I'll just answer the ones I think I can answer without stuffing up....

[i]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]
Jay may not be, but many people here are thermodynamics experts.

7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings.
Jay: ‘Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled circumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect. If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements, or did they take a tape measure?
By 'certain controlled circumstances' i think he is refering to the nature of the particular image, rather than the environment in which the images where captured. I'm sure that if the photographs contained no fiducials you would ask why there wheren't any.

10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source.
Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point.

My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?
Your NASA examples are not evidence, as every single 'suspicious' artifact has been shown to be completely non-suspicious...read on....

11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows.
Jay: This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows.

My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place. Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface, several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration, the light angles still do not add up.
What is your problem with perspective? Please, you just have to accept you are wrong here. Perspective, combined with the distortions of wide angle lenses and panoramas, explains all of the 'suspicious' shadows.

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
Sorry, you are making a desperate point here. If you can't refute or agree with his argument , don't reply at all, ok?

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.
No he is not. 'Pushing' and 'retouching' are NOT the same thing. Your claim is that details have been SYNTHESISED or REMOVED from the pictures, via airbrushes or whatever. Jay accepts that the contrast of the photographs has been artificaially altered during the development process, but try to understand that this has not added or removed information. It's no differnt from turning up the brightness/contrast on your monitor.

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 one refutes that there is a hotspot. It's just that some people realise that it is Heiligenshcien (sp?), an effect documented on many websites, linked to many times before. You will notice that these hotspots only occur when the sun is directly behind the photographer.

[i]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.

27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed.
Jay: See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing.

My Response: Yes, it is possible to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing – if the camera is placed before ones face and looking through a viewfinder. Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?
You contradicted yourself. How hard is this for you to understand? As mentioned before, very few shots would have been perfectly framed, they have just been cropped to appear this way.
I will pre-empt you here Dave; they where not cropped to remove the work-experience student who accidentally wandered into shot

30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

My Response: I have done nothing of the sort. I have told you that both myself and Mary Bennett have written to the newspaper without reply – how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?
Someone else here, I forget who, visited the town in Australia, in direct response to a claim you made distrubingly similar to the one above, and looked through records. I was not shocked in the least when he reported that no reference to this story, no matter how indirect, could be found.

31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston.
Jay: Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor).

My Response: Try and put whatever spin on it that you want. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Worlds media had to film the Lunar event off of a monitor.
So what? How else could they have done it? What does this prove?

32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

My Response: Same answer as above.
Me too.

33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage.
Jay: Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation.

My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed? Faithful to the time domain of recording, but not of the actual live event!
Oh my god. Listen: Jay is talking about the sampling rate of the MEDIA (ie the film) not the sampling rate of the READER (ie your DVD player). Apollo footage would have been slowed down to produce the low gravity effect. To slow it down, frames would have to be either interpolated or duplicated. What on earth has SPEEDING UP a DVD got to do with it? Go home, and play your DVD in SLOW MOTION. You will notice that the frame rate will have dropped. If it hasnt, then the company who manufactured your DVD player have broken a fundamental law of the universe, and I would love to buy one.
I will pre-empt you again; the camera could well have been recording at a higher frame rate. But this does not explain the other physical effects (dust arcs, high-jumps etc) and the fact that it doesn't really work anyway.

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!
Forumla One car engines are very different beasts from rocket engines. The noise from a rocket engine would come from the squirting of fuel (pretty damn quiet I would imagine) and the combustion of said fuels. Because the combustion is happening in a (partial, due to the fuel I suppose) vacuum, the sound waves will have no medium to transmit the sound to the ship. This is an utterly absurd comparison. A better example is a plane: how loud is a jumbo jet when you are inside it? Pretty damn quite, as far as I can remember. I expect they produce a little more than 10000lbs of thrust.

48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth.
Jay: On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

My Response: And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon – and no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!
What would a satellite expert know about scattering, a photographic phenomenon? People have explained scatter in very basic terms, and have also told you where you can go to see it for yourself.

[i]49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module.
Jay: Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

My Response: Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!
The fact they have written a book means nothing. I suspect that Jay and the others here who work for the space program have done quite a bit more research than the authors of the above mentioned books.

51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion.
Jay: That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar
Sorry, similar isn't good enough. As I said before, slow motion doesn't produce *all* of the effects seen.

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?
Perspective. Once again. You move to the left, things close to you move to the right. The mountains in the distance, they stay the same. Again: Perspective. Your optic system has endured millions of years of evoution to take advantage of this phenomenon, so don't waste it.

59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location.
Jay: The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden.

My Response: Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors? Closing the door after the horse has bolted is not a good enough answer. I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake?
No, they probablt used the same sources.

64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer.
Jay: I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.


My response: In your opinion – you don’t agree with them so say that I have ‘brushed them aside’. That’s two different things.
No. Jay has answered them, and you have not responded to those answers. That is all.


I have largely fouond that learning is a process of oscillation. The Apollo Hoax is a good example. At first, I was, 'wow, man went to the moon!' Then I found a HB site, learnt a little more, and thought 'maybe we didnt go to the moon, these HB's might be onto something!'. So later I found the BABB, and learnt a little more. I realised the HB's where probably misguided. Then I went back to a HB site and found another piece of damning evidence. The cycle continued. After having swapped sides numerous times, I have reached a point where HB claims no longer produce a moment of side-swapping inspiration. HB claims, in this sense, are one step, one switch, behind the truth.
To learn, Dave, you often have to swap sides every now and then. Because you are refusing to swap, even just for a little while, you are stuck on a plateau that is well below what you are capable of.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: widoxm on 2002-06-29 12:24 ]</font>