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.