Well, some of these are so easy even I can't resist.

1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne.
Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).

Bingo! You do understand that these two job titles are not equivalent, don't you? Your claim on the site is that Kaysing was some sort of "head scientist". The actual title is more like "head librarian". Now, please remove the claim from your site, or at least modify it to state the correct title.

2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo.
A quote from the man himself – ask him, I’m not Percy.
Fine. Then modify your site to state that Percy claims to have studied the entire film and video record, not that he has done so.

5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth.
I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.
You refute it? Based on what? You can't just say "I don't believe it so therefore it's not true." Provide some reasons why it can't be true.

6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F.
Jay: ‘Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.’

My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say. Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).
I think Jay's skills in thermo are obvious to everyone but you. To answer the question, it's meaningless to talk about the temperature of an object on the airless Moon unless you know its absorptive/reflective/radiative characteristics, as well as how it's being illuminated. It could range from nearly absolute zero to hundreds of degrees C. One thing you can't do is assert that you know what its temperature will be unless you have considered these factors and made some calculations. These are things you have not done. So, remove this claim from your site.

9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood.
Jay: ‘Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown.’

My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began? So how much do they actually pay for sweeping the stage? You haven’t seen it, so it cannot be true – wrong.
Pathetic attempts at ridicule will not make your assertions of fact any more or less true. Grow up, ya weenie.

14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light.
Jay: Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow.

My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.
You don't even know the difference between a movie camera and a video camera. Sheesh.

21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests?
Jay: The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso.

My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket… straps, straps, straps… Read what you’re writing sometimes – puhhlease
More obtuseness. Your claim implies that the camera is attached firmly to the space suit, so it can't be aimed other than by turning or leaning the body. Jay is pointing out that the camera was loosely attached -- so that the astronaut could aim it. It's like the difference between a pair of glasses on someone's nose, vs a pair of glasses hanging from a croakie around their neck.

22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts.
Jay: Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions.

My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.
"Pushing" is not "retouching". Even the most casual amateur photographer knows this. Go ahead, look up the words in the dictionary.

24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
Jay: Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft.

My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a spotlight illuminating the spot. Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots (unless there is cloud cover of course) and the LEM must have some pretty unique properties if it can reflect a light spot into a crater or depressed area as is the case in the mentioned photo. Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes, we don’t need any scientist to tell us that it isn’t there!
No, you don't. But you might need a scientist to tell you what the source of that spot of light is. There is no picture that shows the source, so how can you claim that it must be a spotlight? Your reply above demonstrates that you are aware of at least one other possibility -- reflection from the polished surfaces of the LM. Now retract your claim of a spotlight until you can prove it.

26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera.
Jay: The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.
You're confusing the events of Apollos 12 and 15. But in any case, your claim is that the astronauts were told to point the camera at the sun. They were not. Now correct your web site.

34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface.
Jay: Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong.

My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies. Again your falling over yourself to prove your point without taking in what I’m writing, what should I write so that you understand me? Opinion defended as you put it!
So just what is this supposed to prove? Why is it suspicious that Armstrong appears in only one still photo? He's on camera almost continually for over two hours!

35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack.
Jay: Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets.

My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers. Their mics are also inside the helmet, yet we hear noise. Granted, they are not in a vacuum, but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!
Thank you for granting the fact that the descent engine was operating in vacuum. You seem to dismiss this as barely relevant, but it makes all the difference in the world -- along with the fact that a rocket engine with virtually no moving parts is totally different from an internal combustion race car engine.

36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time.
Jay: The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed.

My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.
Oh, this is rich. Got a dictionary handy? If not, there are some good ones on line. OK, look up "spontaneous". Now look up "simultaneous". Do you detect a subtle difference?

46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint?
Jay: The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

My Response: I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I? Perhaps if you read what was written instead of answering what you think was written we would get somewhere. The challenge remains, if the dust was blown away due to the thrust of the engine, how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?
Well, it was Aldrin, but as you say, "Armstrong, Aldrin -- whatever." The footprint shot was taken a good 10-15 feet away from the lander, where there was little disturbance of the surface material. This was done quite deliberately, because Aldrin was trying to document the surface properties, not take an historic photograph.

47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission.

My Response: Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway… and what a great picture opportunity was to be had when filming the Surveyor with the LEM nestling nicely in the background on the horizon on the top of a nearby ridge… almost picture perfect one might say!
It wasn't luck - one of the main objectives of Apollo 12 was to make a pinpoint landing. Some very clever navigational tricks (Doppler tracking and creative use of the LM computer guidance system) were used to make it possible. So, you think it's suspicious that the mission succeeded as planned? But if it had failed and the landing had been kilometers away from Surveyor, no doubt you'd argue that this was proof that the mission was faked, since NASA wouldn't have dared try to show pictures of something that had been on the Moon for years.

56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument. My Response: The required amount of shielding from radiation and excepted levels that a human can withstand here on Earth is on my site – perhaps you missed it?

My Response: Here’s your reference – and this is in relation to CCD cameras – Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

By C.J. McFee –‘An initial baseline figure of 3mm shielding was initially established for EIS, yielding an ionising radiation dose of around 7krad for a five year mission and a trapped proton dose of 6.2x109 protons/cm2. These values were considered to be too high and so after some study, a higher shielding value of 15mm Aluminium was adopted which gave an ionising dose of around 1.5krad for the mission, with an overall proton dose of3x109 protons/cm2.’
Notice the phrase "five year mission". Doesn't that suggest anything to you? Furthermore, 15mm is 1.5cm, not 10cm.

58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Jay: Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion.

My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?
Once again, you substitute taunting for rational argument.

61. There is television footage of the rover in motion.
Jay: It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera.61.

My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?
My heart! [clutches chest] I never thought I'd live to see the... aaack... [plop]

66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture.
Jay: This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?
This is irrelevant. Retail sales and manufacturing jobs are not comparable to Engineering practices.

72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so.
Jay: Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems.

My Response: Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?
Duh... maybe because his heart problems began after he left NASA?

Oh yes, to leave you with a gem – Was your involvement with Hollywood anything to do with the Apollo Hoax? LOL
It's wonderful that you're so good at amusing yourself. If you spent as much time educating yourself... nah, too much to hope for.

[Editied to correct spelling and bolding errors]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-29 11:58 ]</font>