All these accusations and not one single reference to back up your many claims.

No, you're the one making the claims. And many of us have problems with those claims and have brought them to your attention.

I’m not answering all the questions you pose because we have debated them to death.

That's the point. You are unresponsive to the debate. You appear to participate in it, but after all the discussion -- many cases of which prove you don't know what you're talking about -- you simply reassert your original argument.

From what you’ve written, nobody is qualified to comment because they are not an expert in the subject

No, that is not the argument. If someone is not an expert in the subject, his opinion on that subject is not to be considered authoritative per se. Nothing prevents Jan Lundberg from commenting on, say, lighting or ichthyology. But the question is how correct and authoritative that comment is. He is not known to be an expert in lighting, and those who are experts in lighting disagree with his opinion. Yet you cite it as if it's God's own truth about the subject.

There is a great difference between commenting on a subject and commenting in the capacity of an export on a subject. You have not learned the difference.

You’re also not qualified to have a view on photography or lighting

Except for the fact that I'm also a competent photographer and a competent lighting desigher, and where my expertise may have lacked in those areas I have confirmed my statements with those who are professional practitioners.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as they say.

Except that I listen to the experts I consult, whereas you only argue with them.

[b]Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).[/b

I am well aware of the claims made by Dark Moon and well aware that it does not claim Kaysing was the head of "advanced research" which is an entirely different occupation from "head of technical publications." The statement that he is head of "advanced research" appears only on your web site. Please either give a source for that, or withdraw it.

3. A lot of the footage was pre-recorded and not live at all.
No need to answer this as you have confirmed it is true –why did you bother bringing this question up?

Because your statement is misleading. It implies that parts of the EVA record (i.e., film, video, and photography) were produced before the missions. If this is the case, you have not given evidence of it.

Not once do we see this flap appear on the movie footage taken from behind the astronaut.

I can see it just fine, and so have many other people who have seen the footage. Because the flap is in front, and the LRV-mounted television camera somewhat low, you can only see the tip. But it's definitely there. For heaven's sake you can see it wagging back and forth when he lands.

I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.

Such as?

My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say.

False. Engineers are required to certify in thermodynamics.

Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).

A meaningless question. If you are asking for other than the ground temperature then you must tell me what the object is whose temperature you are interested it.

[b]My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect.[b]

Handwaving. Certain aspects of the lunar environment provide enough such control.

If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements?

Boy, wouldn't you like to know?

If you had read and understood http://www.clavius.org/photlens.html you would have realized that the reseau grid sets up a very accurate and precise method of measuring the angular subtension of an object in a single photographic frame. If you know the size of that object (i.e., that the lunar module is 22 feet tall, or that certain portions of it are so many inches across) you can determine using trigonometry exactly how far away the camera's focal point is from that object.

Further, by noting the patter of obscuration on the "locator" object (i.e., that the landing legs form a certain angle with each other in the picture) you can determine the photographer's azimuth from that object. And since objects like the lunar rover and the lunar module have precisely known azimuths due to their onboard guidance platforms, that translates into a precise location of the photographer by the azimuth and distance method. This is the science behind the "locator" shots.

My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began?

No, that was not my claim. Further, this is less about what I know than it is about what you know. You have made the claim that these prop annotations are "common" in Hollywood. Since you've obviously never been to Hollywood and you have given no indications of being personally familiar with the practices of the entertainment industry, I want you to tell me the basis for your claim.

As for me, I never professed to be an expert on "everything that has happened in film". You have this persistent habit of constructing straw men by hyperbole, and it makes you look foolish for attempting to dodge expertise. But I would say that if something were "common" in Hollywood, and that if someone like me were to spend some appreciable amount of time in Hollywood, he would expect to see that phenomenon which you say is so "common" there.

Well, I didn't. Not only that, I even asked people there about prop and stage markings, and nobody I talked to has ever marked the stage or props so prominently. Certainly if something were "common" in Hollywood, the people who have worked there all their lives would have known about it.

On a Hollywood soundstage props are not marked. Set pieces sometimes are, but only on the back side which is never visible to the camera. Markings on the stage floor ("mark" for an actor, "spike" for an object) are a simple "x" in chalk for some surfaces, or a small strip of tape for others, if the floor is not going to be in the frame.

Putting a huge "C" on the ground and a huge "C" on the visible portion of a prop is contrary to all the training, experience, and intuition of the property master, for the very reason that those markings would be visible to the audience.

I've been on stages performing or doing technical theater work since I could speak. I don't claim to be the world's expert, but I'm telling you that what you claim is "common", is not. Therefore you must provide additional proof.

Further, the marking on the rock has been fairly conclusively determined to be something on the print. The mark is not on either duplication master, but only on the scans taken from one print. The mark does not appear on any version of the other photograph taken of that rock.

10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious ...
Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim ...
My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?

And still you dodge. The question is with your interpretation of that evidence, which as been shown to have no theoretical or empirical support. Whereas my explanation has both theoretical and empirical proof.

The bottom line, Mr. Cosnette, is that you cannot support your interpretation of the photos, but you refuse to withdraw your assertion.

My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place.

That is not in question. The problem is with inferring sun elevation from shadow information, which is what you are doing.

Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface

Correct, and they know not to try to infer things from apparent shadow direction and length when the precise undulations of the terrain cannot be determined.

several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration ...

David Percy is not an expert in shadow analysis. Further, he categorically denies that surface variation has any appreciable effect on the appearance of shadows. Dark Moon most certainly does not account for surface variation in its shadow analysis.

My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.

No, it is not nit-picking at all. You don't know which camera the night lens was intended for, nor when that lens was intended to be used. So later when you try to compare Hasselblad photography with DAC footage (which you incorrectly say was photographed with a night lens) you can't intelligently draw the comparison.

Of all the hundreds of hours of film and video downlink from the Apollo missions, only about 30 minutes of it was shot with a night lens -- the portion taken from Apollo 11's MESA prior to Armstrong changing lenses.

My Response: A quote from Joe Durnavich,
one of your groups members ...

And if you continue reading the discussion you'll understand that Joe has realized what I have been discussing with respect to albedo -- that it varies depending on where you measure it and which of the several acceptable methods you use. The number will come out different.

In any case the question is not what Joe Durnavitch knows about albedo, but what Dave Cosnette knows about albedo. You say the moon's albedo is 7%. You didn't say where or how you got that number. Now that you know the moon's albedo varies as I said, how do you explain your argument?

My Response: Neither can you. How can you generalise on Dr. Groves’ conclusions when you are not in the position of being a photographic expert?

I am in the position of being a photographic expert. Most engineers require the science of photogrammetry in order to do their jobs. This is what enables me to point out the flaws in Dr. Groves' analysis, especially the fantastically inflated claims of precision. If Dr. Groves' claims of precision are for real, he is claiming to be able to locate the spot on Aldrin's boot to a precision of 0.002 inch, or less than the thickness of a human hair. Pretty good for measuring a tiny spot on a 70 mm transparency.

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

No, it most certainly is not. Your statement implies that the camera cannot move independently of the astronaut, and you go on to make that implication explicit, claiming that the only way the astronaut could point the camera at all is to orient his entire torso. That is not the case.

The PLSS is suspended by over-shoulder straps which connect to a ring on the suit chest. The two buckles which effect this connection each has a small horizontal bar which receives one of two pincer hooks (similar to a car door latch) on the rear of the RCU. This allows for considerable "play" in the RCU, especially in the vertical tilt (i.e., pitch) direction.

You argue this wouldn't allow for the extreme downward pitch of the optical axis in AS11-40-5903, and your argument is solely that the camera was "strapped" down. I have made a very detailed study of the mechanical connection between the camera and the RCU and between the RCU and the rest of the suit, and I don't see any reason why it's impossible to point the camera downwards. In fact, that's the "natural" position of the camera.

Either defend your argument or withdraw it.

My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.

No, yet again you have completely ignored an important difference. To say a photo has been "retouched" when it has been "pushed" is factually incorrect. Those refer to two completely different activities.

My Response: You cannot retouch negatives on a continuous roll of film

I asked you to support your assertion, not just restate it.

Perhaps you mean that specific frames cannot be pushed during development because the entire roll must be developed identically. But that is not the assertion. It is suggested that individual frames were pushed during duplication which is a separate step and not bound by the limits of the film format.

You may be unaware that underexposed film preserves detail which is not readily apparent in the transparency or negative, and that by manipulating the photochemical parameters of duplication you can quite effectively extract those details. The scans of the egress photos made from the transparencies themselves are very dark. But the scans made from large-format prints are suitable. Creating the print necessitated a duplication step where corrective action for underexposure could be applied.

My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever

No, not "whatever". If you wish to be taken seriously then you must demonstrate careful research. Correct your page.

Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots

What about natural sunlight reflected off a big sheet of aluminum?

I use reflectors and sunlight to create pools of light all the time.

Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes

No one is arguing that a pool of illumination isn't really there. We're arguing over what you (or rather, Mr. Lundberg) says is causing it. Mr. Lundberg, in his inexpert opinion, says it's a spotlight. You say it's a spotlight. But you have no evidence that a real spotlight is actually causing it.

My Response: Actually Dr. Groves, Percy and Bennett have successfully provided enough data about the lay of the lunar surface in their book to satisfy anyone who is inquisitive enough to dig deeper (pun intended).

No, they haven't. They have provided only speculation which is contradicted by observation. I pointed you several times to the page on my site where I conclusively proved -- using Percy's own evidence -- that the lunar surface was in fact irregular where Percy claimed it was flat. To date you still have not commented on that evidence.

Now that you mention it, Percy and Groves actually disagree on the effect of terrain. Percy says the terrain would have no measurable effect on the appearance of shadows, but on p. 538 of Dark Moon Groves purports to be able to measure down to a hair's breadth that same effect which Percy says is negligible.

This happens all through Dark Moon. The authors simply assert whatever needs to be asserted in each case to make their conclusions true, irrespective of whether they asserted the exact opposite in some other case.

My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.

No, you misunderstand your own argument. You wonder why Mission Control told Apollo 15 to point their camera "at the sun" when the same procedure had ruined Apollo 12's camera. The answer is that Apollo 15 was told to point their camera "up sun" which is not directly at the sun, but merely in the sun's azimuth.

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.

That is desirable, but not necessary. If you have a wide-angle lens, precise aiming is not as necessary as when you are using a telephoto lens.

Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?

Try ALSJ.

... the astronauts would have found it difficult to change lenses, film and especially filters when they had pressure around their fingers.

But there's a big difference between "difficult" and "impossible". I'm sure it was difficult, which is why they trained for it.

Also the gloves were not of surgical glove thickness for greater sensitivity, but rather the size of a fireman’s glove.

There's an important difference. A huge gauntlet operating under pressure would indeed be a serious impediment. But the huge gauntlets weren't pressurized. The inner glove was pressurized, and the inner glove is what most closely resembles a surgical glove, but a bit thicker.

You haven't yet caught onto the two-glove idea.

To prove your conviction perhaps you could try changing the film in your camera with heavy gloves on, and then you will see how difficult it is, whether pressure inside the glove is involved or not.

Already done that. I can change a magazine camera, my miniDV video camera, and my 35 mm Canon camera while wearing my heavy leather work gloves. Further, I can change all the exposure settings on my Canon in those same gloves, and manually focus. And that camera isn't even designed for space use.

Further, I have done manual dexterity experiments in space gloves, specifically those that were developed for use with the shuttle's MMU.

The question is not what I have done to assure myself that the astronauts could operate the camera. The question is what you have done to support your assertion that it was "virtually impossible" (your words) for them to have done so.

What have you done?

how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?

Why don't you simply pay attention to the findings of people who live in Australia, have researched this question, and posted their results here?

Neither you nor Mary Bennett seems overly concerned that you have alleged as fact something which you admit you have not corroborated. The correct course of action is not to first publish the allegation and then go see if it is true. The correct course of action is to first perform the research and then afterwards report the findings.

I was promised that Bennett and Percy's work was carefully researched and meticulously documented. Now I find, from Bennett's own acquaintance, that she's frantically writing to Australia to see whether or not the story she published is true. That makes me wonder what other parts of Dark Moon are simply unsubstantiated rumors.

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.

Yes, it most certainly does alter the fact. The world's media did not have to film it off a monitor, they were given standard broadcast feeds from the MSFN equipment in Houston.

You can spin whatever you want, but the fact remains that you're alleging things that are provably untrue, and you don't seem to care.

Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect.
My Response: Same answer as above.

The dodge continues. You are factually incorrect, and you don't seem to care.

My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed?

Completely irrelevant. Fast-forwarding a recording means extracting a portion of the sampled signal. If the video was sampled at 30 fps and you want a 2X fast-forward, you pick every other frame out of the sample and display it. If you want a 6X fast-forward, you select every fifth frame and display it. What if you want an 8X fast-forward? 30 is not evenly divisible by 8, so you must either try to interpolate between frames or settle for a nonuniform sampling of the frame. (DVD players do the latter.)

The display rate on your television is still 30 fps (25 for you in the U.K.) but you're not seeing frames that were created 1/30 second apart. The time domain is not preserved.

The Apollo 11 downlink problem is the opposite sampling problem. For American broadcast purposes you need to supply 30 frames per second. But the video is being taken on the moon at 10 fps. You can't just store up those frames and then play them back at 30 fps -- the action would be comically sped up because the 1/10 second interval between when the frames were photographed would be rendered as a 1/30 second interval between the display of those frames.

So you must scan-convert. Fortunately it's not hard. Basically you take each frame and duplicate it twice. So each frame from the spacecraft produces three identical frames for output. This satisfies the 30 fps constraint for broadcast without altering the time interval that existed between the source frames.

Mr. Wood explains the equipment they used to do that. It's all very straightforward. Your argument that it would have scaled the time domain of the playback is simply wrong.


My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies.

Right, that's your limitation, not NASA's.

You're trying to draw a conclusion about suspicious absence, but using selective evidence.

It would be as if I came to your house and looked at one of your aquariums and said, "Hey, you've only got one blue tang in this tank, do you have something against blue tangs?" And then you point me to three other aquariums in the room which are each filled to capacity with blue tangs, at which point I said, "I'm just talking about this one tank. I don't care about those others."

My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers.

No, it could not. An F1 racing engine is not the same as a rocket engine.

but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!

It was explained to you that rocket engines produce a steady roar only when fired in an atmosphere. In a vacuum you only get a brief sound of the ignition transient and then during steady-state firing very little if any flow noise. You have not accounted for this in your argument.

My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.

No, "spontaneous" does not mean "at the same time". It means to occur without any apparent external cause. All bipropellant engines consume each propellant component at the same time, but not all are hypergolic. Other bipropellant engines (e.g., the SSME) require an explicit ignition source. Hypergolic engines do not. Your definition describes all bipropellant engines, but does not sufficiently discriminate between hypergolic and non-hypergolic bipropellants.

This is not a nit-pick. You have presumed to criticize Apollo on the grounds that its rocket technology is implausible. You are unable to correctly describe that technology, therefore we take legitimate issue with your opinion on Apollo propulsion. The nature of hypergolic propulsion is important to understanding the design and behavior of Apollo spaceships.

My Response: In the book ‘Dark Moon’, Percy and Bennett ask George Pinter – previously of Grumman Aerospace and actively involved at top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module – why no clouds of red smoke were visible on the Lunar landings or ascents.

Cryogenics have nothing whatosever to do with hypergolic propulsion. Mr. Pinter is correct in that gas under pressure disperses quickly in a vacuum, but that is not the reason the red cloud is absent. The red cloud is produced by the chemical reaction of preinjected nitrogen tetroxide with the air.

I have provided David Percy with detailed information on this phenomenon. He erased it from his web site and now pretends it never existed. I am not impressed with his allegations that he is waiting for an unresponsive NASA to answer his questions. There are any number of sources he could have consulted, including me, on this matter. Aerozine/N204 is a common fuel mix today and there are many engineering firms all over the world who are familiar with its behavior.

What David Percy is waiting for is irrelevant. I want to know why you -- who have received a lengthy treatise on this -- persist in your assertion.

... and can produce thrust on a sandy surface such as the Moon’s

The moon is not a "sandy" surface. Sand is not especially cohesive except when wet.

... will at least leave scorch marks or heat up the ground. No evidence of this is seen.

False. AS11-40-5921.

Even if the engine was throttled down it would have produced enough power to effect the ground underneath the engines exhaust pipe.

It did. But you describe a specific effect, that of melting the surface and producing a crater. I'm an engineer. I want a quantative dynamic gas pressure analysis and a compaction analysis to prove a crater should have been formed. I want a quantitative thermodynamic analysis to prove the surface should have been melted.

If you can't provide me with either of these, then you haven't considered the question sufficiently to determine whether your assertions are plausible.

One the one hand your saying that the dust landed pretty quickly, and on the other your saying that it was actually airborne after the engines had been switched off?

No, that it is exactly not what I am asserting.

You have combined two points which I wished kept separate.

First, you argue that there shouldn't have been enough dust remaining after landing for the astronauts to have made footprints. Yet you ignore the fact that all the while the engine is firing, we see dust being blown outward in the film. The blowing dust continues largely undiminished until the engine is stopped. This implies that dust remains.

An analogy. Let's say I have a pitcher full of water. I begin slowly pouring that water out. When you say "stop" I will stop pouring the water and tip the pitcher back upright. Now if the trickling water ceases immediately when you say "stop", you can infer that there is likely still water in the pitcher, even if you can't see inside the pitcher. But if the trickling of water ceases long before you say "stop", you can infer that I ran out of water and the pitcher is empty.

The fact that dust continues to blow outward for as long as the engine is firing suggests that the dust was not blasted completely away in one fell swoop, but was being slowly eroded by the exhaust plume in order to create that steady stream of dust. Thus there is no basis for the argument that the area under the lander should have been swept entirely free of dust.

Second, you argue that there should have been dust in the footpads. Dust does not billow in a vacuum, even in response to a directed stream of fluid. It sprays outward in a radial pattern and at a fairly shallow angle.

As the LM lowered, the dust dispersal was almost entirely below the footpads. Now recall that the descent profile calls for the LM engine to be shut down while the lander is still some five feet off the surface. This is to prevent a back pressure wave from damaging the underside of the lander. So if the engine is cut off with the footpads still five feet off the ground, and the dust is only blowing when the engine is firing, most or all of the dust will have settled back to the surface before the footpads -- falling from above -- strike it.

I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I?

No, but you imply that the first footprint was made in dust. Since you have no idea what that first footprint may have looked like, your argument is based simply on your assumption.

how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?

Who says he did?

Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway

Luck is not a factor. It's a matter of guidance technology.

Further, you have not addressed the issue. The issue is that what you claim to be official NASA footage of the Apollo 12 landing is not. Provide a source for your footage or withdraw your claim regarding it.

And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon

Neither has my dentist, but that's means nothing. If you want information on an optical phenomenon, talk to an expert on optics. A satellite expert is not expected to know anything about optical scatter. So if he says he doesn't know what it is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You and Percy share a trait: you both consult people on questions that are irrelevant to their stated field of expertise.

no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!

But would they be expected to? You're making an argument from silence. It's only evidentiary for people not to know something if it's guaranteed they should have known about it.

My Response: This does not rule out the possibility that another panel could be removed

But not all bays contain the same equipment. Those of us who are familiar with the SM configuration know which SM sectors we are looking at in each photo. In the Apollo 13 photo we know for a fact we are looking at Sector 4 and what we see in that photo looks like the wreckage of the ECS equipment that would have been in that sector. We similarly know for a fact that in the other photo we are seeing an opened Sector 1. We know this not by looking at their contents, but by matching external features on the SM which reveal its orientation.

If you argue that Apollo 13's wreckage was faked by simply putting fake wreckage in Sector 1, then you have to answer why it's perfectly clear that we're looking at Sector 4.

Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference [for Apollo 13] – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!

No, they have not done as much research as I. I have read the Apollo 13 transcripts from cover to cover. Mary Bennett all but admits her "research" on Apollo 13 consisted mostly of watching Ron Howard's movie, since that's what she most commonly cites in defense of her argument.

You appear to be impressed simply by the fact that Bennett and Percy wrote a big book. You don't seem concerned in the least about whether that book contains fact or error. And it's obvious that you have done absolutely nothing to verify the claims in the book, even if you possessed the skill and knowledge to do it. But we have examined the book in great depth and have applied our various fields of expertise to it and find it almost completely lacking in merit.

I don't consider Bennett and Percy experts on Apollo 13, and so if your argument is simply to fall back on them, I reject your argument.

My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar

You cannot prove something which is a subjective opinion, by definition. That's like proving that broccoli tastes good. Individuals either like it or dislike it; it's not an objective condition which can be proven for all cases.

The film evidence of wires being used is on my site. Perhaps you could watch them?

I did, but apparently I was not looking at where you wanted me to look in the frame, so I will go back and look again.

By turning a blind eye on things doesn’t make them go away.

So then why don't you comment on how wires could be used to produce low-gravity dust arcs. You seem to be turning a blind eye on that part.

Actually I have given a very plausible explanation in another post about the effects of radiation.

What other post?

Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

Why do you say that? A CCD cannot heal itself.

By C.J. McFee ...
... for a five year mission ...

How does a five-year mission differ from an Apollo mission in terms of radiation exposure?

I'm sure Mr. McFee is perfectly conversant with radiation exposure. I want to know how conversant you are with radiation exposure.

57. ...
My Response: See above.

That does not address Dr. Groves grossly overinflated dosages to which he subjected his photographic film. The dodge continues.

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?

Mr. Cosnette, I addressed this point explicity on at least three occasions. I have some idea in my head what your argument may be, but until you actually present your argument I have no way of knowing if my idea is correct. I have no intention of presenting a lengthy rebuttal to what I think your argument may be, only to have you come back later and say, "Dummy, that's not my argument."

Further, I believe your argument have something to do with parallax, but since particulars of identifying and quantifying the effects of parallax differ from photo to photo, I require a specific photo to refer to. You may choose whatever photo you wish, and as many of them as you like. But I have no intention of choosing some example of parallax and analyzing it for you, only to have you say, "Well that doesn't explain this photo over here."

I'm not about to play silly rhetorical games such as Guess Mr. Cosnette's Argument. It has nothing to do with my laziness, and the extensiveness of my contributions here demonstrates. It has everything to do with not setting up some situation where you can try to trap people into meaningless inconsistencies.

If you can't be bothered to supply an argument, you have no right commanding anyone's attention.

Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors?

No, not necessarily. I'm not interested in what you speculate might have been a good idea. I'm interested in what you can prove actually happened.

I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake?

Those original films have been incorporated into many other works.

By the way, any footage of the Apollo on the Moon is ‘official NASA footage’

No. If that footage is incorporated into someone else's compilation, errors arising out of the compilation are not necessarily errors in the source material.

Let's say I write to the BBC and ask them for various video footage of the British P.M. entering and leaving 10 Downing St. Let's say I take departure footage from one day and edit it with arrival footage from a different day. Let's say I add some narration that says, "In BBC footage here's the P.M. leaving for work and returning later that same day." Now suppose someone looks at that footage and concludes that "official BBC footage" shows an inconsistency in the P.M. clothing on what was purported to be the same day, whose error is it? Is it the BBC's fault? Is it my fault?

Until you can demonstrate you understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, you will not be taken seriously.

What film are you talking about being an artists concept? I don’t know what site you’ve seen this one – but it certainly isn’t mine.

It certainly is yours. It's the six-second Real Video clip you say is your smoking gun. Your video is a pan, yet it lacks the vidicon "smears" which are a telltale of actual pans from the LRV's camera. Further, the terrain does not resemble any of the terrain experienced on any of the missions; it is inconsistent with all other video. Finally, the upper scanline contains ATVEF-encoded data, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was obtained from a modern television broadcast.

Since your Real Video clip could have come from anywhere, your argument rests on your ability to substantiate it as actual downlink video. You have not done that. I will not accept it as evidence until you have documented where and how it was obtained.

The group has not been able to prove that the photos on my site don’t show stars.

They are not required to. Your argument rests on the premise that they are stars. Yet you have not sufficiently discussed any other possibility.

You are guessing ...

No, I am not. You argue that the specks must be stars, which means they cannot be anything else. If they could be anything else, they are not guaranteed to be stars.

Your photos come exclusively from the JSC scans, and there are known contamination problems with those scans. Further, other versions of those photos, duplicated under less contaminated circumstances, do not show the specks.

Further, some of the specks lie outside the boundaries of the frame. A camera cannot expose an image beyond its hard matte.

Finally, it has been exhaustively demonstrated to you by rigorous theory, data from Kodak, and empirical proof that you cannot simultaneously expose sunlit terrain and stars on the film in question.

In short, there is a monumental case against the specks in your stills being stars. If you argue that they must be stars you must

1. explain in terms of theoretical exposure and the characteristic curves of the film in question, just how such an exposure could have been made,

2. explain how stars could be exposed on the film outside of the camera's matte,

3. explain why the presence or absence of specks correlates to the conditions under which the scan was made.

Of course I cannot prove that the specks are contamination, but the observations point more toward that than toward a hypothesis that they are stars. Further, I'm not required to prove some other hypothesis in order to show that your hypothesis is not true. I'm simply required to show that your hypothesis does not sufficiently explain the facts and involves unproven and/or unprovable premises.

My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Thank you.

As a scientist, surely you would know that for the scientific community to accept something it has to be reproduced and reproduced again.

Under ideal, perfectly controlled circumstances, yes. The principles of real-world empiricism dictate that many subjects be used, and many successive samples taken, prior to generalization in order to compensate for effects which the experimenter cannot control, but which affect the outcome.

Considering that on some ascents the flame is visible and on others it is not – does this prove that the LEM is doing something out of scientist’s knowledge?

Of course not. No two ignitions are the exactly the same. No two dispersals of insulation and debris are exactly the same. No two separation sequences are exactly the same. No two lighting circumstances are exactly the same.

You can assert that the plume must be uniformaly visible or invisible in all cases only if you can show that everything which might affect the observation is perfectly identical between the cases.

The flame should either be visible or not visible on ALL ascents, there is no middle ground here.

I disagree entirely. You have almost antithetically misrepresented the principle of empiricism.

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, I mean that I have provided lengthy discussion and in many cases factual corrections to your questions. Your questions remain unchanged. You cannot say that Apollo defenders have not answered your questions. You simply don't like the answers, but that's a different issue.

My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?

Why do you assume that engineering is like working in a department store or factory? Citing examples of other enterprises which may be compartmentalized does not prove that aerospace engineering is also similarly compartmentalized.

My Response: But being the expert that you claim to be, you would already know right?

As a matter of fact I have all the names, dates, and purported causes of death for all the astronauts who died prior to the conclusion of the Apollo project. You have made some very specific assertions regarding those deaths, but you have provided no names, dates, or conclusions regarding the causes of death.

Do you have any intention of supporting your argument?

Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?

Irwin's symptoms were very mild during his active period as an astronaut and didn't materially affect his performance. It was only during the long-term monitoring associated with his mission that they discovered his arrythmia.

But you haven't answered the question. How can a man's death from heart attack be considered suspicious when the man had a fully documented history of heart problems? The only thing suspicious about his death is the timing, and the only thing that makes the timing suspicious is Bill Kaysing's unsubstantiated claim (made after Irwin's death) that Irwin was about to reveal the secret of the moon hoax. Remove Bill Kaysing from the picture and all you have is a man with a known heart problem dying of a heart attack.

This is clearly an attempt to "tack on" some sort of conspiratorial interpretation to Irwin's death.

I really can’t believe that you had the time to write such a long letter with your busy schedule ...

What I do in my spare time is my business.