http://www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm

Hm. Make cash online.

My ax to grind is ancient, my
family is the true royal family of the United kingdom.

Which "true" royal family would that be? Britons, help me out here. How many ruling houses has the U.K. had over the centuries?

The same cults that
dominate the world ...

Or in other words, "rant rant rant Masons blah blah rant Illuminati rant rant Templars rant rant blah blah the phone company blah blah."

I have just read through many Moon Hoax pages

We're proud of you. Have you been to school and studied physics? Astronomy? Chemistry? Engineering? History?

A good movie to watch is Skulls and Wag the Dog.

Translation: Hollywood screen writers always get the facts right and never embellish anything, so that's what I'm basing my arguments on.

I have always conducted my affairs as if I was looking through his eyes.

Wow, delusions of grandeur and godlike vision.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Being a scientist I have gad to deal with facts for many years.

So this guy is rightful heir to the British throne, a scientist, and Jesus' buddy. Oh, but it's not an ego thing.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Astronomy programs are great, and usually accurate enough, but knowing what you're looking at is a different thing altogether.

These programs confirm the shadow on the Moon at the landing site as being in
the dark at 4:17 PM EDT July 20th 1969 the moment of the alleged landing.

The problem is that in order to locate the terminator you have to have extremely accurate positions of not just the moon, but also the earth and the sun. Accuracy in these kinds of programs is accomplished by harmonic equations. It takes about 300 elements, for example, to accurately produce a sun-fixed location for the earth on any given date. So in order to evaluate the simulation's accuracy we need to peek inside and see whether they provide dozens or hundreds or thousands of harmonic elements.

And I'm sure Carl Sagan did not sit down and program the thing himself. I'm sure he put his name on something that someone else had done.

but the film NASA shows of the
descent is in daylight and no shadow is seen at all from orbit

That's a big negatory. One of the proof photos I use quite often shows Eagle headed right for the terminator.

The problem is simulation. It's a common thing for someone to say, "My free astronomy program shows the moon was in shadow," or, "I modelled this scene in 3D Studio and didn't see the same lighting effects." Failure to create an accurate simulation is not proof that the real-life occurrence was fraudulent.

The intended landing site was published in the press kits. Armstrong was only a few miles off. Every single telescope on earth was no doubt trained on that spot. Don't you think some astronomer in Russia or China would have said, "Hey, they're landing ten degrees on the dark side of the terminator!"

Some have said that there is an atmosphere on the moon, well there is not. This is how it is, none.

Someone who claims to be a scientist would know that the moon does indeed have an atmosphere, just not one that's physically significant at the macro level. It doesn't "blow". It doesn't scatter light. It's just a somewhat denser concentration of gas molecules near the surface.

The flag waving is not a factor at all ... this is just another mistake.

A scientist would know what made the flag look and act as it did and would not call it a "mistake", whether or not it was irrelevant to his argument.

I have done years of welding, take my word for it.

Scientist, welder, heir to the British throne, and so forth.

Compared to the welding rod, the glare from the sun on the moon is so bright, it would burn the skin let alone the white of the eyes and the retina is
magnified focusing the light.

Well, compared to a welding rod the glare from the sun is composed of an entirely different spectrum of electromagnetic light. Welding arcs are heavy on the ultraviolet, which is what causes sunburn and retina damage. The shorter the wavelength, the nastier EM radiation is.

I think it was Dave Scott or John Young who complained that the sunlight gave him a headache. But it's only about 20% brighter than the sun as seen from the earth. You could easily walk around with the visor up, as long as you don't stare directly into the sun.

... a lunar lander, could remain for only a short time as the surface temperature of the machine and the space suits would rocket up.

Obviously our welder-scientist-king was sleeping during thermodynamics class. The temperature an object reaches on the moon is a factor of how much light it reflects versus absorbs, and the emissivity of the material from which it is made. Also, the lunar module was cooled by sublimation, as were the space suits.

Contrary to some outlandish claims made elsewhere on this forum, things in space near the earth an dmoon do not uniformly reach a temperature of 250 F.

The light is 20 times brighter than on the earth.

Twenty percent, not twenty times. No scientist would argue that the earth's atmosphere absorbs or reflects 95% of the incoming light.

The daylight temperature is 250 degrees.

The temperature of sunlit lunar surface material at high noon is 250 F or so. That's not the only temperature that exists on the moon.

In addition, if you take the time and down load the 16mm frames taken from the
Lander while both astronauts were out of the Lander, the movie camera moves
about panning up and down and from side to side by several feet.

Those are video frames taken from the television camera which was remotely controlled by flight controllers on earth. It was one of the lunar module's most publicized features. The 16mm DAC was only used to record traverses, when the rover's S-band antenna could not be stabilized.

And this means someone in the Lander other then the two on the surface.

Well, now I'm confused. Did they land in the dark because of the heat, or did they fake the whole thing and not go in the first place?

In later moon walks, no astronaut has his shield up.

False. Jack Schmitt spend most of EVA-3 with his visor up since he had scratched it so badly during prior EVAs. He couldn't see through it very well.

As this was 1969 the information was not readily available on the web, so they
were not scrutinized as today

But they were nevertheless available. Legitimate historians and researchers from all over the world have been examining them for decades. The only thing web publishing has accomplished is to bring this material into easy reach of the crackpots who otherwise didn't know how to obtain it.

I am an old man now

Hence his allegiance to the old-fashioned "All the anomalies are mistakes" theory instead of the much more fashionable "All the anomalies are deliberate clues from whistle-blowers" theory.

and have a great deal of interaction with people in high places

Most royal welders do. Does that mean he's now part of the conspiracy?

Anybody care to debunk him?

Fish in a barrel.

His entire argument is based simply on the prediction of a simulation of unknown fidelity.

As for his being a welder, I'd say that's the only plausible thing in this whole rant.

As for his being a devout Christian, probably true but irrelevant. My experience as a Christian is that their skill at critical thought is in inverse proportion to the degree of their professed devotion.

As for his being heir to the British throne, that's for geneologists to determine.

As for his being a scientists -- absolutely no way.