'So to put and end to this, nobody here on the BA discussion board says that earthshine has ANY effect on casting shadows.'

So now that you disagree with a statement made previously on this board you accuse me of being wrong? It certainly was a different story around a year ago. As 'The Rat', I seem to remember that he was part of the debate.

'You can't just say that "it strenghtens your argument", you must tell us why. Please discuss the technique of using doppler shift to track a spacecraft and how being in one spot in the sky makes that difficult.'

If an object is moving away from you in near enough a straight line how can you predict how far it is simply by using ham radio? You cant.

in response to JayUtah:

'I did not say that had to be on the lens or within the film. The process of producing those photos for web publishing entailed many possible sources of dust contamination, e.g., scanner bezels. The JSC scans were produced hurriedly as thumbnails.'

Provide me the evidence that proves that the marks on several slides on my site are printing marks and not stars.

'Irrelevant to the point, which we have covered elsewhere in any case.'

When you cannot give a decent answer why do you always claim that what I say is irrelevant, more like you don't know the answer me thinks.

the flame arguement...Is this a concession, or is it for the sake of argument?

What do you think? Sake of argument perhaps?

'and there isn't always one (a flame)'

Why not? an engine needs a power source to work, why would we see a flame in some cases and not others?

I haven't claimed to read clavius at all, only parts of it. Another misquote.

'I require an example.' (of similar mountain ranges appearing on seperate missions).

If you haven't seen these pictures on HB sites then I suggest that you haven't been doing your homework. This is one of the main accusations for pro-hoax believers.

'All the posts have been retained on this board since October 2001. Please point to the thread in which this conversation took place.'

Well i cant find it if they are. Perhaps you can, seeming that you've hung out here for so long... or ask 'The Rat'. Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%

'I don't agree with your assertion that the LM was not tested successfully.'

Face the facts, it wasn't

'It came as close as it needed to on Apollo 10 to verify that the landing systems would indeed work.'

50,000 ft is hardly close enough for a craft to test if it could land or not.

'How and where did you become an expert on the flight test of spacecraft?'

Getting a bit techy now. Perhaps I'm getting close?

'I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.' - whats my point?

Crash safety, would you buy a car that had not had any safety crash tests done on it in the environment that it was intended to be used?

'Neil Armstrong's leap up to the top of the LM ladder at the end of the Apollo 11 EVA.'

I haven't seen thios footage, please post a link.

'If you argue that the use of statistical probability to avoid solar events was insufficient to provide an adequate safety margin, I will require you to provide a statistical probability argument to support that.'

Could science predict where lighting is going to strike? NO! Same arguement applies to solar flares, you cannot predict the unpredictable, even if your the most qualified scientist in the World.

'If you believe that a first-magnitude solar event occurred during an Apollo mission, please provide documentation.'

I didn't say that, your making things up as you go along now.

'Please explain why the Soviet designs mention nothing of the massive radiation shields you say were necessary.'

As you would term it, this is irrelevant because they didn't go, so the thickness of the shielding makes no difference. Strike one CD!

'You have provided absolutely no quantitative evidence of the x-ray conditions in cislunar space, or estimates of absorbed dose, or estimates of biological effects.'

Perhaps I should dig up the radiation test results on 'Fred' that dummy used on the Shuttle last year - if they're available that is.

'That circumstance has nothing to do with whether Gus Grissom was in possession of the relavant information and expertise to say whether the entire Apollo program was on track or not.'

Actually, the tragic events of Apollo 1 completely confirmed Grissoms fears that NASA were trying to rush things. The film footage of the event is your evidence. How do you know that Grissom had no information of the Apollo schedule. Did you ask him?

'Irrelevant to your argument. You claim NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1 capsule on a number of occasions.'

You brought up the arguement about certain craft being in NASA's possession not me. I have not made any claims that NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1, where did you get that one from? But as you mention it, NASA destroyed it anyway.

Your starting to accuse me of allegations that I have not made.

'Does your car regularly communicate with large mainframes in order to maintain proper operation?'

Yes its called a computer tune-up - do you not have that in the States?

'Do you have any explicit input to your car's computer'

Yes I can set the time, speed restriction alert, temperature in C or F, see how many MPG I am doing, how much MPG I have done since I last filled up, average speed on the journey or change my radio frequencies and store them with it. Quite a few things really.

'You're now changing horses and saying that NASA has released photos and film of the Apollo hardware. That is true, it having been taken from the Apollo command module and some from the ascending lunar module, not either of the pieces of technology you mentioned.'

Your totally wrong and I have you big time here. On April 1st 2002, the Sky at Night on the BBC showed pictures taken from the Clementine probe which allegedly show one of the Apollo landing areas. I was also on NASA's site last month and found film evidence of another landing area which I believe was taken aboard the Clementine.(99% sure but will check this out to be certain). HJP Arnold made a comment on it on the show. The footage preceeded to bob up and down as it went over the site. So your completely wrong!

'Nothing prevents engineers from looking at the design documents from Apollo'

Other than some of them being destroyed perhaps?

'In 1960 dollars. You do understand inflation, don't you?'

Over the same period as the Apollo missions (Apollo 1 was launched in 1967) that would be 6 years and that doesnt include the years of budget taken to make the first craft and test it. 6 x $14.3 Billion would equal almost $86 billion. This means that over the same time scale of the Apollo flights, not including any further budget increases within that time, NASA could accumulate over 3 times as much money than they needed for the original Apollo missions. Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.

'There is nothing whatosever in the footage that says the astronauts are about to falsify an in-transit telecast from low-earth orbit.'

Thats a matter of opinion.

'Speculation is your bag.'

No, speculating what you think I said seems to be your bag baby!

'Well bully for you. You can't cry fraud just because, in your infinite wisdom, you would have done it differently.'

Oh I forgot, America really doesn't have much of a history does it - that's why the UK has so many US tourists every year, to experience a bit of it.

'False. S-band receiving antennas must be precisely aligned.'

On a craft that you yourself on your own site says does not hardly move on its way to the Moon. That would hardly be difficult to tune into would it?

'Hogwash. Reconaissance satellites are continuously in various altitude orbits at high inclinations, passing over most of the earth's surface at any one time'

See the other forum for the article if you dont believe me.

'Further, you did not respond to several of my answers. Does that mean you concede those arguments?'

I'll return this accusation back your way as you seem to be doing your fare share of question dodging.