This represents as close to a concession as I've ever seen from Cosmic Conspiracies. Those who remember "Cosmic" Dave will recall that his dodges and denials would probably make the former Iraqi information minister blush.

Now you may be censured for this: it's against board rules to post copyrighted material.

He [Dave Cosnette] has collated what he considers to be the best evidence available and presented it as a web-page on ‘Cosmic Conspiracies’ called “The ‘Faked’ Apollo Landings!”

We covered this page in depth. It's tripe from beginning to end, and Dave Cosnette makes an art form out of ignorance.

He [James Oberg] naturally prefers to describe himself as ‘Space Historian/Author’.

What he calls himself is largely irrelevant. He has a distinguished career in actual space operations and degrees and credentials in engineering. This is a far cry from any of the so-called researchers who have looked into the Apollo question.

The footage shows images of the Surveyor-3 spacecraft taken from the Apollo 12 lunar module as it descends towards the lunar surface.

Objection. The origin and intent of the clip are what we're trying to determine.

It is controversial because the motion of the camera used to make the film is not compatible with filming conditions astronauts would have experienced from within the lunar module.

Correct. That's why a reasonable researcher would reject it as actual flight footage. This is parsimony at its best.

... and comprises one part of a large corpus of evidence that suggests fakery.

It is more accurate to say that fakery is one possible explanation. Another possible explanation -- and one much more easily demonstrated -- is that the "corpus of evidence" is the product of misinformed conjecture and blatantly poor reasoning. A good example of this is video which is simply presumed to be genuine, noted to be anomalous, and then touted as evidence of fakery. If the presumption is relaxed, the problem simply disappears.

Back in March 2002 Dave Cosnette’s web-page had been checked over by Mary, who suggested a number of technical changes, which were duly made.

I can't imagine that she checked it over very carefully. The very first claim on the page was that Bill Kaysing, among other things, was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne. I asked "Cosmic" Dave where he got that claim, and he said he got it from Dark Moon. Here is the relevant passage of Dark Moon.

It does not substantiate, as Dave Cosnette claims, that Kaysing was "head of advanced research," which is altogether a different line of work than technical writing. Further, we have Bill Kaysing's official work record from Rocketdyne, and it does not list "head of technical publications". It lists him, among other things, as a technical writer and as a publications analyst. As there were only four technical writers at that Rocketdyne facility, it is quite possible that Kaysing was their leader. But the fact remains that Bennett and Percy have misrepresented Kaysing's work record, and that Dave Cosnette has misrepresented Bennett and Percy. This does not give us great confidence that Mary Bennett's review of the Cosmic Conspiracies page on Apollo was thorough.

Mary Bennett: “There is nothing in the program to suggest that this Apollo 12 landing footage is a simulation. ..."

Whether the clip is or isn't self-evidently a simulation is irrelevant. The sine qua non of the authors' proof is the source and original intent of the footage. It's preposterous simply to assume it's genuine, and then to base a proof upon that assumption. Those of us who have seen the clip

http://www.clavius.org/img/surv3.rm

immediately see reasons to believe it's not real. The angle is impossible, the terrain is wrong, and the quality is very good.

"The sequence is sandwiched between other shots of Apollo 12 landing film and therefore it is entirely reasonable for the viewer to conclude that it is 'original NASA film'."

"Entirely reasonable" is not proof. Remember, the authors' conclusion depends on this being represented by NASA as actual flight footage. Here the authors have drawn a conclusion which they defend as rational, but in their book and video they state it as if it were fact: "TV frames from the 'Apollo 12' LM which allegedly filmed Suveyor 3 during the LM's descent to the surface.'" (op. cit., p. 160 inset). Further, the itty-bitty photo credit for the still frames is "NASA".

That's simply not true, and it has no bearing on where the original documentary producers obtained their footage. Aulis' source for this footage was not NASA, it was a secondary documentary source. This, not "NASA" should have been the attribution. The authors did not bother to verify its origin beyond one secondary source. Yet they represented to their readers that NASA was the source, and then went on to build a case on that assumed fact.

The inability to separate conclusion from fact is inexcusable in a book leveling the kind of accusations we read in Dark Moon. And this is not merely a case of botched attribution. In this case the attribution itself is -- or would have been -- the smoking gun. The point stands or falls on where that clip came from and whether it was intended to be a simulation or actual flight footage.

"At the time of writing their book and making their video - it had not occurred to the authors that anyone - other than NASA -
would have supplied the material."

Anyone who uses secondary sources must deal with this. And Bennett and Percy use secondary sources almost exclusively. This is why conscientious researchers shy away from secondary sources. Secondary sources are, in many ways, a convenient shortcut to scholarship. But one's information is only as good as the skill of the author of that source. In order to rely on it, one must check the validity of the secondary source. This complicates reliable research, not facilitates it.

Just as Bennett and Percy failed to check "Una Ronald" to see if her story held up, they have failed to check their other secondary sources. This is becoming a litany of failure on the part of the Aulis authors.

Further, it's not sufficient to discover the origin. The intent of its producers must also be ascertained.

"Now, NASA records may well show this footage isn't theirs, but from the public’s point of view, they are looking at an apparently official 1987 documentary covering the Space Program and are being led to assume that this is all genuine footage."

Fact is not established as a matter of the "public's point of view." It remains that the authors made an assumption, treated it as fact, and hid the mechanism by which that assumption was made.

"Since, if this Surveyor 3 flyby material is a simulation, this fact is not pointed out as such: it is not made clear either on screen or on the soundtrack before, during or after this scene."

Television documentaries are not, nor should we assume they are, rigorously documented historical dissertations. Most of what we see on television is not intended to be a scholarly work. To that end documentary filmmakers make extensive use of archival footage which approximates the material they describe, reconstructions, and other modes of simulation. Anyone relying on such material for information -- especially documentary producer David Percy -- should know this.

Dark Moon, however, is intended to be a scholarly work. And in this work we find that the real source of the film clip has been hidden. Bennett and Percy give "NASA" as the source for this material, hiding completely the identity of the documentary which serves as the real source. Then they shift blame away from themselves onto a television documentary which has no such expectation of rigor. They go on to assume the footage is intended to depict actual flight photography, when in fact there is nothing to substantiate that. Yet upon this point their case rests.

Let's be clear: the fault belongs to Mary Bennett and David Percy, and not to anyone else.

“We had no reason to doubt that this particular footage was anything other than NASA material and therefore in the public domain. ..."

The legal right to quote this material is irrelevant. This is a typical Aulis dodging of the question. The question is what lengths had the authors gone to verify the origin and intent of that particular clip -- upon whose origin their argument rested. It doesn't matter if they verified the source of every minute of their secondary source. It's just a matter of scholarly common sense to verify the origin and intent of material from secondary sources when the origin and intent themselves are the key to the argument.

It is our opinion that this particular piece of footage seems to have slipped through Bennett and Percy’s net

I could fly a 747 through Bennett and Percy's net. Have we forgotten the claims that all the Apollo photos were of studio quality? Have we forgotten the claims that the EVA footage shows no low-gravity gymnastics? Let's face it -- the Aulis authors didn't check their sources, and they know it. Even worse, they represent to us that they have.

David Percy: "Note that this Surveyor 3 ‘fly-by’ scene would have been a very expensive exercise for just a few seconds of film. Specially recreating such a sequence would negate the criteria of keeping production costs as low as possible. ..."

First, simulations like this were created in dozens by television networks all around the world.

Second, Percy seems to assume that the secondary source documentary producer could be the only other source of the clip. What leads him to say that? Keeping production costs low would indeed suggest using stock footage whenever possible. And I agree that getting a lot of stock footage from NASA is the way to go. But what about stock footage from some third party source, like NBC-TV?

Third, NASA itself made simulations for educational purposes. It may, in fact, be a NASA clip. But it's not sufficient to show that NASA was the author of this clip. It must be shown that NASA made the clip and that NASA intended it to be accepted as actual flight footage.

From our point of view, however, we think that insufficient ground-work was carried out on the footage

That's an understatement. When Bennett and Percy's point stands upon nothing but the authenticity of this clip, it is fully and squarely their responsibility to prove its origin and intent. They cannot base their case on someone else's inability to prove it didn't come from NASA, nor upon recollections or assumptions made by others, or upon speculations of why it was made. Bennett and Percy must prove the film was intended by NASA to represent actual flight footage, or they have no case.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base