reference, nor that the identification of features in the photographs are necessarily correct.

And none of this demonstrates that the site is anything other than a flight test facility for earth aircraft.

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?

You aren't paying attention. The signs prove nothing except the disallowance of entry. I can photograph any number of identical signs at many locations in Nevada and in my state. For example, there is also the White Sands Missile Range Utah Launch Site. (Yes, Utah has space-launch capability.) There is an unlimited-ceiling no-fly zone around it, and similarly ominous signs at its perimeter.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground.

Do you know what a bombing range looks like from orbit?

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

If I read his remarks correctly, he agrees that some facility exists there. He is quibbling with your characterization of that facility.

For my part, I will stipulate that a facility exists at Groom Lake, and that the most likely purpose for such a facility is flight test. I will also stipulate that satellite photos allegedly of this site may possibly be of that site. But I will draw my own conclusions about what is apparent in those photographs.

Now you claimed that you have evidence that aerial and/or orbital photographs allegedly of this site (accepted for the sake of argument to be of some area of earth) "exactly matched" photographs of an Apollo landing site, by which I understand that a very high percentage of visible features can be spatially correlated in the photos. The time is fast drawing nigh where you must either produce these photos and their supporting documentation or concede that you cannot.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:31 PM
Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

False. But by mentioning it in their screenplay, they lost the cooperation of the U.S. military in the making of their film. My source for this is none other than a personal conversation with Dean Devlin, who stayed at the (then) Red Lion hotel in Salt Lake City, less than two miles from my house, during the filming of Independence Day. I was very nearly an extra in that film.

By the way, the location used for Area 51 in the film is the old Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, about an hour's flight in a Cessna from Salt Lake International. It's quite a pleasure to land on those luxurious runways originally built for B-29s. I've been there several times. It now serves as the community airport for the town of Wendover, and is also very near the Bonneville salt flats, across which Will Smith dragged the downed alien.

The U.S. government does not attempt control what can or cannot be said in the media about "Area 51" or the Groom Lake facility. But at the time, if you made reference to the facility, the U.S. military would not provide its assistance to your endeavor.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 06:39 PM
Groom Lake is simply the "Area 51" en vogue until enough evidence forces them to find another site to host their conspiracy theories.

The aforementioned WS Utah launch facility is thought to have taken over some of Groom Lake's flight test duties, and I have already heard from some UFO enthusiasts that the little green carcasses and their spaceship "have already been moved" to Utah.

Ironically you cannot get satellite photos of the Utah site, even from the Russians.

In any case, we're losing focus.

I agree. Let's stipulate that by "Area 51" Dave means the Groom Lake site or its environs. I have several different photos purporting to be taken of the Groom Lake site from orbit, and they purport to be taken of the same map coordinates, and they agree visually. In any case it is safe to say that they were likely taken of the same spot on earth, whatever and wherever it is. Therefore if Dave can manage to show feature coherence between these and allegedly lunar photographs, we can consider it at face value.

If you think about it, whether the terrestrial photos are of Groom Lake, the Sahara, or my back yard is largely irrelevant. So long as they can be authenticated as photos of actual terrestrial landscape.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 06:40 PM
On 2002-06-02 14:22, JayUtah wrote:
I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

If I read his remarks correctly, he agrees that some facility exists there. He is quibbling with your characterization of that facility.

As usual, you read correctly, sir.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 07:22 PM
On 2002-06-02 14:31, JayUtah wrote:

By the way, the location used for Area 51 in the film is the old Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, about an hour's flight in a Cessna from Salt Lake International. It's quite a pleasure to land on those luxurious runways originally built for B-29s. I've been there several times. It now serves as the community airport for the town of Wendover, and is also very near the Bonneville salt flats, across which Will Smith dragged the downed alien.

Yeah, 8000X150 ft runways in a 172 sure can take the challenge out of crosswinds, can't they? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif I was in a club based at Detroit Metropolitan for awhile and I was always startled at how lazy I'd gotten when I had to land at a "real" 2500x50 GA airport.

Jeez, landing fee, parking fee, tie-down fee. I'm surprised they didn't charge me a fee to read the airport listing! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 07:26 PM
On 2002-06-02 14:39, JayUtah wrote:
Let's stipulate that by "Area 51" Dave means the Groom Lake site or its environs. I have several different photos purporting to be taken of the Groom Lake site from orbit, and they purport to be taken of the same map coordinates, and they agree visually. In any case it is safe to say that they were likely taken of the same spot on earth, whatever and wherever it is. Therefore if Dave can manage to show feature coherence between these and allegedly lunar photographs, we can consider it at face value.


Sounds fair. Now if only we had some lunar photos...

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 07:28 PM
My source for this is none other than a personal conversation with Dean Devlin ...

By the way, it's also mentioned in the producers' commentary on the special edition DVD. Director Roland Emmerich speaks at length about the "mythology" around Area 51 and its role in the film. Then,

Devlin: "And in fact the United States military was going to support the film and supply us with a lot of costumes and airplanes and stuff. But their one demand was that we remove Area 51 from the film, and we didn't want to do that. So they withdrew their support."

My conversation with Devlin, after being introduced, went something like this:

Jay: "So what brings you to Utah?"
Devlin: "I'm working on a film, and we're using the Wendover airport for Area 51."
Jay: (sarcastically) "I guess they won't let you film at the real one."
Devlin: "No, and just for mentioning it we lose the support of the military."
Jay: "Just for mentioning it?"
Devlin: "Well, we do more than just mention it. But that's their standard procedure. If you talk about it at all they won't have anything to do with you. Officially the base doesn't exist."

He actually never came right out and said that the government had told him what he could and could not say about it, but so far the only fact is that the military's cooperation in the film was contingent upon not mentioning Area 51. Devlin and Emmerich did not back down, and their consequence was the loss of military support.

Apparently the Air Force doesn't really mind a whole lot if people speculate about what goes on at Groom Lake, just so long as they don't try to find out. Apparently they're rather amused that everyone seems to think they're reverse-engineering alien spacecraft there, and they think it's fine that this draws attention away from what they're likely really doing.

But at the time Independence Day was in production, Groom Lake officially didn't exist, and so any mention of it meant the military wasn't going to be party to it.

Consider all the television programs that have been produced and aired about the Groom Lake facility, the many books, web sites, magazine articles, and so forth. These all purport to be fact, or at least as close to the facts as their authors believe they can get. Yet they are widely published without interference or intimidation from the U.S. government. If this is the case, why would one publication known to be fictional come under such unprecedented censorship for creating a fantasy version of Area 51?

No, there is nothing to support your allegation, Dave. Is there, in fact, any part of your case which is not based on hearsay, gossip, and rumor?

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 07:48 PM
pvtpylot,
Once again your not reading the data that I am posting. If you bothered to read it you would find why the area is called Area 51...

Quote: 'Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps.'

Is that simple enough for you?

If you dont want to believe the IKONOS image then perhaps you could search out the satellite picture taken in 1991 by the United States Geological Survey of Area 51.
Also a lot of the facility is based within the mountain range, hence why you can only see a few hangers and runways. There are plenty of ex workers who verify this and who's stories are on the web. Also many relatives of workers who died there due to toxic contamination took the US Government to court a few years ago to get compensation.

THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL WROTE:
The Department of Energy made it official Wednesday Dec 15th, 1999 that the Nevada Test Site has grown by nearly 200 square miles thanks to some surface contamination
from a 1968 nuclear test and President Clinton's signature on a law this
year.

The new law, according to an Energy Department statement, also serves to
"correct several land use and jurisdiction misalignments throughout the
complex." That means the Air Force takes control over DOE's rectangle
around Groom Lake, along the northeastern corner of the test site, which
had been controlled by the Air Force under a secret agreement.

The location, also known as Area 51 - the site of at least one classified
airstrip - has been shown on government maps as a 38,400-acre rectangle
primarily in Lincoln County that belonged to the Department of Energy but
was controlled by the Air Force and had not been shown by DOE as part of
the Nevada Test Site.

The "misalignments," according to the Energy Department's statement, "had
become outdated and inefficient because of evolving mission needs among the
Department of Energy and Department of Defense.

____________________________________

Perhaps you guys should stick to space and rockets and leave us UFO folk to fill you in on our vast knowledge of the base...lol

As soon as I find the site that has the pics I will post the URL.

I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 07:56 PM
JayUtah,
You proved my comments correct. I think we are talking the same talk but in different terms. Also I'm working from memory on this stuff and not watching DVDs to get my point across word for word.

The US Government or Military were helping the makers of Independence Day and told them what they could add. Obviously they didn't want Area 51 mentioning at all because a huge Hollywood blockbuster film would bring everyones attention to it. Is it any coincidence that as you say, most of the stuff has allegedly been moved to another base?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 08:02 PM
On 2002-06-02 15:48, cosmicdave wrote:
pvtpylot,
Once again your not reading the data that I am posting. If you bothered to read it you would find why the area is called Area 51...

Quote: 'Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps.'

And, if you had bothered to read anything I had posted before you'd have seen that this simply bolsters my point that "Area 51" is a UFO groupies name, not an Air Force designation.

You're beating a point now that only you yourself is interested in making. Your original claim, if you need reminding, was that "Area 51", in addition to it's myriad functions as a morgue for aliens, also played host to exterior shots from Apollo 11. Remember that?

If you have anything other than unverifiable quotes and your own innuendo to present on your claims concerning Area 51 or Apollo, or anything else for that matter, I, for one, would sure appreciate your getting around to posting it.

How's that for simple?

(added content)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-02 16:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-02 16:31 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-02, 08:07 PM
If you dont want to believe the IKONOS image then perhaps you could search out the satellite picture taken in 1991 by the United States Geological Survey of Area 51.
Let me get this straight. You go to a website and specify a location (in this case, Area 51). They show you a picture, which you can look at for free or download for $$$. Either way, you take their word that it is the location you specified. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif
This from a member of a group that would have us believe that the gov't will do anything to keep us from knowing the truth.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 08:11 PM
I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes.

Did you read any of the page, or did you just skim over it? Did you read the part where it shows fairly conclusively that it's impossible for Percy's theory to be correct?

And if you recall, I told you I don't have the means right now to produce that in full scale. I asked you if it would be all right to reproduce it in miniature. You never answered, so I haven't done it. As today is fairly overcast, I'm not sure I can take the pictures today. But I'm not going to do anything until you confirm that you would accept photos using miniature models.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 08:29 PM
You proved my comments correct.

No, I didn't. At least not the implication of your comments.

I think we are talking the same talk but in different terms.

No. We're talking about a completely different scope of involvement. You're backpedalling now.

I'm working from memory on this stuff ...

I'm not. I have a recording of Dean Devlin's voice saying exactly what I told you he said.

The US Government or Military were helping the makers of Independence Day and told them what they could add.

This is what you said:

"Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film."

Nowhere do you mention that this was merely a condition of the military's cooperation.

Further, when you say "could and could not add" you imply that the government (i.e., the military) would have condoned some type and/or extent of reference to the facility, when in fact the policy is to condone no reference whatosever. And the limit of the objection is the withdrawal of support.

You imply that the government had the final say over what Devlin and Emmerich could say -- in any circumstance -- about Area 51, when in fact Devlin could (and did) say whatever he wanted. This is a materially different understanding from what you conveyed.

Obviously they didn't want Area 51 mentioning at all because a huge Hollywood blockbuster film would bring everyones attention to it.

No. The blockbuster Hollywood film capitalizes on the already famous reputation of Area 51 in conspiracy theories. This was the reason for writing it into the movie, as described by Roland Emmerich in the commentary just before the excerpted quote.

It's more plausible to believe that the military withdrew its support rather than convey the notion that their support might acknowledge the existence of Groom Lake or any of its activities.

Is it any coincidence that as you say, most of the stuff has allegedly been moved to another base?

The existence of "the stuff" has not been substantiated. I merely report that some UFO enthusiasts claim that what they believed was kept at Groom Lake may now have been moved to the Utah space launch facility. In fact, they have no evidence that any of this material exists at either or any site.

I'm simply pointing out that the UFO community seems to regard gossip, rumor, and speculation as if it were the same as iron-clad documentary evidence.

You seem to have great difficulty understanding how what you read may undermine your preconceptions. Do you, in fact, make any effort at all to apply what you read to what you believe? Or do you simply read with the preconception that what you read will somehow support your existing beliefs regardless?

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 09:05 PM
JayUtah,
Now your the one who's twisting things. I agree I said "Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film."

Notice the words 'advised'. That does not mean 'ordered'. If you had a financial advisor and he advised you to give all your money to him, would you?

Advice is not an order.

pvtpylot,
Area 51, groom lake, call it what you will, your just nit picking now... we know were all talking about the same place and your really starting to (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) me off. If you really are a pilot I suggest that your vehicle is a paper one, because god help us if idiots like you are flying above us!

I tell you all of another photo of the area taken by the United States Geological Survey in 1991 and then an (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) comes back and says 'but it could be fake'. Lets apply the boards logic here... how do you know its fake, all the shadows fall in the right direction, its in the right state and is from an official agency under the employment of the US Government.

I think you guys would argue that black is white. If your stupid remarks are a way of making me leave, then so be it, but remember that it was one of your members who posted this topic on my messageboard, so you really sent me an invitation to comment.

If your comments and replies are genuine questions, then all I can say is that all this science and space stuff has frazzled your brains.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:03 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 09:08 PM
Okay, Dave, if you're going to break this down into a quibble over the meaning of a single word, I can see that debating with you is nigh unto useless. I will stipulate that the U.S. government "advised" Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich not to mention Area 51 in their screenplay, if you will stipulate that they did it anyway and did it the way they wanted to.

Now you have dodged for long enough. Do you, or do you not have photographic evidence linking the so-called Area 51 site with an Apollo lunar landing? We have been more than patient.

As for arguing that "black is white", it is you who are engaged in wishful thinking. You have been pointed to dozens upon dozens of references, been given lessons in physics, engineering, and optics by professional practitioners of those fields, and yet you have generally refused to supply any objective supporting evidence of any kind for any of your assertions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-02 17:11 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 09:12 PM
And as I have replied, it may take a time for me to retrack down the website where the pictures were posted. Surely you know that UFOs is the second most popular catagory on the web after sex?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 09:20 PM
And as I have replied, it may take a time for me to retrack down the website where the pictures were posted.

Then your answer is, "No, I don't have them but I may be able to find them." So it does little good to continue to debate this particular point. You are not equipped yet to discuss it.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 09:24 PM
On 2002-06-02 17:05, cosmicdave wrote:

pvtpylot,
Area 51, groom lake, call it what you will, your just nit picking now... we know were all talking about the same place and your really starting to (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) me off. If you really are a pilot I suggest that your vehicle is a paper one, because god help us if idiots like you are flying above us!

What's up, Dave? Annoyed because I require real evidence to back up ludicrous claims? If you want to end this debate then present the evidence you claimed you had at the start of this: Photos proving parts of Apollo 11 were filmed at your mystical Nevada UFO site.

I pi***d off an HB who thinks I'm an idiot. Now there's a compliment if ever I heard one...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:06 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 09:40 PM
Dave, there is a new top-level thread with the proof photos you requested

Alan G. Archer
2002-Jun-02, 10:36 PM
Dave Cosnette (cosmicdave) at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html :

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

For a proper follow-up on my part, I paid a vist to a local bookstore and copied a portion of page 9 from the 2001 edition of "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers." This is what I believe is the source of Dave's confusion:


The still camera selected for use on Apollo was a Hasselblad -- considerably modified for the task. This converted Hasselblad was a medium format reflex, using 70mm sprocketed film stock -- we should remember that this photographic kit was going to be taken to an environment totally different from Earth. The Apollo Command & Service Module (CSM) operated with pure oxygen for breathing and therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured. In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment, giving off really offensive and potentially poisonous odours.

The leatherette coverings were indeed removed from the Apollo cameras.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 18:50 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 10:41 PM
On 2002-06-02 17:05, cosmicdave wrote:

I tell you all of another photo of the area taken by the United States Geological Survey in 1991 and then an (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) comes back and says 'but it could be fake'. Lets apply the boards logic here... how do you know its fake, all the shadows fall in the right direction, its in the right state and is from an official agency under the employment of the US Government.

The difference being NASA has endless evidence to back up their claims of what their pictures show. You've presented nothing but your word, either here or on your website. That's why I asked you to provide proof that your pictures are what you claim they are (which it seems you not only can't provide, but you're annoyed that I've even asked) To me, that shows the fundemental flaw in Hoax believer thinking: You find what you think may be a flaw in a photo, and without checking your physics or any other facts you trumpet "Hoax!" to the world, conveniently ignoring all the other evidence in favor of Apollo.

cosmicdave, when you can provide the same quality and quantity of evidence that NASA does to back their claims I'll give your photos the same consideration. Until then you can just keep ranting and raving with the amusing personal attacks when you run out of flimsy explanations.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:02 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Jun-02, 10:53 PM
Alan Archer, thanks a lot for tracking down that camera covering info. It does look like that's the most likely source. I wonder what Dave has to say about that?

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-02, 11:09 PM
Would you guys PLEASE get off this stupid Area 51 garbage? We are giving cosmicdave a free pass to ignore the main questions of this thread. As I've said before, Dave has made some serious accusations, he has been corrected, and now he must defend these statements or correct them on his website.

In the interest of getting the conversation back on track, I'll reask my last questions:





I would still appreciate an explaination as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-02, 11:32 PM
On 2002-06-02 19:09, Tomblvd wrote:
Would you guys PLEASE get off this stupid Area 51 garbage? We are giving cosmicdave a free pass to ignore the main questions of this thread. As I've said before, Dave has made some serious accusations, he has been corrected, and now he must defend these statements or correct them on his website.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like cosmicdave has any intention of either defending any of his accusations or changing his webpage, no matter how badly his assertions are discredited here. For my part, though, the topic is done and my apologies to anyone who was annoyed for participating in allowing the discussion to stray this far.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 12:04 AM
For a proper follow-up on my part ...

Thanks for following up.

...considerably modified for the task.

Unfortunately Bennett and Percy won't give any consideration for the modifications. Elsewhere they argue it would have been impossible to operate the camera while wearing space gloves, despite all the modifications intended toward doing just that.

... therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured.

True, but they're being melodramatic. In the Apollo 1 test environment any spark would have been a problem, but in the normal 5 psi environment it wouldn't have been instant death. And a spark confined to the innards of the camera would have limited effect.

But given the fanatical lengths taken to eliminate ignition sources and remove combustible materials, it is quite true that the camera's electronics were scrutinized for ways to improve them.

In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment ...

This is the key concept. It is not necessarily a chemical reaction we are thinking of, but a physical reaction. It is not the "pure oxygen" environment that would cause outgassing, but rather the "low pressure" environment. Big difference.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-03, 12:07 AM
Sorry pvt., I lost my temper a bit.

I get frustrated seeing people like dave make absolutely ridiculous statements and then dodge the issue.

If he doesn't have the courage or intelligence to defend his allegations, then he should leave.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 12:11 AM
It's all right. Sometimes we all need to take a breather and do something else for a day or so until we get our perspective back (pun intended).

johnwitts
2002-Jun-03, 12:16 AM
I went away for a day and found another four pages of stuff in this thread! It is interesting to watch CosmicDave squirming his way out of corners.

I think the BA must be on holiday, as some os cosmics comments have been close to the 'edit' criteria. I wonder if he's got a (fake?) tan?

AstroMike
2002-Jun-03, 12:31 AM
Here's a photo taken of the Apollo 11 landing site.

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S04.gif
AS11-37-5447 (http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S04.gif)

Here's another one taken of much higher resolution from Lunar Orbiter 5.
http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S06.gif
Lunar Orbiter photograph V-76-H3 (http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S06.gif)

Here's a map drawn of the landing site.

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S07.gif
Apollo 11 site: Traverse map (http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/images/sapo/sapo_S07.gif)

Exactly how do these look like Area 51?

James
2002-Jun-03, 01:36 AM
On 2002-06-02 20:31, AstroMike wrote:

Exactly how do these look like Area 51?

Don't know. Gotta ask the "expert", Dave. To me, the amateur, looks like a moon landscape. Don't look like anything on the Earth to me. But what do I know?

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-03, 02:24 AM
Prediction:

Large chunks of this thread will be deleted. The BA does not tolerate either ad hominem attacks (name calling) or profanity.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-02 22:37 ]</font>

Alan G. Archer
2002-Jun-03, 02:56 AM
On 2002-06-02 20:04, JayUtah wrote:
For a proper follow-up on my part ...

Thanks for following up.

...considerably modified for the task.

Unfortunately Bennett and Percy won't give any consideration for the modifications. Elsewhere they argue it would have been impossible to operate the camera while wearing space gloves, despite all the modifications intended toward doing just that.

... therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured.

True, but they're being melodramatic. In the Apollo 1 test environment any spark would have been a problem, but in the normal 5 psi environment it wouldn't have been instant death. And a spark confined to the innards of the camera would have limited effect.

But given the fanatical lengths taken to eliminate ignition sources and remove combustible materials, it is quite true that the camera's electronics were scrutinized for ways to improve them.

In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment ...

This is the key concept. It is not necessarily a chemical reaction we are thinking of, but a physical reaction. It is not the "pure oxygen" environment that would cause outgassing, but rather the "low pressure" environment. Big difference.



Thanks, JayUtah (and David Hall, Donnie B., and infocusine, too), for following-up on my follow-up.

Apparently, Bennett and Percy relied quite a bit on Kodak man H.J.P. "Douglas" Arnold for their "research." I may be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Arnold is a Hoax Believer.

See: http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm ; http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.5886.html ; http://physics.iop.org/IOP/Press/PR0299.html ; http://www.nikonownersclub.com/benefits/magazine.html

More on Hasselblad leatherette removal: http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HBSpaceItem.asp?secId=584&itemId=530 ; http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HBSpaceItem.asp?secId=584&itemId=534

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 23:00 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-03, 04:54 AM
On 2002-06-02 17:05, cosmicdave wrote:

pvtpylot,
Area 51, groom lake, call it what you will, your just nit picking now... we know were all talking about the same place and your really starting to word deleted by the Bad Astronomer me off. If you really are a pilot I suggest that your vehicle is a paper one, because god help us if idiots like you are flying above us!


cosmicdave:

You are being rude, and you used a word I am not happy with. Read the FAQ. Consider this your only warning. If you continue in this vein you will be banned.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 12:55 PM
Ok,
I am going to answer all the questions put to me here and now in this one post.

First to answer pvtpylots question, or should I say accusation:

'The difference being NASA has endless evidence to back up their claims of what their pictures show. You've presented nothing but your word, either here or on your website. That's why I asked you to provide proof that your pictures are what you claim they are (which it seems you not only can't provide, but you're annoyed that I've even asked).'

It’s really simple to answer this question. Firstly, I have given you plenty of evidence about Area 51 and have directed you to other sites and I have shown you pictures of satellite images of Area 51 which were taken by a Russian Space Agency and a company employed by the US government, but you still don't believe me. Your accusation that you can only take my word for it or I have only directed you to my own website is completely false.

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.

Of course NASA has released loads of pictures of the Moon because they are the agency which allegedly went there. Also lets remember that they had 25 billion Dollars (http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/The.Apollo.Program/The.Apollo.Program.pdf ) of US taxpayers money to get the evidence right. Where else do you suggest that I go to see pictures of the Moon landing if NASA are the only agency to possess the photographic evidence?

I find the groups stance against me is rather hypocritical. You challenge me to provide evidence of my claims by giving you evidence from several different sources and yet you yourselves only have NASA’s evidence to go by. I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

You guys are missing one very important point and that is the fact that every single piece of film and stat comes from either NASA or a company within NASA’s employment, no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA and all TV footage was taken by TV cameras filming the main screens at Houston. Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide? Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.

Now onto Tomblvd’s question:

I would still appreciate an explanation as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness? I commented on the blue sky seen in one of the films from Apollo 13, I don’t see how this relates to your question? From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

If the CM was up there how could you tell that it was not just another satellite? I know that satellite tracking can be done easily in this age of the Internet, but lets put ourselves back 30 odd years. Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?

Alan g. Archer:

Can you point me to the evidence that says that NASA removed the leatherette covering from the Hasselblad cameras?

Astro Mike:

Many thanks for posting those pictures. What’s the difference between the Apollo pics and the Lunar Orbiter 5 ones? Couldn’t the Lunar Orbiter 5 or a similar probe be able to take the footage allegedly taken onboard the Apollo missions?

To finish this post, I guess that to see the real truth and confirm your beliefs we will have to wait until China send up their crew to the Moon. But, I will put my neck on the line now and predict that they will not make it. My reasons for this assumption is simple and could result from any of the following.

1. Sabotage
2. The US not allowing them to (remember Dennis Tito)
3. They will die on the way
4. They will realise that it can’t be done and abandon the project
5. Costs become to much and abandon the project


I hope that answers your questions… but somehow I think you’ll still disagree.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-03, 01:26 PM
On 2002-06-03 08:55, cosmicdave wrote:

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.


The difference is simple. I don't have to believe just NASA to corroborate the Apollo program. Other governments and independent ham radio operators across the globe tracked Apollo. Scientists and engineers having nothing to do with NASA or the government have reviewed the equipment, the transcripts, the photos and NASA's mountains of other data and found no flaws. A purely subjective observation, but it seems to me that the only people who have found flaws in the evidence have either a history of conspiracy-type findings based on little or no evidence, or have a monetary stake in their claims.

Your data does not have the same empirical and independently verified evidence standing behind it.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-03, 02:37 PM
On 2002-06-03 08:55, cosmicdave wrote:
I find the groups stance against me is rather hypocritical. You challenge me to provide evidence of my claims by giving you evidence from several different sources and yet you yourselves only have NASA’s evidence to go by. I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

You guys are missing one very important point and that is the fact that every single piece of film and stat comes from either NASA or a company within NASA’s employment, no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA and all TV footage was taken by TV cameras filming the main screens at Houston. Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide? Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.


First – Since it is you and the other HB’s that state that the Apollo record is false as presented by NASA it is absolutely up to you to prove the NASA record is false it is not our responsibility to prove the NASA record. We simply state the NASA record stands on its own merit.

I think JayUtah has already answered the TV Coverage issue.

Also – You have not answered one of my questions –



On 2002-05-31 12:06, SpacedOut wrote:


On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles.

Your profile states that you joined the BABB on 5/28/02 – what was your screen name when you were on this board discussing Apollo a few months ago. I only ask because I wanted to find the thread you were referring to.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 04:09 PM
Firstly, I have given you plenty of evidence about Area 51

Except for the key evidence: the juxtaposition of the Area 51 photos with the Apollo 11 landing sites, which you can't seem to find. At this point we would settle for some handwaving. Failing that, it is time to leave Area 51 behind and return to the subjects at hand.

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.

The moon is not a top secret military installation.

I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

No, we do not uncritically accept NASA's statements. I have spent considerable time and money verifying NASA's claims. The U.S. military has admitted it was trying to keep the existence and function of the Groom Lake facility a secret. When there is absolutely no question that the controlling organization is trying to keep a secret, this makes it crucial to verify any third-party information.

NASA, on the other hand, spends considerable effort and money making its Apollo records and findings available to whoever asks for it. The only source of the notion that they're trying to hide a hoax comes from NASA's accusers: a very small minority of conspiracy-obsessed people with no evidence for it. There is simply no credible reason to distrust NASA on the subject of the moon landings, unless you can provide one.

But that's neither here nor there. Nobody wants to talk about Area 51 anymore since you can't prove the point which brought this all up: that an Apollo moon landing site looks very closely like aerial photos of some place on earth.

Further, I have no problem criticizing NASA for Apollo 1, the Challenger, and various aspects of "better, cheaper, faster" it couldn't seem to get right. The notion that we're all NASA cheerleaders is unfounded. We simply lack your a priori distrust.

no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

I see your point, but I don't think it's valid. You make the mistake of assuming that NASA could just lie about various aspects of the Apollo project, and no one would be the wiser.

There are literally thousands of people in the world who can inspect NASA's claims and give an expert ruling on whether they make sense. Apollo hardware is used to teach up and coming engineers. Apollo documentation is used as handouts in class. Apollo techniques and methods are still being used in aerospace today.

My private library contains some 85,000 pages of documentation on the various aspects of the Apollo mission, and I've just barely scratched the surface of what's available. Now you may not understand any of it, but I do. It was, at one point, my job to know how build machines that can do things in space.

Of course the cardinal rule of deception is to keep the story simple. If that's the case, then why has NASA scrupulously documented every single aspect of its endeavor? This seems much more consistent with a group that's trying to document a historical occurence, not falsify one.

Finally, NASA is audited reguarly. Most government agencies are audited by private CPAs -- chartered accountants, in your vernacular. And the Apollo expenditures were very closely scrutinized by Congress.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA ...

... to live worldwide television, making it the most watched event.

Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide?

They did. Bart Sibrel's contention that this was not provided is false. I have confirmed this with the people who actually operated the equipment.

At the ground stations during Apollo 11, a camera focused at a CRT was used as a simple scan rate converter. Since this procedure was to be used only for Apollo 11, more elaborate equipment was not contemplated. This is the source of the rumor that TV stations had to aim their cameras at the screens in Houston. In fact, when the signal arrived at Houston it was split and amplified to the news networks in the customary electronic fashion.

The camera-CRT arrangement was never used again. The ground stations had scan converters used for the subsequent missions. But because of Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics they could not be used for that mission.

Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.

Name one other live event that required this level of technical sophistication You won't be able to. If you read my other posts on this forum, you'll understand that today's "live" television is actually considerably less live that Apollo's downlink. Yet no one argues that it's routinely faked.

But you conveniently forget that this camera-CRT method was used only once, for Apollo 11, and that broadcast quality television was provided for Apollos 13 through 17. If NASA had something to hide, why would they provide progressively better quality and progressively more coverage?

You are really quite something. You are stuck on the idea that NASA was trying to hide something and you completely ignore or sidestep every other possible explanation. Yet you sit there and tell us you'd really like to believe in Apollo? Please!

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness?

Each low earth orbit, regardless of inclination, spends about 45 minutes in sunlight and 45 minutes in darkness. On the dark side you can see the stars if you turn out your spacecraft's cabin lights. You cannot see the "blue" earth because you're looking at the dark side. If you strain, you can see city lights. But there will be no sunlight through your window, now glow from earth, no strong external light source of any kind, unless the moon is in the right place.

From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

That's the problem. You claim the spacecraft was in low earth orbit. Yet you cannot explain why the glow seen through the command module windows does not switch between blue (dayside part of the orbit) and black (nightside part of the orbit) in the television coverage or between photos. Nor do you explain why NASA didn't arrange for all the telecasts and photography to be done on the nightside, where the expectation of a black view through the windows could have been met.

The fact that you always see some blue in the window is actually evidence that the scatter theory is more likely. Some side of the spacecraft would always have been in direct sunlight during the translunar coast. There is no nightside to a lunar transfer orbit, therefore the effects of sun are expected to always be visible.

The observed phenomena agree fully with our hypothesis that the blue is reflection and scatter. They are inconsistent with your hypothesis of a low earth orbit. You have spent so much time backpedalling and spinning additional conjecture on this point that the time has now come for you to admit that we have indeed satisfied your request for a suitable alternative explanation. You simply don't know how it works and don't want to hear it.

Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?

Yes, you would. You've obviously never tracked a satellite before, otherwise you wouldn't even ask that question. Many amateur trackers in the early days of space travel were just as good as professional rocket scientists at computing and predicting orbital ephemerides. And many of the trackers were not amateurs; they were college professors and students who were following Apollo's progress using their facilities.

Can you point me to the evidence that says that NASA removed the leatherette covering from the Hasselblad cameras?

He has quoted Dark Moon which lists the covering as one of the items covered under the modification plan. He has provided links to NASA web sites and Hasselblad web sites. How much more evidence do you need?

Can you provide any evidence that it was left on? Can you provide any evidence that it would have "melted" in the pure oxygen environment as you state? The only expert you've cited believes the problem is outgassing in a low-pressure environment, not some sort of spontaneous bursting into flame.

Further, in your 32 questions you imply that the environment, which would supposedly cause the leatherette cover to melt, would have been dangerous to the astronauts. Can you explain why?

Couldn’t the Lunar Orbiter 5 or a similar probe be able to take the footage allegedly taken onboard the Apollo missions?

According to your hypothesis, none of this photography is possible due to the extreme radiation environment in space which you argue on the authority of David Groves would have fogged the film. This has been brought to your attention numerous times and you haven't addressed it.

I hope that answers your questions… but somehow I think you’ll still disagree.

I'm offended. You took me to task for not providing the demonstration photos about shadow length that you asked for. When the weather cleared I constructed a suitable apparatus and photographed it. I posted them to a separate thread on this board that included your name in the title, and notified you here of its presence. All other participants in this thread managed to notice it.

Typically when you ask for evidence that disputes your findings, and it's provided, it's customary to at least acknowledge that it was provided even if you don't address its content.

Further, as I proposed, I have fully answered your 32 questions. The answers can be found at http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html I also posted that link here, and you have completely ignored it.

You have been asked persistently and politely for evidence that backs up your arguments on your web page. You have provided only Dark Moon, which we do not accept as authoritative for reasons clearly spelled out in detail here, and largely irrelevant conjecture on Area 51, which was only tangential to the point you wish to make.

It is becoming quite clear that you have no intention of engaging in any substantive degree of debate regarding your statements. Do you, in fact, have any plans whatsoever to take meaningful responsibility for your accusations?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-03 12:21 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-03, 04:59 PM
Now onto Tomblvd?s question:

I would still appreciate an explanation as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness? I commented on the blue sky seen in one of the films from Apollo 13, I don?t see how this relates to your question? From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

If the CM was up there how could you tell that it was not just another satellite? I know that satellite tracking can be done easily in this age of the Internet, but lets put ourselves back 30 odd years. Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?



Your "answers" prove to me that you are completely out of your element here. If you didn't realize that an orbiting spacecraft only spends a limited amount of time in sunlight, or you really think the orbiting CM wouldn't be noticed by anybody, including astronomers from other countries, you don't understand the absolute BASICS of spacetravel that would be covered in a basic science course.

I'm in the process right now of reading Andrew Chaikin's A Man on the Moon, which covers the entire Apollo program. Honsetly, you should read it sometime. But the point I wanted to make is that the technicians at Mission Control could track the Apollo spacecraft so accurately that their plots would show a wiggle whenever the CM/LM would vent waste. How do you fake that, and all the telemetry and voice transmissions that go along with it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 13:01 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 05:09 PM
One of Dave's 32 questions is a verbatim lift from Bart Sibrel's open letter, wherein he invokes TETR-A to cover the transmission. Of course neither Bart nor Dave appears to understand the first thing about orbital mechanics. It makes it so much easier to come up with theories when you don't have to pay attention to any of those inconvenient facts.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 05:37 PM
You state 'Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics'. and what would those be? How uniquely different were they to the other missions?

Yes, I just read and saw your other posts on other groups here about 30 minutes ago, which I have, or am in the process of answering. Boy you all seem to be so impatient on here, I haven't got all day to debate this you know and do other things than talk about space all day.

I cannot see what your problem is about the Area 51 photo, I have said that I will look for it and you should be satisfied with that answer. I haven't said no I'm not going to bother looking or can't be bothered to show you,so keep your hair on!

You say 'There are literally thousands of people in the world who can inspect NASA's claims and give an expert ruling on whether they make sense. Apollo hardware is used to teach up and coming engineers. Apollo documentation is used as handouts in class. Apollo techniques and methods are still being used in aerospace today.'

I agree there are many people who have seen the evidence, but for all you know NASA could have employed scientists to make sure that all the evidence checked out before releasing it - simple really when you think about it.

Yes, please remind me, Apollo and the Saturn V rocket was so successful that they scrapped it and decided to use a much more expensive Shuttle which could carry considerably less cargo. Is that advancement?

You say: ' If that's the case, then why has NASA scrupulously documented every single aspect of its endeavor?'

Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to. After all NASA are wasting billions of dollars going into space when it could be spent on the health service or other good causes, so they have to account for what they are wasting the money on, oh and theres the taxman of course, they have to make sure that they get so much money back from the Ł1b they spend on toilet rolls every year (you may not get that joke). NASA have to cover their butts some how don't they?

'Name one other live event that required this level of technical sophistication You won't be able to.'

What about LiveAid or the World Cup finals which is happening right now?

The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.

I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch! I don't know how many more times I have to say that all the Apollo 13 footage that I have with blue sky is just before the explosion and takes place over a few minutes.

If the casing of the camera were to 'offgas' the fumes would affect the astronauts.

On the film fogging issue, considering that you believe that my fogging theory is wrong, lets take your point of view that the film would be ok. Could the Lunar Orbiter have taken the pictures or not?

I'm not the only one dodging question here either - you havent answered my reply about the same 'stars' appearing in the sky in the same formation even though the camera is taking pictures at different angles. And you havent answered my question about whether it was possible for the Orbiter to take the photos. Now who's changing the subject to steer clear of an answer?

To answer the other guys question, I guess the other debate took place around Christmas time (Dunno whether old posts are scrubbed off here after a while) I could have been called littlegreys then?

Karl
2002-Jun-03, 05:54 PM
On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:

The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.


Are you really trying to propose that the directional properties of an 27MHz HF antenna compare to a 12ft dish used at S-band?

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-03, 06:01 PM
The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.

You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. This is from the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station website:

The station had several purposes - to send commands and receive telemtry from the spacecraft, and to 'track' its position. The position tracking was achieved using range and the doppler derived from the radio signal. The transmitter frequency was very precise (1 x 10 -12 error). This frequency was shifted by a precise ratio at the spacecraft, so that the received frequency is still directly related to the transmit frequency at the tracking station. The difference was used to determine the doppler shift, which in turn was related to the angular velocity of the spacecraft. This doppler shift was corrected for earth rotation to become part of the position determination. The other part is the range, determined by how long the signal took to return. A pseudo random code mixed with the modulation helped determine the timing, considering the Round Trip Light Time (RTLT) can be many hours. Easy to see why computers were so useful!



I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch! I don't know how many more times I have to say that all the Apollo 13 footage that I have with blue sky is just before the explosion and takes place over a few minutes.


What about the hours and hours of footage from 13 and all the other missions? And you still have yet to adequately explain why the "blue color" is so homogenous when it should be changing due to passing over ocean, land and clouds.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 14:02 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Jun-03, 06:07 PM
On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:
And you havent answered my question about whether it was possible for the Orbiter to take the photos.

Well, I will. And the problem is simply the quality of the Lunar Orbiter photos.

Here's a Lunar Orbiter 5 photo taken of the Hadley Rille region.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/lo5_m105.gif
Lunar Orbiter 5, frame M-105 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/lo5_m105.html)

Compared to this one taken from Apollo 15.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS15/images/A15landsite.jpg
AS15-1135 (http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS15/images/A15landsite.jpg)

You can note that not only the Lunar Orbiter 5 photo has a fuzzier quality but has some dark vertical lines extending down probably because of the poor quality.

Karl
2002-Jun-03, 06:30 PM
On 2002-06-03 14:01, Tomblvd wrote:

You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. This is from the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station website:

The station had several purposes - to send commands and receive telemtry from the spacecraft, and to 'track' its position. The position tracking was achieved using range and the doppler derived from the radio signal. The transmitter frequency was very precise (1 x 10 -12 error). This frequency was shifted by a precise ratio at the spacecraft, so that the received frequency is still directly related to the transmit frequency at the tracking station. The difference was used to determine the doppler shift, which in turn was related to the angular velocity of the spacecraft. This doppler shift was corrected for earth rotation to become part of the position determination. The other part is the range, determined by how long the signal took to return. A pseudo random code mixed with the modulation helped determine the timing, considering the Round Trip Light Time (RTLT) can be many hours. Easy to see why computers were so useful!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 14:02 ]</font>


Although the amateurs couldn't use two way ranging, K2RIW was able to monitor the doppler from the LM and observe it go to zero when the LM landed.

He used a 12ft dish which had a beamwidth of about 1 degree, or about twice the diameter of the moon.

CJSF
2002-Jun-03, 06:43 PM
On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:
Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to. After all NASA are wasting billions of dollars going into space when it could be spent on the health service or other good causes, so they have to account for what they are wasting the money on,


PLEASE! I've heard this argument so often it makes me sick!

FEDERAL BUDGET FOR FY2002:
Health and Human Services: $460 Billion
NASA: $14.5 Billion

Out of a budget of nearly 2 TRILLION.

H & HS gets nearly 23%
NASA gets about 0.7%

Social Security alones gets about 20% and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid get about 20% as well.

And remember, sizeable portions of EVERY department, agency, etc. goes to providing "human services", such as clothing, food, housing and medical care.

CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-03 14:43 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 06:55 PM
You state 'Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics'. and what would those be? How uniquely different were they to the other missions?

See http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html

No other mission used this method of television transmission.

I haven't got all day to debate this you know and do other things than talk about space all day.

Then you shouldn't make such statements in public. It's monumentally rude to make a whole series of unfounded accusations and then try to excuse yourself from responsibility for them by saying you don't have time to back them up.

I have said that I will look for it and you should be satisfied with that answer.

And until then there is no use belaboring Area 51. When you find the proof photo in question, post it for discussion. Until then, Area 51 is a dead subject.

I agree there are many people who have seen the evidence, but for all you know NASA could have employed scientists to make sure that all the evidence checked out before releasing it - simple really when you think about it.

If all the evidence "checks out", then Apollo could have succeeded as advertised. Simple, really, when you think about it.

You seem to persist in this odd notion that physical law amounts to a matter of opinion. Either the Apollo data, hardware, and so forth correspond to what's required for an actual mission, or it does not. I, and several other qualified people have found that it does indeed correspond. So far the only people who argue that it doesn't are those with no experience or qualifications in the necessary field, and whose theories are so much pseudoscientific gibberish.

You're simply piling on more conjecture to attempt to correct the problems with your original conjecture. That's not evidence. If you believe the Apollo data has been falsified or "groomed", then provide evidence for that. Don't just idly suggest the possibility.

Is that advancement?

What does this have to do with anything? Please try to stay on one subject long enough to find some closure.

Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to.

Then you concede that NASA has not doled out minute tidbits of Apollo information, as you argued, but has in fact provided a monumental amount of evidence in support of Apollo since the early 1960s.

That doesn't answer why NASA breaks the cardinal rule of deception. The more falsified detail they provide, the more likely that detail will clash with something else that's already out there. Yet the Apollo program remains one of the most thoroughly and consistently documented historical endeavors of the 20th century.

The point is that NASA's behavior is fully consistent with someone trying to legitimately document their work, and largely inconsistent with someone trying to hide a large-scale falsification.

You originally tried to argue that NASA was hiding something because they allegedly doled out Apollo information in small quantities. Now you've all but agreed that they have handed it out in huge quantities. I'll consider that point conceded.

What about LiveAid or the World Cup finals which is happening right now?

Those are not equivalent to sending a television signal from the moon. Comparing modern television uplinks to S-band signals from the moon thirty years ago is decidedly apples and oranges.

If you believe they are equivalent, then please describe in detail what is required for a typical satellite uplink today, and what was required for the S-band television transmissions from the lunar surface.

Or you can simply admit that you have no appreciable expertise in either modern or historical television technology, and therefore that your assessment of Apollo 11's television quality is uninformed.

I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction.

What bands have you worked in? Have you worked in the C-band? The S-band? The Ku-band? Until a few months ago my job included maintaining an antenna farm for deep space and geosynchronous high-bandwidth digital communications. I can speak at great length if necessary about alighment tolerances and signal formats.

Further, even with a mast antenna you would be able to tell the difference between a spacecraft in low earth orbit and spacecraft on a translunar trajectory. It's a simple matter of ephemerides.

I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch!

Fine, that explains your selective evidence, but not all the evidence. You claimed all the footage showed blue. You claimed the photographs showed blue. Have I misunderstood?

If you wish to restrict the scope of the explanation to Apollo 13, then I will add in the effect of condensed breathing moisture on the windows.

You still have not offered any substantive response to the notion that scatter and reflection due to window contaminants is a viable alternative to your low-earth-orbit theory. You wanted an answer; you got it. Do you now plan just to ignore it?

If the casing of the camera were to 'offgas' the fumes would affect the astronauts.

Ah, your statement was unclear. You don't specify what, specifically, you believe would have affected the astronauts. My mistake.

However, the other part of my question still stands. You claim, in your Question #2,

"The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases."

This is different from Bennett and Percy's argument. They say the low pressure of the environment, not its composition, would have caused outgassing. They do not mention melting at all.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that a 5 psia pure oxygen atmosphere would cause leatherette to melt. If you cannot, please retract it.

Could the Lunar Orbiter have taken the pictures or not?

No. I believe the Lunar Orbiter photos were in black and white, while a great many Apollo photos are in color. Further, we do not have the transparencies from the Lunar Orbiter. We have them for the Apollo photos.

you havent answered my reply about the same 'stars' appearing in the sky in the same formation even though the camera is taking pictures at different angles.

Easy: same specks on the scanner glass. You haven't proved they're stars. You just assume they are. I don't share that assumption.

Now who's changing the subject to steer clear of an answer?

Clearly you. I have answered far more questions than you, and provided far more theoretical and empirical evidence. All you've done is to supply idle speculation to pile on top of you previous idle speculation.

You're doing very little in the way of presenting evidence for your claims.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 08:04 PM
It seems that you have a knack of twisting what I have said to fit your own agenda. I suggest you go back and read what I said about the Apollo footage which I have with blue sky showing through the windows.

I agree to not talk about Area 51 until I dig up the photos.

As I contended earlier, but it seems you have a hard time working out my point, you may well have checked out the data and proved it to be correct, but if someone more qualified than you had made sure that all those stats and figures were correct before they were committed to paper, would you be any the wiser?

When did I say that NASA has hardly released anything?

With all these jobs you reckon you've done, you must be ancient!

The lunar orbiter in your estimation could not take as clear pictures as the Apollo and yet pictures were posted here that showed the opposite. The lines on the orbiter frame by the way is due to scanning techniques as is shown on the Malin site. thought you would know that?

Your 'white specks' are not on the camera lens because the same formation appears in different areas of the lens on the pictures. If they were an artifact of the lens they would all be in the same position, which is not the case.

Finally, find below my reply to your post about the 32 questions on my site.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 08:15 PM
Here is my reply to JayUtahs questions about the 32 questions on my site:

‘Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon’.

What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.

‘The "official photos" Dave reproduces showing alleged stars are the low-quality JSC scans that have white specks everywhere as a result of the hurried scanning process.’

And on several of the examples I have on my site the ‘white specks’ as you call them are in exactly the same configuration in the sky, even though the camera is panning across the horizon. This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film as the 'white specks' are in different parts of the sky and do not stay in one place on the frame.

‘ The astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre-breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstreams prior to doffing their helmets inside the spacecraft.’

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.

'Photos taken of the lunar surface directly beneath the descent engine show it to have been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. Recall that the foot of the ladder is some fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.'

So the dust didn’t blow very far away, but it also didn’t land inside the landing pads either… interesting!

'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'

Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

'In fact, this is quite good evidence of the progressive nature of Apollo technology. Television coverage was not strictly required in order to accomplish the landing on time, and so high-quality television for lunar EVA was deferred in its development until later in the program.'

In fact during the early minutes of the first Apollo 11 EVA the picture quality changes dramatically. Why?

'This is a natural feature of contour on the lunar surface. It is not always possible to distinguish by color or shading the crests of intervening hills.'

This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen. Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.

'Skeptics say no such thing. In fact, shadows in sunlight should be expected to appear parallel in photography only under very special circumstances. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.'

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?

'It wasn't extended until after splashdown. It was in its retracted position during re-entry'

So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?

'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'

You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’ The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth, jeez, even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.

‘None of these extremely powerful solar events occurred during any of the missions. The events experienced by Apollo’s 14 and 16 were quite mild.’

More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt. In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.

‘Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.’

And they didn’t go either!

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’
So where did all that used up oxygen go?

In your Technology communications page you claim:
'The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.'

And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?

‘One man's opinion of the timetable shouldn't necessarily take precedence over those who had more information available.’

Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?

‘Command Module 012 has been in the custody of the United States government since early 1967. If they had really wanted to destroy it, it wouldn't have been too difficult.’

But how many people have seen it? You say that it’s in the custody of the United States Government… in a locked vault or on general display? Why destroy it? If the Government doesn’t want anyone to see something in their possession then they will find ways to make sure that the evidence stays covered up. Have you seen it?

‘Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.’

If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ‘hazardous to health if swallowed’ do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

To my question 30 on my site which states ‘ In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.’

You answer: ‘This does not prove it did not have the technology to do it in 1969. These are not skills and equipment on the same level as riding a bike or building a birdhouse. These are design and construction techniques which are highly specialized, and if not needed are not undertaken.’

But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions – What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints? Oh yes of course I forgot, they destroyed most of them… doh! How stupid. Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan – can’t they? And surely things can be learned from the Apollo missions that would help with flights to Mars and other space related missions. On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves… odd?

‘NASA's mission has changed. It has also been drastically scaled back. If there were a mandate to maintain and use such technology, there is plenty of design and manufacturing capability to undertake it. Space exploration simply requires different skills and materials, and must operate on a different set of resources.’

The budget Congress agreed to, part of a larger budget bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development as well as various independent agencies, gives NASA $14.8 billion for fiscal year 2002, which started October 1. This is about $300 million more than what the Senate, closely following the budget proposal by President Bush, approved, but is about $150 million less than what the House approved. NASA received $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?

‘The footage as shown in Bart Sibrel's video is cut up and rendered incoherent, and the voiceover makes it difficult to hear what the astronauts are saying.’

That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover. I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage. What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?

‘Congress provided no funding for the storage and archive of the detailed design documentation. The private companies who had custody of it did not have the funds nor the desire to archive materials that required an inconveniently large building in which to house it. They are for-profit companies, not museums. Thus the detailed documentation was regretfully discarded while the basic documentation was preserved.’

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

THAT’S YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND HERES A FEW MORE THAT’S ON YOUR SITE WHICH I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO:

'As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.'

This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators

‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

Thanks,

CosmicDave

informant
2002-Jun-03, 08:40 PM
I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

LOL! What a gem... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

CJSF
2002-Jun-03, 08:53 PM
On 2002-05-30 12:57, The Bad Astronomer wrote:


On 2002-05-30 10:58, cosmicdave wrote:
Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions.

"Could not possibly"? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then how do you explain this picture? It was taken in a park next to my house, and the only source of illumination is the setting Sun.

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_4728633/non-parallel+shadows+on+Earth.jpg?bcVvl98Ax63937br


Is anyone else having trouble with the above image? I can't seem to get it to load. If I put the URL in my browser address area I get a message from Yahoo! that I am not authorized to view the file.

CJSF

SeanF
2002-Jun-03, 09:03 PM
Weird - that picture came up just fine when TBA originally posted it, but now it doesn't.

As I recall, it was a picture of a softball field's outfield fence with the poles casting diverging shadows.

Andrew
2002-Jun-03, 09:23 PM
"The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made."

David, Neil Armstrong ejected from the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle when he ran out of manoeuvring propellant and could no longer control the LLTV's attitude. It was not an Apollo LM. It was not an Apollo LM prototype. It was the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle.
The LM weighed more than 30,000lbs on earth (not sure about dry-weight). How was it's 10,000lbf descent engine going to lift it's weight?
It was regarded as the only manned spacecraft designed to operate solely in space.
It was tested on 3 Apollo missions prior to Apollo 11.

Andrew
2002-Jun-03, 09:34 PM
Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

You were given a thorough explanation of this on page 2 of this thread. Re-read it.

The conspiracists said that no flame was visible when there should be one. I can't recall any debunker stating outright "There should not ever be a flame visible".

Read your own question: "When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)"

Am I the only one noticing how you contradicted yourself. "Instead, zero exhaust." Followed by: "I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM".

Can you not see this? Do you not realise how this makes no sense whatsoever?

Even if you did manage to catch some sceptics out once in a while, that does not prove the moon hoax conspiracy, or necessarily even strengthen your case.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-03, 09:35 PM
CosmicDave,

Ever since the first time you posted on this BB, I have tried to examine your claims before I commented; however, I see that you refuse to do the same.

For example,

Jay states,

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’

Your response was,

"So where did all that used up oxygen go?"

You didn't even bother to look at the site I gave you as reference. Why was that? Afraid you might learn something?

Try this one

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/5emu4.html

Andrew
2002-Jun-03, 09:39 PM
Christopher Ferro:"Is anyone else having trouble with the above image? I can't seem to get it to load"

The image in question appears to be a Yahoo! Groups Image. In order to view the image you need to be a member of the particular Yahoo! Group.
I cant view it either.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-06-03 17:39 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 10:29 PM
I suggest you go back and read what I said about the Apollo footage which I have with blue sky showing through the windows.

This is the problem. You want to limit the discussion of the phenomenon to Apollo 13, ignoring all the other pertinent data. Do you think blue haze occurred only on Apollo 13? If the same phenomenon occurs on other missions, then your explanation must account for those other missions.

but if someone more qualified than you had made sure that all those stats and figures were correct before they were committed to paper, would you be any the wiser?

But if someone more qualified than me made sure all those stats and figures and diagrams and equations were correct before they were committed to paper, then they'd have a viable moon landing program.

You seem to be under this odd delusion that science can be bald-facedly faked for thirty years. You seem to think it can appear correct to any degree of inspection, but somehow not be actually correct.

When did I say that NASA has hardly released anything?

Earlier. That may have been in conjunction with Mars data though, but I recall you had backpedalled.

Let's clear this up. Do you argue that NASA has purposely withheld from public view significant portions of its material relating to Apollo? Yes or no.

With all these jobs you reckon you've done, you must be ancient!

No, just busy.

The lunar orbiter in your estimation could not take as clear pictures as the Apollo and yet pictures were posted here that showed the opposite.

Then you must be blind.

The lines on the orbiter frame by the way is due to scanning techniques as is shown on the Malin site. thought you would know that?

I did not make the argument that the vertical lines were inherent to the photograph. That was someone else's argument. I have not commented on the Orbiter photos except to note that they were in black and white.

Your 'white specks' are not on the camera lens because the same formation appears in different areas of the lens on the pictures.

Then I have misunderstood your argument. I'll check back on that.

sts60
2002-Jun-03, 10:37 PM
?Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon?.

What?s the difference between aren?t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.

As has been explained here already, you generally won't see stars above any brightly-lit scene. The dynamic range of the camera (or the eye) is insufficient. Not a cover-up, just a well-established fact.


'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'

Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?


JayUtah has explained ignition transients already. What part, specifically, don't you understand?


'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'

You?re missing the point. The wording I used is ?Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?? The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

As with a number of other things, you "seem to remember" incorrecty. Armstrong had to eject from an LM simulator, an ungainly open-frame contraption.

As to the "who dared" part, you don't seem to be familiar with much of aerospace history. Who dared to fly the P-38, or the X-15, for the first time? Who dared to fly the space shuttle for the first time. And the LM was flown and checked out in space before the 11 landing. Your question, though dramatic, is meaningless.



?Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.?

And they didn?t go either!

They didn't go, period. We went, and there is a massive amount of evidence for it. There is no credible evidence against it.


?Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.?

If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ?hazardous to health if swallowed? do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

Yes, spaceflight is hazardous. Smoking is hazardous. If you smoke for a long time, you are putting yourself at a significantly increased risk of a number of diseases. If you once puff a pack of Camels over a two-week period, you haven't materially affected your long-term health.


'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

Well, to anyone familiar with embedded programming, especially for spacecraft, the answer is simply efficent programming. Are you seriously suggesting it wasn't possible to write the guidance code in 32K?

Also, this computer was *not* responsible for managing most of the spacecraft subsystems, as you have implicitly claimed.

You have made two claims about the Apollo guidance computer which are incorrect. Do you retract them? If not, why not?


?Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.?

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

So you do believe that Apollo hardware has been imaged on the Moon since the '70s?

Anyway, you took the quote out of context. It is theoretically impossible for Hubble to image Apollo hardware. Clementine took some images which are right at the resolution limit, much as Mars Global Surveyer took pictures which *may* have shown the wreck of Mars Polar Lander.

What exactly are you trying to say with your statement? That NASA can take pictures of Apollo items on the Moon?


To my question 30 on my site which states ? In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.?

<.... And more words saying it's "odd" NASA doesn't use Apollo technology to go back to the Moon.>

We also have the technology to build new Iowa-class battleships. The reason that we're not building new Apollo stacks is that there is no political mandate to do so. You insinuate that there is something sinister about this. You have provided no evidence for such a spin.


<Words about NASA budget>... The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?

If I didn't pay for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for two years I'd have enough for a nice vacation. So? NASA has many missions, such as aeronautical research, astronomy, etc. A whopping chunk of NASA's budget is also tied up with the money-hungry Station and Shuttle. You have evidently confused "budget" with "free cash flow".


<Regarding documentation>
Oh how convenient, and you don?t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great ignificance. Why didn?t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

NASA has stored an enormous amount of publically-available technical material on Apollo. If contractors did not efficiently archive bulky technical material for a purpose-built rocket for a program which had run out of political steam, that's hardly unexpected to anyone familiar with aerospace, at least in the U.S.

Your premise, that we are somehow technologically incapable of getting back to the Moon, is mistaken. The technology is doable. The budget and will to do so is not.


?It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.?

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

Can you please provide the reference for this?

And, in any case, it's a non-sequitir. You have claimed that Apollo transmissions came from Earth orbit. But in the previous paragraph, you buttressed your claim (about tracking by hams) with the fact that Apollo was generally in line with the moon during the round trip.

*Nothing* in Earth orbit can move in such a manner. So, either Apollo was not in Earth orbit during the roundtrip, or you have claimed contradictory evidence for your ham-tracking point.

Which is it?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 10:44 PM
Then I have misunderstood your argument. I'll check back on that.

Okay, you were referring to the Real Video clip. I was referring to the JSC scans. I reject categorically the use of JSC scans to establish the presence of anything in the photo which might be explained by that scanning process. So you might as well forget the JSC scans.

I've looked at the video a dozen times and shown it to two other people. No one here can identify any starlike object in the sky in that video. Could you direct me to the general area of the frame where I should be looking?

Andrew
2002-Jun-03, 10:48 PM
... The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources

In 1960s dollars.
Adjust the cited figure for inflation and then get back to us.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-03, 11:31 PM
Here is my reply to JayUtahs questions about the 32 questions on my site:

‘Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon’.

What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.

Not really CD, that's like saying my car is a fake because it won't do 500 mph. It shouldn't do that speed, so the argument is invalid.

‘The "official photos" Dave reproduces showing alleged stars are the low-quality JSC scans that have white specks everywhere as a result of the hurried scanning process.’

And on several of the examples I have on my site the ‘white specks’ as you call them are in exactly the same configuration in the sky, even though the camera is panning across the horizon. This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film as the 'white specks' are in different parts of the sky and do not stay in one place on the frame.

The specks are not from the lens, but from the scanner used at JSC. It was quite basic, and used in a hurry just to get all those pictures online as quickly as possible. They are slowly being updated with better scans as time permits.

‘ The astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre-breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstreams prior to doffing their helmets inside the spacecraft.’

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.

Huh. 1) Apollo 13 had more than enough oxygen for the entire journey and then some. They were not short of oxygen. 2) The pre-breathing occurred prior to launch, not during the trip.

'Photos taken of the lunar surface directly beneath the descent engine show it to have been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. Recall that the foot of the ladder is some fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.'

So the dust didn’t blow very far away, but it also didn’t land inside the landing pads either… interesting!

Because it's blown sideways, and not into the 'air' maybe?

'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'

Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

A longer ingintion transient on Apollo 16? This is just a guess, but the outer covering of the LM ascent stage got quite a beating when 16 launched from the Moon. I'm guessing the engine didn't light as smoothly as the others.

'In fact, this is quite good evidence of the progressive nature of Apollo technology. Television coverage was not strictly required in order to accomplish the landing on time, and so high-quality television for lunar EVA was deferred in its development until later in the program.'

In fact during the early minutes of the first Apollo 11 EVA the picture quality changes dramatically. Why?

Because they switched ground station settings for better reception?

'This is a natural feature of contour on the lunar surface. It is not always possible to distinguish by color or shading the crests of intervening hills.'

This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen. Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.

We've done this to death. You seem to want to put the whole conspiracy theory into one thread. Did you not see my photos from Switzerland?

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVT aNkFSsZbLNsTNeSky*dOZ2EOx3YumSg*NuunV2rX7FKOEhrimk raD!vwh4pPjlJV!RMbmx*0EmSHbafWIo26qiGAtUjs1gi

OK, here's the shadow pictures DaveC was asking about...

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVa cvK31EILzjjGUHObl1mQlWQ*EfiPXlGHZBM6uE6gJnk!2WrN2n TYx*C8FIN9W*GUvjKu60P77GXCBTar3z7!7YNcevyaBn7

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVF 2g8tjS5vFJW4R9TQN3sXw73vn*PKPZiXOhB6p2GhP!eJaW!SyF SzCp1CRyKBfZT70qGDwPOT7MaMe2JUWQN5BPbg8EXP9cY

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVr mKXyYZWQuIvIL*vk*aRIKY9yhmUFPUKrolFWxkeF8BxkfwSM5H FZ9*fBq0q8GO6gHWMEX!K9L5t63qGCfWHNxkkEj5awkvg

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVq QsjYijk0f*opb5en4yNLuT9Z1XfbjB8KE*chVggE*j!zCjkXVl x7fg2IIZaCeV8MjpZ4N1fa*xkew1pMdCNlPp6cqAXrj*P

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVy lUYhA8AYzR*Kp7HPX3*AvVnp*75qA4*AFKa!beHKDTMyFUcBq0 UpVSWw2*rLwSFnkXKE9qIvynkqOkxCnprEboai37SB!TN

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVV QUhIh1delAU3bS*V8*YVJ*C0vi6yvJRm*kXEEVMZWFdasKZFWx RR2dkiAzuAv4T8ag*XlXIaW1u8cYzATP3I1UsJh9cDB4t

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVn Nz*Ujl9oFMuSABkBJVpY9THPQlAOLLuXUNkNB!E0ymxCpAls6k lST6axeS!PCQRD92UxuHn9YTbyFjgriVQyQ5WEIfF0S8u

Here are some of the (crappy, I know) car, with a mountain in the background, changing size and position...

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVt lit4V!ABBKF3EzqEzxe*N02eumxtTimzzRClJhE808d3CXMuUJ 1yqdl2fM6BX2oSTtdKDND34UM8voMOACuRhKJgSGHNf30

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVP 7lTs9LAYX7zluHt1!Xzl2fTeDJEs8uo2pLzpHG7wgl!L2oXvh3 hQouJPNMDSXTRrjaFKdGMGXNxwTmW0*z1CiuRa!7Yz2Nu

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVJ 4Na6vaE1gQ6Dgbb2UTeVh5L93HsG7WcfDlCgZHKIxvT9VmMsD1 av87fpKrLDY!*Ik5YEwKv2PM5NTtF8BzYOP2ztGbBdT!x

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbV2 QKH6Ewge1mvcL0uJYTUpATqz47or1bZGt2*C7HbqiltiBOLer* G9Ngw8bQCT6xGWTRqMCkaidb1NGAnydMwx1PQmSKwO9Uf

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbV5 3ZRi1TmoFbjgfdKK9kudsXxP4OVBEx5iLIXUMKdHbPxbmSpR9f euobYSBtQHqPNi8Wp7AwHJ50GaTKc8dEGFqFPcGxn*mgR

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVq 28ek1!74idByV1yPlDf57dv4ViSQwZ19EF5AU3BgtardJdEQoz UJ3*yhQ3tUpTaKWDEFV9!NiPFHVJNLh0ulyZKZCg*1fDQ

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVG oF77XAabLsdvX6WWdVt9AzFQtGaOJCwoPHMuukqOmhaV5jEa*R cbauknqmRanMLyDxh7aTm2FF45LtrcJ8wt!YW*HhIM!ht

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVD YUWo8qcUul7QB0M24qI2*yv!gOOaxFMDyeVv92rV4u6WrxqPh9 vbpGeHf0Cydak**wiov9az9Pu9G4KP*t22tlXpV*UjAKR

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVp n4M6hg0dg!TU6U*qdcsqwtqGi4Zl70iC3umKxEOfi!jrDH8pHj vjbMW*wExdEZTOjUFQBtFkDKt!nMldxk5eIpBbGZnYLh9

Here are some parallel lines converging towards the top of the image. Strange.

http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVD RHZ8Qs6jay8CrI0vtg0Ou!*qQUoI5BfgFRKM6bnSc9GomZFD8t Xnt0VscM6TE8oTCRVxZxUCEsMc4HmNkrbD0fQkQLvLWUi

Make of these photos what you will.

'Skeptics say no such thing. In fact, shadows in sunlight should be expected to appear parallel in photography only under very special circumstances. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.'

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?

See shadows above.

'It wasn't extended until after splashdown. It was in its retracted position during re-entry'

So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?

Using a different antenna? (A bit off topic here?)

'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'

You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’ The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

Somebody's got to do it first. Concorde never flew till someone actually flew it. The first Space Shuttle wasn't launched till they launched it. What's your point?

In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth, jeez, even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.

In a space suit?

‘None of these extremely powerful solar events occurred during any of the missions. The events experienced by Apollo’s 14 and 16 were quite mild.’

More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt. In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.

Yes, luck. It does happen, you know. Fortune favours the brave, and all that. If you could actually point to data that a solar event of sufficient magnitude to kill the astronauts did actually occur when they were on the Moon, then you may have something. Otherwise, no.

‘Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.’

And they didn’t go either!

Not because of the shielding, but because their launcher had a habit of self destructing halfway to orbit.

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’
So where did all that used up oxygen go?

Used up oxygen? If the oxygen was breathed by the astronauts, it would become C02, removed from the air by the LHO2 scrubbers, and water.

In your Technology communications page you claim:
'The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.'

And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?

For just over a week. The cumulative dose by dentists over years and years would be more than this.

‘One man's opinion of the timetable shouldn't necessarily take precedence over those who had more information available.’

Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?

So, Gus Grissom was determining the timetables for NASA, not the engineers and managers. I never knew that.

‘Command Module 012 has been in the custody of the United States government since early 1967. If they had really wanted to destroy it, it wouldn't have been too difficult.’

But how many people have seen it? You say that it’s in the custody of the United States Government… in a locked vault or on general display? Why destroy it? If the Government doesn’t want anyone to see something in their possession then they will find ways to make sure that the evidence stays covered up. Have you seen it?

Yes. It's in a metal storage container. I've seen it on TV.

‘Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.’

If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ‘hazardous to health if swallowed’ do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

Driving a car is hazardous, it carries the risk of death. How many of us run those numbers every day?

'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

My current car has a fully automatic CVT gearbox, electric windows, central locking, etc, yet none of these are connected to any computer.

‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

Photos taken while someone was actually there.

To my question 30 on my site which states ‘ In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.’

You answer: ‘This does not prove it did not have the technology to do it in 1969. These are not skills and equipment on the same level as riding a bike or building a birdhouse. These are design and construction techniques which are highly specialized, and if not needed are not undertaken.’

But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions. What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints? Oh yes of course I forgot, they destroyed most of them. doh! How stupid. Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan, can’t they? And surely things can be learned from the Apollo missions that would help with flights to Mars and other space related missions. On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves. odd?

Could we build a Lancaster Bomber today? I doubt it.

‘NASA's mission has changed. It has also been drastically scaled back. If there were a mandate to maintain and use such technology, there is plenty of design and manufacturing capability to undertake it. Space exploration simply requires different skills and materials, and must operate on a different set of resources.’

The budget Congress agreed to, part of a larger budget bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development as well as various independent agencies, gives NASA $14.8 billion for fiscal year 2002, which started October 1. This is about $300 million more than what the Senate, closely following the budget proposal by President Bush, approved, but is about $150 million less than what the House approved. NASA received $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?

But they spend it on stuff other than going to the Moon. Plus, there's 30 years of inflation to consider.

‘The footage as shown in Bart Sibrel's video is cut up and rendered incoherent, and the voiceover makes it difficult to hear what the astronauts are saying.’

That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover. I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage. What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?

As Sibrel found it, it wasn't locked away, unless he has special NASA clearance. If there's any more secret footage, why don't you go and find it?

‘Congress provided no funding for the storage and archive of the detailed design documentation. The private companies who had custody of it did not have the funds nor the desire to archive materials that required an inconveniently large building in which to house it. They are for-profit companies, not museums. Thus the detailed documentation was regretfully discarded while the basic documentation was preserved.’

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

Same reason Ford doesn't have the paperwork for every single Ford Escort it's ever made. Why bother?

THAT’S YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND HERES A FEW MORE THAT’S ON YOUR SITE WHICH I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO:

'As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.'

This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators

Except they could tell if it wasn't in a fast orbital trajectory, only audible for minutes at a time. They could listen for almost 12 hours at a go.

‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

Because they only just decided to look? Or because it's a lot easier to hide a satelite amongst the thousands now out there, rather than the relative few at the time of Apollo?

I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

Thanks,

CosmicDave

OK, if you say so.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 11:45 PM
Hey STS 60,
Let me answer some of your questions.. hell why not? Everybody else is asking questions... even if they don't agree with each other on this board, you all have suggestions and different answers to my questions... is that scientific? hmmm.

Anyway here goes...
'As has been explained here already, you generally won't see stars above any brightly-lit scene.'

'Generally' or 'should not be' as JayUtah would have it. But which is right? Go and look at my page and explain what the '****e specks' as JayUtah describes them are? They should not be there right,according to this group. I can assure you they're not lens marks or marks out of the film because the same formation of 'stars' appear in a few different shots in different areas of the frame.

'JayUtah has explained ignition transients already. What part, specifically, don't you understand?'

I think I understand everything about this question, why can't any of you give me a straight answer about the appearance of a flame in an oxygen starved lack of atmosphere setting?

'As with a number of other things, you "seem to remember" incorrecty. Armstrong had to eject from an LM simulator, an ungainly open-frame contraption.'

Yet another person who can't read what I write... quote: 'Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully'.
Of all the other flight examples that you mention, none of these craft were landed on the Moon either. I stand by my first statement that knowone successfully landed the LEM, be it manned or unmanned on the lunar surface before the Apollo 11 mission. Check your facts!

'They didn't go, period. We went, and there is a massive amount of evidence for it. There is no credible evidence against it.'

Evidence released by one single agency, the same one that allegedly carried out the missions. Talk about slapping yourself on the back. There is plenty of credible evidence against it, but you are too caught up in NASA's hype to see it. The 'dress rehearsal' footage for starters. A film found only by chance and not in the kept along with the usual NASA footage. I see that the guy who claimed NASA released everything Apollo related in the 70's has not come forward and admitted his mistake in relation to this particular piece of film. Nice try at forgetting that I mentioned this.

'Yes, spaceflight is hazardous.'

Try telling this to JayUtah because he thinks otherwise.

'Are you seriously suggesting it wasn't possible to write the guidance code in 32K'

Yes you read right my man. I'm not going into why again, go and visit my site at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk if you want the answer.

'What exactly are you trying to say with your statement? That NASA can take pictures of Apollo items on the Moon?'

No, i'm just playing with you. People like JayUtah can come up with rudiculous comments saying that no images exist and I can prove him wrong. So why hasn't anybody backed up my evidence. Or are you all a bunch of sheep not wanting to step out of line? From the images I have seen the 'objects' could actually show anything from a large rock to a crater, but NASA says its one of the landing sites, so they must be right - right? Thought that the experienced JayUtah would have known about this and not needed a HBer to inform him of this fact?

About the scrapped Saturn V you said: 'You have provided no evidence for such a spin.'

All the evidence is on NASA's site, go check it out. Its a well known fact that the Saturn V rocket could outperform the Shuttle.

'A whopping chunk of NASA's budget is also tied up with the money-hungry Station and Shuttle'

Glad you brought this up actually. Its obvious to anyone that a Moonbase would be a far cheaper option, but has not been implemented even though one of the original reasons for the Apollo missions was to see the possibilities of a Moonbase. I wonder why they changed their minds?

'If contractors did not efficiently archive bulky technical material for a purpose-built rocket for a program which had run out of political steam, that's hardly unexpected to anyone familiar with aerospace, at least in the U.S.'

So all this Apollo stuff was only done for political security? Kennedy's speech about it being 'for the people' was a load of balony and only a kind of bargaining chip in the Cold War with Russia to make the Soviets believe that the US were more powerful and advance. Yeah I've heard that before too. And your accusing me of making the excuses?

'Can you please provide the reference for this?'

I Received this info on Email about a month ago. It was actually over Japan and not China as I first thought, pretty close though. Heres an article about it wrote by none other than the infamous James Oberg.

"Okayama - A group of japanese astronomers watching the heavens around the clock to spot any sign of huge asteroids and comets apparently found an undisclosed spy satellite, they announced Thursday.

The unidentified object was spotted at the Japan Spaceguard Association's observation center in Bisei, Okayama prefecture, in december last year.

Officials of the association said they have since studied a list of over 8,000 man-made objects in space compiled by the north american aerospace defense command (norad), but it was not registered despite its massive size -- the satellite has a diameter of 50 meters.

Aerospace engineering specialist Nobuo Nakatomi said the object was likely to be a spy satellite.

"It is a common practice around the world to secretly launch satellites for technical or military reasons, and they won't make entry on the norad list," Nakatomi said. "judging from the information available, it looks like the object is a U.S. or Chinese spy satellite."

Shuzo Isobe, director of the spaceguard association, was delighted with the ability of its 1-meter-diameter optical telescope at the Bisei Spaceguard Center.

"We will keep watching space to spot asteroids or man-made objects that can be a threat to earth," said Isobe, who is also an assistant professor at the national astronomical observatory of japan.

Spaceguard association officials said the unidentified satellite could be observed with binoculars in the southeastern sky."

'You have claimed that Apollo transmissions came from Earth orbit. But in the previous paragraph, you buttressed your claim (about tracking by hams) with the fact that Apollo was generally in line with the moon during the round trip.'

No, actually I was quoting JayUtah from his website. Perhaps you should talk to him about it?

Thats it then, Cheers...

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-04, 12:02 AM
Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction. You are all contradicting each other and yet want me to believe all of your views. Half of you are applying guesswork to your answers sort of giving your answer but also writing in a way to ask the others if your right... like the second aerial quote. I've heard it all now. hehe. Your giving me a hardtime because you say I have not produced the evidence. Who's kidding who here?

Liked your holiday shots by the way, nice low cloud in those mountains to fog them out and make them appear lighter.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-04, 12:05 AM
Oh and the pictures of the tree shadows, would they appear different lengths because one is considerably taller with foliage than the other by any chance? Nice try. I see you even mirror images some of them too. I'm a bit cleverer than you are crediting me for I'm afraid.

Andrew
2002-Jun-04, 12:10 AM
Dave, when John says "DaveC" he means someone other than yourself. He's copied and pasted the captions and image URLs from a thread on a different message board.
The shadow pictures are to demonstrate converging shadows not differing shadow lengths.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-04, 12:16 AM
Cosmic Dave,

The specs may have been on the scanner. How many times?

Oxygen, or at least oxidizer, was part of the mix stuffed into the engine. How does a welders torch work underwater?

How do you think it would be possible to test landing a LM on the Moon without actually trying to land a LM on the Moon? Underwater, perhaps. Or on Ganymede?

The footage, when seen unedited, is obviously just a rehearsal.

Spaceflight is hazardous, but the hazards are well known, and catered for.

I could write guidance code in 32K. Remember those early Sinclair Home computers? I had a 16K version, yet managed to program a Moon sim.

So, the images exist, but are fake? I don't get your point. If they exist, they were there.

Yes, the Saturn out performed the Shuttle. An F1 car out performs my Uno. But it's a ***** to take shopping, or to Switzerland.

A Moonbase would not be cheaper than the ISS. How daft. It also cost a lot more just to visit.

Yes, Kennedy was full of hot air. He had to sell the idea to the public.

So that satelite could be Chinese? It could also have been launched yesterday.

Apollo transmissions changed in character after TLI, from fleeting overpasses, to longer transmissions from the direction of the Moon.



























Why leave long gaps at the bottom of each post?

Andrew
2002-Jun-04, 12:17 AM
"Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction."

Could you cite a few examples of this please.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 12:21 AM
Yet another person who can't read what I write... quote: 'Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully'.
Of all the other flight examples that you mention, none of these craft were landed on the Moon either. I stand by my first statement that knowone successfully landed the LEM, be it manned or unmanned on the lunar surface before the Apollo 11 mission. Check your facts!


"Knowone" is denying that nobody landed the LM prior to Apollo 11, but since it was only designed to land on the moon, and not the earth, how would someone test it?

These guys were TEST PILOTS! Do you know what TEST PILOTS do? They TEST unTESTed aircraft, including things like the LM. Unfortunately there was "knowone" to test it before the first landing, which is why it was the first.

The point about the satellite is puzzling. We are saying the CM, especially in 1969, when not alot of hardware was in orbit, would have been easy to spot from observatories all over the world. You post a story were a spy satellite was secretly launched into orbit, and it is quickly picked up by an observatory.

It seems to me that that is exactly what we are saying.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-04, 12:24 AM
Cosmic Dave (Not DaveC), I havn't mirrored any of the images. Why do you say that? The images show converging shadows that should be parallel, nothing else. It's two different sets of posts.

The sand pictures show how shadows change over terrain, and if the terrain is made up of a single coloured texture such as sand or lunar surface, it's sometimes impossible to see the variations in the terrain without cues from the shadows.

The statements I make using questions are actaully a bit of sarcasm, obviously something way over your head to comprehend.

If you ever get round to having a point, would you please let me know?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 12:27 AM
even if they don't agree with each other on this board

There isn't, in general, much disagreement here -- mostly what you're trying to drum up by means of your innocent or deliberate obtuseness.

Even if there were, disagreement among us does not prove you are correct. You must provide positive proof in order to establish a proposition, not simply the appearance of disagreement among your opponents.

you all have suggestions and different answers to my questions... is that scientific? hmmm.

Yes, if the answers are harmonious.

'Generally' or 'should not be' as JayUtah would have it.

No, you completely missed the point of my answer. You brought up Yuri Gagarin's observation as evidence that the Apollo astronauts should have been able to see and photograph stars from the lunar surface. I'm trying to show you why Yuri Gagarin's circumstances were different than those for the Apollo astronauts.

Do not try to chalk this up as an example of what you perceive to be our indecision. This is quite clearly your inability to read carefully and comprehend.

Go and look at my page and explain what the '****e specks' as JayUtah describes them are?

You have two major pieces of evidence on your site. The JSC scans contain white specks. You cannot prove those specks are stars, and the circumstances under which the JSC scans were produced makes it rather probable that they are contamination during the scan.

Your other piece of evidence is a Real Video clip, six seconds long, which, in my opinion, doesn't show anything resembling stars. Please enlighten us as to what area of the sky we should be paying attention to.

I think I understand everything about this question, why can't any of you give me a straight answer about the appearance of a flame in an oxygen starved lack of atmosphere setting?

You are incredibly dense. I literally know 12-year-olds who grasp these concepts faster than you do.

The appearance of the plume has to do with the preinjection of oxidizer. This makes for a visible flame during the transient, until the ratio equalizes. This typically happens both in air and in vacuum.

The lack of air is what accounts for the failure to produce the red cloud, which is the oxidizer's response to the air when fired on earth. You can't seem to keep these simple concepts distinct.

Your complaint at the lack of a "straight answer" is simply your inability to grasp a basic concept of rocket propulsion. It's your fault, not ours.

Of all the other flight examples that you mention, none of these craft were landed on the Moon either.

Irrelevant. All those flight tests exceeded the known envelope from previous testing. That's the key concept. At some point a flight test had to be attempted, accepting all the inherent risks of it.

I stand by my first statement that knowone successfully landed the LEM ...

And I stand by my original objection to that statement: you have not demonstrated that you know anything about the philosophy and procedures of flight test. Therefore your opinion of what constitutes an adequate and successful test is irrelevant.

There is plenty of credible evidence against it

Then by all means, provide it. So far you've offered only innuendo, speculation, and handwaving.

A film found only by chance and not in the kept along with the usual NASA footage.

False. Bart Sibrel clearly stated it was included in a package of otherwise ordinary Apollo footage.

I see that the guy who claimed NASA released everything Apollo related in the 70's has not come forward and admitted his mistake in relation to this particular piece of film. Nice try at forgetting that I mentioned this.

I wish you would make up your mind. First you claim that NASA is hiding footage. Then you claim you make no such argument. Now you're back to claiming NASA hid footage.

Try telling this to JayUtah because he thinks otherwise.

False. Kindly refrain from telling the board what I think. That's my job.

I claim manned flight to the moon is not as hazardous -- in mode and extent -- as you have purported. Since you are the one claiming it is more hazardous than generally accepted, it is your responsibility to provide a suitable quantitative argument. You refuse to do so.

Yes you read right my man. I'm not going into why again, go and visit my site at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk if you want the answer.

The answer is not to be found on your site. You have given us absolutely no indication that you have any expert knowledge of computers or how they may be used to guide a spacecraft. Further, you made several factual errors which I addressed, and which you have not conceded.

I require a detailed discussion -- not buzzword-laden handwaving -- of why the Apollo guidance computer was not sufficient for the tasks assigned to it. Keep in mind that I have a copy of the AGC source code and the expertise to read and understand it. I am competent to discuss spacecraft guidance to any degree of detail you wish. And so naturally I expect a high degree of detail.

Thought that the experienced JayUtah would have known about this and not needed a HBer to inform him of this fact?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you have mistaken someone else's argument for one of mine.

All the evidence is on NASA's site, go check it out. Its a well known fact that the Saturn V rocket could outperform the Shuttle.

At twice the projected cost per launch, and with no payload return capacity. The space shuttle was expected to reduce the cost of launches through reusability. In hindsight that has not happened, but the designers of the space shuttle did not have the luxury of our hindsight.

I wonder why they changed their minds?

Loss of the public mandate.

So all this Apollo stuff was only done for political security?

You're missing the point. There is a perfectly valid reason for destroying certain Apollo documentation. You haven't addressed it at all.

...the satellite has a diameter of 50 meters.

... or about three times the size of any existing U.S. recon satellite.

Aerospace engineering specialist Nobuo Nakatomi said the object was likely to be a spy satellite.

And how would he know? How would a Japanese engineer learn about the most top secret space technology from the United States in enough detail to identify it from a speck in the sky?

You have nothing but speculation here. As usual.

Spaceguard association officials said the unidentified satellite could be observed with binoculars in the southeastern sky.

Recon satellites cannot -- and therefore do not -- hover. They transit the sky in a matter of a few minutes, moving quite noticeably. A visible object hovering in one spot in the sky cannot be a satellite.

No, actually I was quoting JayUtah from his website. Perhaps you should talk to him about it?

You still have not responded to the substantive points.

1. S-band receivers require fine alignment. Reconcile this with your claim that amateur trackers would not necessarily have known the origin of the signal.

2. LEO satellites necessarily transit the sky with only a few minutes between ephemerides. This is wholly inconsistent with the experience of trackers who were always able to find Apollo in the general direction of the moon.

You have exhibited a woeful ignorance of orbital mechanics and tracking procedures. I suggest you educate yourself on those topics before further embarassing yourself.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 12:31 AM
Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction. You are all contradicting each other and yet want me to believe all of your views.

No. What you're perceiving as contradiction is typically your inability to read and comprehend. It's also your odd propensity to apply rebuttals intended for one argument, to another.

Your giving me a hardtime because you say I have not produced the evidence. Who's kidding who here?

Well, we've asked for evidence and you've bluntly said you aren't going to provide it. This after we've provided countless references and examples, which you don't seem to understand.

Don't blame us for your obtuseness.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 12:36 AM
I just went into Starry Night and tried to replicate the picture where CD claims he can see stars, looking at the brightest stars on the program, they look nothing like the white specs in the picture.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 20:46 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jun-04, 12:41 AM
Basically, the argument is this: Apollo 11 couln't have landed on the Moon because it had never been done before. I'd just like to ask how it would have been tested, in 'Cosmicdave's' world, without someone biting the bullit and actually having a go?

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 01:12 AM
Dave, I also noted that on your site where you point out the pictures with the "stars", you fail to mention that those pictures were taken from INSIDE the LM.

Makes a bit of a difference, doesn't it?

Oh and one other question. You are saying that the pictures on your site show stars. What does that hope to prove? Obviously, if that were the case, the pictures were taken on the moon. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what you are arguing?

Andrew
2002-Jun-04, 01:20 AM
"You are saying that the pictures on your site show stars. What does that hope to prove?"

Quite obviously it doesn't prove anything as far as the argument that the moon landings were faked. In fact, he's actually finding evidence that that damages the case of most conspiracy theorists.
He's just trying to catch out the debunkers wherever he can, just so he can say "Ha, see! I proved you wrong!".
Like with the LM ascent engine exhaust, it was the conspiracists who said that there was no exhaust plume indicating that it was hoaxed. They were told that it indicates no such thing. Then Dave went out and tried to prove there was an exhaust flame, in a vain attempt to expose an inconsistency in the arguments of debunkers. He's actually doing damage to his case.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 01:44 AM
Oh, and while we're piling on, you write on your site:

"I would like to know how the TV signal from the Lunar Rover was relayed to Houston when the satellite dish it was sending the signal through was moving all over the place when the Rover was on the move? Anyone who has set up satellite equipment will know that a dish has to be finely tuned within a few inches to receive a signal... How could the Rover camera have sent a picture when the dish was not pointing in one specific direction. (A sceptic on the Bad Astronomy Board accused me of lying about there even being footage available that was filmed while the Rover was moving, so for his benefit and yours here it is! I don't have to make up lies when NASA has made plenty themselves do I?)"

It has been pointed out by Johnno (the "skeptic" at BA) over and over and over that the footage you provide is from the movie camera, not the video camera. They shot that footage and then developed it when back on earth. This is a very easily verified fact (as a matter of fact the "live" video camera is IN THE SHOT, at the bottom right, duh.), I can't see why you won't at least take that mistake down.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 21:45 ]</font>

Andrew
2002-Jun-04, 02:16 AM
Also, Bill Kaysing still appears to be "Head of Advanced Research". Why has this not been rectified?

jrkeller
2002-Jun-04, 04:15 AM
Two things,

I don't believe that the white specks on the photographs are anything but poor developing, artifacts, etc., One of my hobbies is amateur astronomy and I've taken hundreds of photographs of stars. One of the things that I've noticed is that, when photographed, stars show up in a variety of colors. So I believe that any "stars" that show up would have to show this variety of colors. Furthermore, as I said in an early post, one of the shuttle astronauts at a public forum said that he could see stars from shuttle and they were much more colorful than those observed from the ground. The only things he needed to do was not look in the direction of the Earth.

Anyone with a 35mm camera and a tripod could do a simple experiment. Drive out to the country at night, set up your camera and take some photographs using 10-20 seconds exposures. I found that slide film works best. Once developed, you will see that stars come in a variety of colors.

The other thing which I think is eqaully amusing is the LRV movie and video camera issue. At Space Center Houston, one of the children's rides is driving a LRV over the lunar surface. The ride projects some of the footage of the traverse across the surface. In this footage, the video camera is clearly visable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-04 00:17 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-04, 04:52 AM
I think this has gone on long enough. Tempers are flaring, and clearly continuing this conversation can serve no useful purpose.

I am locking this thread. I suggest everyone take a day or so, relax, and cool off.