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.

You can compute how fast it is moving. If you know the dynamics of the translunar trajectory, and you have located its signal according to celestial coordinates, you know where it should be.

You vaguely wave your hands and say it's impossible for amateurs to have tracked Apollo. You're really skimping on details here. These people are making specific claims, and providing evidence of their achievement. They can also demostrate skill in tracking manmade celestial objects.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to demonstrate any appreciable knowledge about how to track objects in space.

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

No, that's not how it works. You have made the assertion that they are stars. You are therefore responsible for proving they are stars. You may not state a proposition and then assume it's true until disproven, while supplying no proof yourself.

You have provided absolutely no evidence that they are stars. You have merely stated it axiomatically. If there were no other possibilities, I might give you the benefit of the doubt. But there are other possibilities -- namely contamination from a known hurried scanning process -- therefore you must prove that your hypothesis is the best possibility. In order to do that you must provide more evidence than a mere claim.

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.

I say "irrelevant" when the statements you make have nothing to do with the point under discussion. That happens a lot with you. I'm not about to follow you down every tangential path you propose to take. I'm trying to keep you on one subject long enough to examine the point to completion.

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

Because the flame is invisible in some cases and not in others. Combustion characteristics are determined by propellant and by the size and shape of various components of the engine and by the pressurization technique.

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

False. You specifically claimed to have read the exact page in question. Your words were, "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." (2002-06-02 15:48: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...um=3&start=150)

The page you describe is http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html to which you had been referred by Andrew in his post on 2002-05-31 12:07, and at the bottom of which is the detailed description of the evidence proving the lunar terrain is varied down-sun of the flag.

If you haven't seen these pictures on HB sites then I suggest that you haven't been doing your homework.

There are hundreds of pictures on hoax believer sites. I require the identification of specific one(s) that demonstrate a specific claim. I don't accept vague references as an argument.

Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%

I agree. And your inability to find them denies you that support.

However, I'm quite concerned that you are far more interested in trying to make your opponents look silly than you are in providing clear and logical arguments for your own points. I'm not interested in your ability to nit-pick through past arguments.

Face the facts, it wasn't

You have not stated any facts. You have only given your uninformed opinion that it was not tested sufficiently. I do not accept you as an expert in spacecraft testing.

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

... in your highly expert opinion.

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

No, you're getting desperate. You have given an opinion which is only appropriately rendered by an expert. I am an expert. You are not. I will trust my opinion over yours.

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?

Irrelevant. Apollo was known and acknowledged to be experimental technology and thus carried various known risks. Commensurately it was to be used only by those who agreed to the risk and who were considered the world's experts in operating experimental flying technology. Comparison to well-tested consumer technology intended to be operated by anyone is invalid.

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

The link was posted in my original answer to this point. It's becoming clear you pay little attention to the arguments presented against your points. That makes it rather pointless for me or anyone else to attempt to address them.

If you have not seen the Apollo 11 EVA, which is only two and half hours long, then I'm skeptical that you have seen any appreciable portion of the other, much lengthier EVA footage. I therefore submit that you have not made the appropriate investigation to be able to claim no feats of lunar gravity gymnastics appear.

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.

False. Statistical probability is exactly the science of using past occurrences to estimate the probability of future ocurrences. It is well within the ability of statistical probability to determine the probability of a solar event occurring in a certain direction during a given two-week period.

The fact that statistical probability may be a closed book to you does not mean it is a closed book to everyone else. But it does mean that you are unqualified to make any quantitative statement regarding the risk of solar events during any given period.

And as a matter of fact, I can predict where lightning will likely strike. It's the when that's iffy.

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

I don't understand, then. You admit that no serious solar event actually occurred during any Apollo mission. You don't have the mathematical expertise to say just how risky it was. Yet you cite this as evidence that Apollo was falsified. That's a non sequitur.

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!

It is not irrelevant. The Soviets engineered a spacecraft they, by their own claims, fully intended to use to send a crew to the moon and to land a man upon it. Neither their prototypes nor their design mentions anything about vast amounts of radiation shielding. Those items would need to be incorporated at the very earliest design stages. They were well past that stage when their project was terminated.

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 data will not describe the radiation environment of cislunar space.

Actually, the tragic events of Apollo 1 completely confirmed Grissoms fears that NASA were trying to rush things.

That is not the assertion. You argued Grissom said the project was "ten years" from landing on the moon, and this was the basis of your argument that NASA's completion of it prior to 1970 was suspicious.

It is acknowledged by all parties that NASA was trying to rush things. You, however, made a specific, different assertion.

You continue to speak melodramatically about the Apollo 1 tragedy while completely ignoring the evidentiary requirement of your point.

How do you know that Grissom had no information of the Apollo schedule.

I did not claim Grissom had "no" information. I said Grissom cannot be assumed to have the most authoritative knowledge of the entire Apollo schedule. The statement you attribute to him would require such knowledge in order to be considered an expert opinion in contrast to other expert opinions.

And since you are the one claiming his "ten year" estimate is authoritative, it is your responsibility to demonstrate (not merely suggest) that he indeed had more information about Apollo project status than other people at NASA whose job it was to manage the project, and whose estimates disagree with Grissom's.

I have not made any claims that NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1, where did you get that one from?

From your Question #26: "The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions)." (emphasis added)

It appears you are trying to claim the government attempted to destroy the spacecraft. If you are instead claiming that the government tried to destroy Grissom's evidence, then I suggest you word your phrase in parentheses to more clearly describe what exactly you believe was about to be destroyed.

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

No, I'm accusing you of allegations you have appeared to make. If I have misunderstood your argument it is your responsibility to clarify and restate it before proceeding.

Yes I can set the time, speed restriction alert ...

Granted, all that. My point still remains: You can't seem to demonstrate beyond vague handwaving why the Apollo guidance computer was not sufficient to its task.

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 know of the Clementine photo which shows alleged soil disturbance around the Apollo 15 landing site. If this is the photo you refer to, then it does not satisfy your condition because it does not show the actual equipment. Hoax beleivers have rejected it as evidence of a lunar landing. Therefore I do not cite this as evidence that the landing sites have been photographed, because there is no evidence that the disturbance was caused by an Apollo spacecraft. I believe it's likely to have been so caused, but I have no proof.

There may be additional photos I have not yet seen, which have been released in the past couple of months. If these photos show Apollo equipment then I presume that will answer your Question #29.

Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.

You appear to be almost totally ignorant of the principles of public finance in the United States. NASA cannot simply do with its budget whatever it wishes.

Thats a matter of opinion.

Correct. And if it comes down to a matter of the viewer's opinion then it is hardly the smoking gun you and Bart Sibrel say it is. Since hoax believers will naturally interpret it to be consistent with their predetermined hypothesis, there is no evidentiary basis.

Oh I forgot, America really doesn't have much of a history does it?

Irrelevant and insulting. The needs of historical preservation regarding Apollo have been met, or are being met. The documents that have been destroyed have largely no historical significance.

On a craft that you yourself on your own site says does not hardly move on its way to the Moon.

That is not the assertion made on my site. A satellite in low earth orbit transits the sky from any one point of view on earth in a matter of a very few minutes, or seconds in some cases. A craft on a translunar trajectory would still appear to move in the sky, but it would not transit the sky in the same manner as a low-orbiting satellite. It would remain within its ephemerides for hours at a time, not minutes or seconds.

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

I dispute the claims of the article.

It is clear you have no intention of backing up your claims. It is clear you have little if any required knowledge for the claims you make. It is clear you have not paid very close attention to any of the rebuttals made against your assertions. It is clear your modus operandi here is to attempt to fabricate the appearance of divisiveness and uncertainty in the futile believe it will lend your statements some credibility. I assure you it does not.

I have no desire to participate in a debate wherein the opponent cares almost nothing for supporting his own statements and is intent solely on nit-picking and winning rhetorical brownie points. I have exercised monumental patience with you over the past several days.

This is my last posting directly to you until you demonstrate the willingness and ability to participate in the intellectual process, not merely hijack it for your own amusement.