PDA

View Full Version : The Sky at Night



johnwitts
2002-Mar-31, 10:52 PM
Just a note to our UK members. Patrick Moore is discussing the Moon hoax on his prog at 2.30 am this morning. That's about 3/4 of an hour from now.

2002-Apr-02, 09:57 AM
<a name="20020402.3:45"> page 20020402.3:45 aka Which channel?
On 2002-03-31 17:52, johnwitts wrote:
Just a note to our UK members. Patrick Moore is discussing the Moon hoax on his prog at 2.30 am this morning. That's about 3/4 of an hour from now.
[/quote]
here locally [97209] i just get NBC & CBS
well ABC & some UHF also mostly its 8 & 6 tho

Wiwaxia
2002-Apr-02, 11:16 AM
Was on BBC1 I think it gets repeated sometime in the afternoon about a week later- but I don't know for certain. It was very good, dealing with nice basic principles of photography- Astronauts suits/moon surface acting as reflectors, uneven surface causing odd shadows, and a few photos I'd not seen of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by (IIRC) Clementine. Generally a good program.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-02, 02:22 PM
Astronauts suits/moon surface acting as reflectors

This cannot be overemphasized. Anyone who has seen an actual LEVA suit can attest to its brilliant whiteness. If you examine the EVA footage you can see a distinct response from the camera when a sunlit astronaut walks into the field of view. The camera must stop down severely to correctly expose the astronaut's image.

I believe this is the answer to Percy's allegation that the spot on Aldrin's heel as he descends the LM ladder is a studio light.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-02, 04:12 PM
I went to their site and tried to go the BBC store to order a copy of the video, but it says page not found. Does anyone know another way I casn get a copy of the show? I'd really love to see it!

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-02, 04:13 PM
D'oh! I finally got connected on their link to watch the streaming video. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-02, 04:29 PM
The show is very well done! Go here for the website, which has a link to the streaming video (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spaceguide/skyatnight/).


They tackle lighting, shadows, rocks, radiation, good versus imperfect photos, the C rock, and even debunk Percy's extremely silly claim about the Apollo 13 site being in darkness when Apollo 13 was supposed to land.

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 09:50 PM
Hub, you missed it. Go to the BA's link to watch a streaming video of it. This programme is very short, less than 20 mins a month, but it's been on forever. Patrick Moore has hosted it from the start, about 250 years ago or something. Pity it was on at 2.30 am. All Sky at Night progs are on late, but this was extra late because of Easter. It just shows how much importance folks put on Astronomy. Still, it is on the UK's premier channel BBC1, every month without fail.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-03, 12:50 AM
Go here (http://www.aulis.com/view.php3).

Yes, Aulis will be responding to points raised in ‘The Sky At Night’ April 1st, 2002.

Let's go see that! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

dasi
2002-Apr-04, 09:12 PM
Indeed. Here's a direct link to the Aulis "rebuttal" --

http://www.aulis.com/nasa-sky-at-night.htm

dasi


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dasi on 2002-04-04 16:19 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-Apr-04, 09:32 PM
So now its 2 'C's? not just a faint suggestion of the hair's (or some other fibre) shadow under part of it. What truly resourceful & inventive people these whistle blowers are! Sigh /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

johnwitts
2002-Apr-04, 09:40 PM
I don't know what to say! Apart from the fact that they still think that the VA belts protect the Earth from nasty space rays, intead of trapping them, their views on Apollo 13 seem to have shifted. They maintained that the Apollo 13 landing site shouldn't have been in darkness, yet it was. It has been proved that indeed it should have been in darkness till the 15th, so they've changed their arguments. The movie Apollo 13 is a movie. It's not meant to be a documentary. Nuff said.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-04-04 16:46 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-Apr-04, 09:59 PM
Incredible isnt it.. i just kind of lost the will to live after the C bit though /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
Time for bed.. must admit i'm looking forward to the repeat on Sat. I hardly ever manage to stay up for the originals (& cant get the darn streaming thang to work)
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

edited:
& oh yes, that 'totally unprotected craft' ..
spect that goes back to the tired old 'it wasnt made of lead shielding' rubbish.. arrgh!

To anyone whos interested, Sky at Night is still being scheduled as repeated this Sat. 12noonBST BBC2.
_________________
N6MAA10816



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-04-04 17:17 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-Apr-05, 12:39 AM
The following quote is taken from the article from Mary Bennett:



<quote>When dealing with shadows, [Douglas] Arnold ignored many of the serious shadow anomalies discussed in both the book and video. And even when selecting a picture with rocks in the foreground and LM in the background, he chose to ignore the rocks located to the left of the image that also have shadows diverging from that of the LM, yet are not on any mounds.</quote>



The author makes a good point here. Several months ago, on the ApolloHoax.com forum, John Witts and JayUtah came to the conclusion that if there is an 'anomalous' shadow in this picture, it is that cast by the LEM and not the shadows observed in the foreground. John and Jay came to this conclusion after looking at (1) the shadowed part of the craters in the background, (2) the portion of the LEM that is lit by direct sunlight and (3) the shadows cast by the smaller rocks located to the left of the image that Bennett mentions.



To verify the above, I recommend loading the high resolution version of this picture, even though it takes several minutes to load.

<center>

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/THUMB/GPN-2000-001266.jpg



<a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/20149709.JPG">AS14-68-9487
</a>Picture from the ALSJ.



<a href="http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001266.jpg">AS14-68-9487
</a>High-resolution version from GRIN website.



<a href="http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-001266.jpg">AS14-68-9487
</a>Medium-resolution version from GRIN website.</center>



In all three cases, the apparent angle of the incident sunlight is consistent with the angle of the shadows cast by the large rocks in the foreground. Therefore, the shadow of the LEM should be pointing roughly in the same direction (towards the bottom-right hand corner of the image), yet it does not. Hence *that* is the 'anomalous' shadow in this picture.



So why is the shadow of the LEM not consistent with the other elements in this photograph? The explantion is most probably due to the undulations in the lunar terrain. So although Arnold's explantion for the shadow discrepancy is still vaild, he and many other Apollo Hoax debunkers have wrongly considered the foreground shadows to be unusual.



I'm sure that both Jay and John will soon correct me if I have mis-remembered their conclusions about this particular image. Unfortunately, the recent purge of threads at the ApolloHoax forum prevents me from reviewing the original debate we had about this subject some months ago.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-04-04 20:02 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Apr-05, 02:10 AM
Boy, that's a honkin' big photo! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I think you're right. In the hi-res photo the LEM's shadow definitely seems to have some kind of "twist" to it as it follows the landscape. I would say that it is foreshortened in front due to a rise towards the crater in front of it. The angle of the surface at the shadow's location seems to be almost parallel to the direct line-of sight from our camera-view. In any case, the surface is obviously sweeping upward from the LEM to the camera. It's most evident from the posistion of the astronaut to the left. It also appears to me that the astronaut's feet are not visible and his shadow is cut off at the bottom (by his legs), indicating that it is "arching" over an incline.

IOW, it looks to me like the position of the crater is altering the shape of the LEM shadow.

_________________
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">(Added the astronaut's shadow part)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-04-04 21:14 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Apr-05, 02:56 AM
Mary Bennett appears to have written Aulis' response to the BBC production.

Regarding the C rock, she says,

None of this detracts from our contention that the photographic record was manipulated by whistle-blowers

Yes, it most certainly does. The C on the rock is shown to have been the process of a very mundane, very understandable process inherent to photographic reproduction. To explain this observation, therefore, we have no need to resort to hypotheses of conspiracy and whistle-blowing. Occam's Razor now clearly prunes any such hypothesis.

Bennett's response is predictably circular -- she is convinced that whistle-blowers exist, therefore she uses it as a premise to the argument forgetting that it is the existence of whistle-blowers which she is trying to prove! I suggest Ms. Bennett consult a book on logic before attempting to argue this point further.

Her response to this is typical of the misdirection Aulis employs to distract from their mistaken arguments. They first argued that all the Apollo photos were inexplicably of studio quality. When it was shown that they were not, Aulis responded by saying it didn't alter their argument that the photos were anomalous. But in fact it soundly proved wrong their argument that the photos were all of uniformly excellent quality, which was the argument at hand. In logic this is known as changing horses.

The facts:

1. The "C" on the rock appears only on one print, and on scans taken from that print.

2. The mark has been examined microscopically and determined conclusively to be a fibrous contamination.

3. The mark occurs on neither of the duplication masters.

4. The mark does not appear on any version of the prior photo on the roll, showing the same rock.

Because Arnold chose to ignore the fact that we query the presence of two 'C's - one embossed on the rock itself and one on the surface just in front of the rock - in the same photograph.

Bennett's argument depends on the association of the C on the rock with the C on the surface. The C on the rock is now known beyond any reasonable question not to have been on the rock at the time the photo was taken. Therefore the mark in the dirt cannot be said to have any connection with the mark the appears on the rock.

A C-shaped feature indeed appears in the soil in front of the rock. However, it cannot be assumed to be the letter "C" and not merely an incidental semicircular feature. If one wishes to be pendantic, one can also find a backwards "R" and the numeral "14" in the lunar soil of that photo. What proof do we have that a semicircular feature is not accidental, and must therefore be an intentional mark?

Aulis claimed previously that "C" is commonly used to annotate the center or centerline of a scene in film production. I have been on several Hollywood soundstages, most notably at Paramount, and have never seen this annotation used. Further, none of the experts in film production I have consulted know anything of this "common" practice.

I say Ms. Bennett is engaged in wishful thinking.

OK for Apollo astronauts to travel through the belts for up to at least 60 minutes at a go, in totally unprotected craft, with no recuperation time?

The Apollo craft were not totally unprotected. Aulis has still not given any sort of quantitative argument for how much radiation was along Apollo's trajectory, and how much and what kind of shielding would have been adequate. They simply wave their hands at the "six feet of lead" figure without providing any of the common graphs or exposure tables common to a radiological analysis of cislunar space travel. Neither has Aulis been able to dispute quantitatively the exposure measurements still used as a standard in the industry.

Further, the issue of recuperation indeed applies to the Apollo astronauts. A 60-minute exposure followed by several days of lesser or negligible exposure satisfies the recuperative requirements of occupational exposure.

Ms. Bennett is not known to be an expert in the field of radiological dosage, and so some reference to outside radiology experts that confirm her findings would be in order. In fact Bennett and Percy cite the general opinions of radiation experts regarding cislunar radiation, solar radiation, and the Van Allen belts without noting that none of these experts doubts the authenticity of the Apollo missions.

These solar particle events (SPEs) cannot be predicted with any accuracy

True, but they occur only very rarely, and only in a single direction at a time. Bennett argues that the inability to predict solar particle events casts doubt on plans to send astronauts beyond the Van Allen belts. She does not seem to realize that it's not a matter of prediction, and never has been.

The chances of a significant particle event occurring during a 15-day Apollo mission and in the appropriate direction are astronomically small even if the occurrence is considered random. Statistical probability gives us the answer independently of being able to predict the events.

the sheer absence from the public record of even one single colour time exposure of the stars alone (rather than as part of the lunar landscape) is questionable.

The Hasselblad cameras and film were not appropriate to stellar photography. They were appropriate to taking hand-held photos at normal exposures. However on Apollo 16 they took a Schmitt camera (the proper equipment) and took several spectacular photographs of the stars and earth.

To say that no photos of the stars were taken during the Apollo missions simply ignores the facts.

However, as analysis of the 'live' TV coverage of Apollo 11 has shown, when Aldrin descended the ladder, at times Armstrong himself was also standing in the shade

Only for two of the Aldrin egress photos was Armstrong standing in the shadow. The EVA video clearly shows Armstrong in the sunlight during the last segment of the egress, and lens artifacts in the photos Armstrong took confirm the lens was in direct sunlight.

Whether Armstrong's suit contributed to the overall lighting of these photos is certainly debatable, but it is not debatable that the suits have a very high reflectivity. The EVA videos from all the missions bear this out repeatedly.

Arnold ignored many of the serious shadow anomalies discussed in both the book and video.

If one does not understand perspective, as the Aulis folks don't appear to, then many photos will appear "anomalous". The question is not whether Arnold successfully rebutted all the sample photos, but whether he correctly illustrates the optical principles that Aulis ignores. If it can be shown that Aulis authors don't understand the principles of optics that apply to their analysis, then the fact that many Aulis photos remain unrefuted is irrelevant -- Aulis claims regarding them immediately become suspect.

We wonder why David Percy did not write this segment of the rebuttal. To my knowledge, Ms. Bennett cannot claim any expertise in either photography or photo analysis. What she considers "serious" shadow anomalies may very well be simply her lack of understanding.

When tackling the question of how detail is visible in the pitch-black shadow side of the LM

Aulis has not demonstrated that the shadows should invariably be pitch black. They simply show a few photos taken with exposure settings that render dark shadows black, and then erroneously assert that should be the case for all of them. We might just as well show overexposed photos that reveal the detail and shadow and claim that the black shadows are "anomalous".

The illuminated [lunar] surface would have been horizontal, not vertical as in Arnold's white card, and again ineffective in filling-in shadow detail.

Unfortunately the reflective properties of the lunar surface as affected by phase angle are well documented and observable from earth. Ms. Bennett simply pretends it doesn't exist.

Further, Bennett forgets that Aldrin -- perched atop the LM porch -- is some fifteen feet off the lunar surface and therefore the vertical reflector example is appropriate.

Ms. Bennett is on the ropes on this point. She has acknowledged that the lunar surface is indeed a photographically significant reflector, but now simply quibbles over largely irrelevant details. She is simply trying to throw as many obstacles as he can in the path of comprehension in the hopes she can muddy the waters to the point that her theory makes sense to someone. Thousands of photographers the world over have no problem with the lunar surface as a reflector in these photos. That's because they understand reflectors, whereas Ms. Bennett apparently doesn't.

Arnold has either misunderstood the point we have made [regarding Apollo 13] or attempted to avoid it by majoring on the date of landing.

And apparently Ms. Bennett doesn't understand that the date of the landing is the important milestone. The timetable of the aborted Apollo 13 mission has little bearing on the requirements of the original plan or its correspondence to the illumination of the landing site. The original plan had Apollo 13 touching down just as their landing site passed from shade into sunlight. At that same point in the aborted mission, Apollo 13 was some 20,000 miles away from the moon on its return trip.

Ms. Bennett must demonstrate far more agility with the Apollo documentation if her opinions regarding the mission flight plans are to be taken seriously. She simply has not done her homework and cannot demonstrate any degree of understanding of space flight.

in the officially sanctioned film Apollo 13, the astronaut/actors stated that they could see their landing site.

NASA gave their cooperation to Ron Howard. They certainly did not certify that the film was a correct historical documentation of the events in all particulars. Tapes and transcripts of the Apollo 13 mission exist. The dialogue spoken by the actors does not, in general, follow the transcripts. It has been redacted, embellished, and clarified for lay audiences.

That Ms. Bennett must reach for a dramatization instead of the official documents (in logic, the "straw man" fallacy) indicates she has not studied the Apollo 13 mission in enough depth to comment upon it intelligently, or chooses to misrepresent what she has studied.

Especially since the director Ron Howard is on record as having stated that in the making of Apollo 13: " ... it required no 'Hollywoodizing' ... all you had to do was fall back on historical fact."

Mr. Howard made this comment in response to criticisms that the various dramaturgical conflicts (e.g., Mrs. Lovell's temporary loss of her wedding ring, the return trajectory problems, the typhoon at the recovery zone) seemed contrived. But in fact all these things historically occurred.

In fact, the only major plot element which is acknowledged as contrived is the argument over placing blame on Swigert for the disabling of the command module. Jim Lovell admits that the crew lost its composure on only one occasion, that it was not under the circumstances depicted in the film nor discussed any similar points, and that neither Lovell nor Haise will reveal the nature of that argument to the public.

Mr. Howard in no way intends to represent that every detail of his film is historically accurate. Here are some acknowledged discrepancies:

1. Jim Lovell's Corvette was blue, not red.

2. Ken Mattingly was, in fact, mostly bald.

3. The Saturn V launch vehicle depicted has the wrong markings for Apollo 13.

4. The LUT swingarms rotate simultaneously, not in cascade sequence.

5. The depiction of the CSM heading directly for the moon after TLI is inaccurate -- the moon should have appeared significantly to the right of the spacecraft's intended target.

6. The cruise orientation of the CSM is incorrect.

7. The "bucking bronco" LM under manual control is greatly exaggerated.

8. The earth would not have been visible in the LM windows during the manual burn as depicted.

The attempt to elevate a dramatic interpretation to the level of historical fact is evidence of the sad lengths Aulis is willing to go to avoid fact and perpetuate its fantasy.

It was certainly foolish to think that such complex issues could be adequately dealt with in a twenty-minute time slot

Red herring. Ms. Bennett doesn't seem willing or competent to deal with the refutations contained in twenty minutes without resorting to distraction and handwaving. Instead of asking for more, perhaps she should take stock of how easy it is for her arguments, and those of her co-author, to be successfully rebutted.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-05, 03:22 AM
John Witts and JayUtah came to the conclusion that if there is an 'anomalous' shadow in this picture, it is that cast by the LEM and not the shadows observed in the foreground.

Accurate enough. I never assume any one shadow or group of shadows is the canonically correct shadow. I prefer to work according to the general assumption that perspective and surface terrain may affect any visible shadow.

In this case we have photos taken of the LM that include the sun, so we can fairly precisely determine the sun azimuth relative to the LM fore-aft axis.

I am currently preparing a diagrammatic analysis of this and similar photographs to show how the sun angle, perspective, and terrain show the appropriate divergence in shadows.

While it is true that terrain will alter the apparent direction of photographed shadows, and while it is true that a mound as proposed by other debunkers will "bend" the shadows in exactly the direction seen in the photo, the shadows of other rocks suggest that the main foreground shadows are not that far off due to the mound.

High-resolution version from GRIN website.

Hey, I see stars in this photo! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I'm sure that both Jay and John will soon correct me if I have mis-remembered their conclusions about this particular image.

Patience. A picture is worth a thousand words.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-05, 04:18 AM
On 2002-04-04 21:56, JayUtah wrote:
However on Apollo 16 they took a Schmitt camera (the proper equipment) and took several spectacular photographs of the stars and earth.

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS16/10075873.jpg

Photo of the Earth and stars taken by the Apollo 16 Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS16/10075873.jpg).

Caption for the photo (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS16/10075873.htm).

Information about the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo16/A16_Experiments_UVC.html).
_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-04-04 23:21 ]</font>

Andrew
2002-Apr-05, 05:21 AM
By Bennet's own admission, shuttle astronauts are spending up to 96 minutes a day in the Van Allen belts.

I think they misunderstood the purpose of the programme, it was not meant as a rebuttal of Dark Monn or their video, it was only a 20 minute programme (as opposed to hundreds of pages of book, and several hours of video). It was meant to serve as a broad introduction to the moon hoax theory, and demonstrate why some of the common arguments fail, and also so to show the audience that they can apply the same critical thinking toward all arguments they may encounter in favour of a hoax and realise that there's nothing to them.

2002-Apr-05, 06:57 AM
<a name="20020405.0:44"> page 20020405.0:44 aka Later 4this1
On 2002-04-02 16:50, johnwitts wrote:
Hub, you missed it. Go to the BA's link to watch a streaming video of it. This programme is very short, less than 20 mins a month, but it's been on forever. Patrick Moore has hosted it from the start, about 250 years ago or something. Pity it was on at 2.30 am. All Sky at Night progs are on late, but this was extra late because of Easter. It just shows how much importance folks put on Astronomy. Still, it is on the UK's premier channel BBC1, every month without fail.
[/quote]
I linked over and wil pass the link along..
Later I may goto a terminal equiped for
streaming audio/video/&3d but maybe not 2day
Elswhere there may be some Shadow[s.] news {thin`N}
the third Quarter was 15h 4/4 (the forth of April}
and so by the time this message gets entered

johnwitts
2002-Apr-05, 09:18 PM
Yes, I remember doing this picture. The LM shadow is obscurred by a crater or rise or something. I remember finding a photo taken from the front of the LM, to the right in this picture, which showed the ground rising up to the left. The LM shadow is 'wrong', because it is partially hidden, not the other shadows.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-06, 01:43 AM
On 2002-04-04 21:56, JayUtah wrote:
If one does not understand perspective, as the Aulis folks don't appear to

Jay, I assume you mean "If one does not understand perspective, as the Aulis folks appear to". Am I correct? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Apr-06, 03:14 AM
By Bennet's own admission, shuttle astronauts are spending up to 96 minutes a day in the Van Allen belts.

Yes, but she is correct in noting that the portion of the Van Allen belts that the shuttle astronauts encounter are weak compared to the outer ones through which the Apollo astronauts travelled.

However, when one views the Apollo translunar trajectory in three dimensions, one finds that they did not travel through the thickest part. It has to do with orbital inclination. Most of the renderings of the trajectories are essentially planar, simplified for lay audiences. The actual trajectories deduced from the flight plans and records are somewhat more complex.

You can't really fault Ms. Bennett for not understanding the intricate details of translunar trajectories, but you can certainly fault her for assuming she understands it.

What I would really like to see from Aulis is a legitimate quantitative argument. Can they intelligently discuss fluences and energies, and shield thicknesses and composition? They wave their hands vaguely about six feet of lead, apparently unaware of how hollow it rings to people who actually know what they're talking about.

I think they misunderstood the purpose of the programme, it was not meant as a rebuttal of Dark Monn or their video, it was only a 20 minute programme (as opposed to hundreds of pages of book, and several hours of video).

Quite likely. I'm usually not impressed by people who say they have a huge volume of evidence. The same mistakes made over and over aren't compelling. And frequently the intent is to inundate the reader with so much that he can't or won't question it. And if he does, he's liable to think there's "something to all that" just by virtue of sheer volume.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-06, 03:17 AM
Jay, I assume you mean "If one does not understand perspective, as the Aulis folks appear to".

Whichever one means that Aulis doesn't understand perspective.

2002-Apr-06, 11:56 AM
On 2002-04-02 16:50, johnwitts wrote:
Hub, you missed it. Go to the BA's link to watch a streaming video of it. This programme is very short, less than 20 mins a month, but it's been on forever. Patrick Moore has hosted it from the start, about 250 years ago or something. Pity it was on at 2.30 am. All Sky at Night progs are on late, but this was extra late because of Easter. It just shows how much importance folks put on Astronomy. Still, it is on the UK's premier channel BBC1, every month without fail.
page 20020405.0:44 aka Later 4this1
On 2002-04-02 16:50, johnwitts wrote:
Hub, you missed it. Go to the BA's link to watch a streaming video
iew Topic (p35 of 41)
Well I did go to another term.
but currently iv've been ban {no explaination}
and i've not past the link along yet so nothing to Report
it does look to me like "THE SKY AT KNIGHT" is a CD as well as a BBC but maybe once again i Missed ~er