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.