Without checking the book (my copy is out) not only did the Nazi leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!

No, not "days" before. You might also take note who left office at about the same time as Webb: Democratic U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, to be replaced by Republican President Richard M. Nixon. The post of NASA Administrator is a political appointment. It is acceptable for an appointee to continue from one president to another under the same political party, but when the administration changes political parties then out go the appointees from one party, to be replaced by appointees sympathetic to the goals of the new ruling party.

If you had checked to see which other important government officials left office at the same time, and knew something of American government, you would have your answer. In rhetoric this is known as "splitting rails" -- Giving only one instance in a context that makes it look suspicious when giving all such instances would resolve the discrepancy.

No answers forthcoming from either party?

No answer that Bennett and Percy are willing to report. That's the problem. Of course each had a reason for leaving NASA. But the authors don't research them, they don't understand them, and they don't report them. Instead they phrase their treatment in such a way that a certain explanation is clearly favored -- in von Braun's case, that NASA wasn't really fulfilling his dream to send men to the moon -- without coming out and saying it.

I believe you may be confusing rhetorical questioning with a deviloushly clever ploy to skirt around the our countries libel laws.

No. Rhetorical questions are not leading, and they cannot be used to establish a valid premise.

And it should gravely concern the reader that the authors appear so afraid of libel that they are willing to split rails dozens of times throughout the whole book. Obviously the innuendo is intended to avoid responsibility for their ideas, but that's another whole new realm of poor writing.

Bennett and Percy promise me that they will give "irrefutable evidence" that the Apollo record is falsified. Such evidence does not come in the form of innuendo or leading questions. It comes in clearly stated conclusions and well-researched support for them. It does not come veiled implications.

As any attorney can tell you, the best defense against libel is to prove that the statements are, in fact, true. If Bennett's and Percy's evidence is so unshakable, they should have no fear in court. But since avoiding libel seems to be a prime consideration for them, perhaps their evidence is not so irrefutable as they would have the reader believe.

If Bennett and Percy want to argue that NASA had not fulfilled von Braun's vision and that's why he left, then they need to present evidence in the form of statements or letters from von Braun himself that state this. To merely suggest to the reader that this may have been the case, to set it up as the likely reason, and to provide no evidence for it, is highly irresponsible. It is not "irrefutable proof". It isn't even proof that needs addressing. It falls flat, like dozens of other examples of innuendo that Bennett and Percy use.

By posing a miriad of questions without fully answering them they leave the assertions up to the reader.

Not when the reader's attention is carefully drawn to one particular outcome, the one that happens to be what the authors want believed.

You don't establish fact by means of a rhetorical question. The authors' argument on this point is, essentially, that von Braun wouldn't have left if NASA was fulfilling his dream. He left, therefore NASA wasn't fulfilling his dream. That's an affirmed consequent -- an invalid argument.

The authors refuse to establish the reason why von Braun left NASA in the customary and valid way -- of providing documentary proof of his actual motives. They're just guessing based on what they wish were true, and compelling the reader to guess along with them. But their argument rests on whether their guess is correct. Therefore they need to prove it, not merely suggest that it might be the case.

Because you can show that under extreme conditions your theories seem to answer the perceived anomalies you then go on on to dismiss all of Percy's points.

No. The refutations of Percy's photographic evidence do not, in general, involve "extreme conditions". Many are quite reproducible on earth in normal sunlit photography. Many others are easily understandable given a real understanding of the physics involved.

On the contrary, Percy's attempts to prove his understanding of perspective is correct make use of such "extreme conditions" -- special cases which prevail only under certain carefully controlled sunlight angles and aren't generally the case in lunar surface photography. Yet Percy maintains this is the general case.

Percy's assertions regarding reflected light elicit laughter from every photographer and lighting designer I've consulted. And Percy is not above simply lying to the reader, drawing lines suggesting shadow direction which misstate or hide the actual directions.

I don't dismiss all of Percy's points on the basis of one or two examples, except when those examples reveal a mistake which Percy repeats over and over. I dismiss Percy's points because none of them, so far, has stood up to even mild examination. Clearly his arguments were aimed at people who know little or nothing about perspective and/or photography. I happen to know a fair amount about photography, and a whole heck of a lot about perspective.

it was clear to me that all aspects of Apollo and history of rocketry was tackled in order to give the reader maximum understanding of the players involved.

No. The aspects of Apollo and the history of rocketry were presented in a slipshod, stilted, and factually incorrect way in order to give the reader the impression that Bennett and Percy have some expertise in these issues -- they do not -- and to establish in the mind of the reader (who is similarly in the dark) a fanciful notion of space operations that supports their findings.

David Percy and Mary Bennett know very little about actual space travel. This is why they refuse to debate anyone with demonstrated understanding.

The added Bennetts Cydonia/Crop Circles are a pointer to the dishonesty of modern-day NASA (ref Brian O'Leary).

But even should any of these allegations be true -- and it is not proven that they are, proving dishonesty in one case does not prove dishonesty in another case. Even if NASA is hiding the truth regarding the face on Mars, that is not proof in any way that they had a reason to falsify Apollo, the means to, or actually did it.

But the fact remains that the case against NASA regarding Cydonia and other Mars issues is far from proven. What I've examined of these issues shows the same fanciful, unscientific, illogical treatment of evidence that exists in the moon hoax argument. Therefore all Percy and Bennett have done by tying their hoax theory into Mars issues is to create a case that's impossible for them to prove. They now have to prove the moon hoax and Mars issues.

"Guilt by association" is a common trick for polemical writers such as Bennett and Percy, but it has no place in a debate ostensibly based on fact. Theirs is clearly the tactic of throwing as much mud as possible against the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick.

I do like to argue but my quick actions of getting ApolloHoax forums removed has more to do with the safety of US citizens than anything else.

No, it does not. You mistakenly believe you're the only one who knows what transpired between you and the owner of the forum and his parents. Besides, several people here can testify to your having revealed there your desire to "bring down" the forum and especially to "bring down" and "finish off" me personally.

That is all I will say on this point.

BA doesnt allow the cut-and-thrust of my sytle of argument so be thankful Jay.

Your style of argument does not deal with the issues under discussion. It deals only with attempts to undermine your opponent, suppress his evidence so that no one sees it, and embarrassing him into abandoning the debate. In other words, you rely solely on ad hominem tactics. I fail to understand why you believe that proves anything.

I happen to know that you have given the ApolloHoax admin your word that you will no longer post at his forum. And unless you change your approach, you are not likely to be welcome here. You might consider whether your style of argumentation is really working for you.

Heated discussions there brough out some real gems! - 'The real Jay'.

I fail to see the logical or rhetorical value of throwing mud at someone and then laughing because he's got mud on him.

The "real" Jay is the one you labored intently for months to fabricate. Unfortunately no one except for you seems to believe in it.

Powerful stuff and obviously too strong for this place.

Or maybe it's clearly obvious that all the parties were joking, having some fun at hoax believers' expense. If you wish to take David Letterman seriously, that's your privilege.

Buzz Aldrin has made it clear in non-humorous contexts that he believes the hoax theorists are profiteers with nothing substantial.

i think you are running out of evidence to prove that it was a hoax so you are having to use flames as a last resort

Unfortunately CC doesn't have a lot of actual knowledge that applies to Apollo or the evidence for or against it. As he says, he just likes to argue. And when you can't argue the issues intelligently, there's not a whole lot left.

Do you have a citation for that?

For those who are not aware of what transpired in the last moments over at apollohoax.com let me give you my impressions. I have lurked there for quite while but have never joined because of the acid tone many of the threads took. The final straw that broke the site was a thread making personal attacks on JayUtah.

The arguments that CC (under one or more aliases?) and others (never been sure there were any others) were trying to make the argument that ALL of Jay’s arguments were false because of a few perceived errors on Jay’s part. The basic argument was that because they had caught Jay at one misstatement everything he had ever said was false. When points were raised about some of the errors in the Hoax Proponents arguments, and therefore by the same argument, the HB claims should be dismissed – the attackers ignored this and continued to attack Jay.

To let you know how petty the attacks were – according to the attackers – one of the reasons Jay cannot be believed because he referred to a DVD as a VIDEO! As we all know DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disk (NOW – but more on that later) and since Jay had used the word VIDEO it was obvious that nothing he said could be believed!

I believe the thread was 12 to15 pages of these kinds of arguments long when most of the site was deleted.

Now back to DVD. It was stated in the thread that DVD was originally Digital Video Disk and then later changed to Digital Versatile Disk simply because they were truly “Versatile”. This was my memory of the events. In the thread – so-called “I’m in the industry” people stated that no it was always a: -“Versatile”. Since the origins and mutations of acronyms ( MRI, LM – are a couple) is something of a hobby for me, I decided to do some research. My research started on the web and I quickly found a lot of information pointing in both directions “Video” and Versatile”. Most of what I found that verified the “Video” history, such as the “DVDForum” the industry group that maintains the standard was originally named the “Digital Video Disk Consortium” I could not confirm that with what I considered to be reliable sources. So I went directly to Philips, one of the several companies that created the DVD standard. I didn’t get a response from them until after the apollohoax thread was deleted and now seems like a good time to post my findings here.

Since the BA doesn’t want full emails posted here I’ll provide the pertinent paragraph from the email I received from Philips:
(I’ve forwarded the email to TBA for his rcords)

So to CC and the like – If you wish to criticize someone because you think they have misspoken – please check YOUR facts.

[fixed wrong word}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-10 14:29 ]</font>

I'm resigned to the notion that I sometimes make mistakes, that I sometimes exercise poor judgment, and that I am partially governed by normal human passions. And I suspect that these failures will persist with me my entire life. But I believe in taking responsibility for my behavior and for correcting its adverse effects to the best of my ability.

If people think they can browbeat me into going away, they've got another thing coming.

Which is why I find your thoughts on the whole Apollo Hoax phenomenon so persuasive.

I probably shouldn't ask this but I'm still kinda curious...does anybody know what was so dangerous that CC needed to step in and save us from? Was it some kind of cool top secret information? I want to know the secret stuff [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I haven't a clue what CC is refering to - unless its Jay! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Ha! Caught you, SpacedOut!

MRI and LM (and DVD, for that matter) are not acronyms, they're simply abbreviations! An acronym is an abbreviation which is pronounced as a word (SCUBA "scooba") rather than just as a series of letters (DVD "Dee-Vee-Dee").

Since you made this mistake, we obviously cannot trust anything else you say!

(using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity)

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

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

OOPS!!!!

I retract everything I've ever posted!

Boy, what a can of worms (snakes is more like it) I openned.

CC,

Instead of attacking people, why don't you give me some facts. A technical person like myself makes decisions based on facts not feelings. You could be the nicest guy in the world and your nemisis could be the biggest jerk that ever lived, but I'm not going to be on your side simply because you're a nice guy.

I want facts and I want them to be correct.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-10 14:59 ]</font>

Actually, LM is pronounced 'LEM' because that is what it was at first. Lunar Excursion Module. They decided to change it to 'Lunar Module' because 'excursion' gave the impression of the module actually moving around on the surface.

Point? LM is an acronym. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

So - does this now mean that 1/3 of what I say is believable? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-10 15:15 ]</font>

lol! Take what you can get!

The pronunciability requirement of "acronym" has taken a back seat in modern usage to the requirement that the abbreviation be formed by the initial letters of each word that is acronymically encoded. "Abbreviation" can denote an unpronounced acronym, but most naturally denotes a shortened form of single words, "2nd" for "second" and so forth.

The strict definition of "acronym" requires the result to be a word, and by implication to be pronounceable. But common usage today does not follow the strict definition, and as any lexicographer will hasten to point out, dictionaries reflect usage, not establish it. Because there is no convenient word for a non-pronounceable abbreviation composed of initial letters, "acronym" has been co-opted for this important concept.

NASA is an acronym in the strictest sense because it is pronounceable and is pronounced, and is composed from the first letter of each of the constituent words. Its predecessor NACA is an acronym in the sense that it could be pronounced. But it was not pronounced as a word -- each letter was said individually.

Some acronyms have slipped into very common usage, such as "radar", and are not even considered by most speakers to "stand for" anything.

Okay, back to AS14-68-9486.

I've got a digital version of the photograph, rectified using the fiducials. In my copy the LM is 83 pixels tall, corresponding to 22 feet in object space. It is 0.49 fiducials tall, corresponding to an angular height of 5.5&deg;. Basic trigonometry establishes the baseline as 228 feet.

A key element in the interpretation of this photo is is orientation of the lunar module. Most hoax believers are confused by the irregular shape of the LM. David Percy maintains that the shadows are improper, and most Apollogists conclude that the LM shadow is correct and the foreground rock shadows are anomalous due to the slope of the hillock.

But I maintain that the photographer is standing approximately 45&deg; off the LM's fore-aft axis. This axis is frequently a good first-order approximation to the up-down sun direction. The LM lands facing down-sun. Other photographs suggest that the LM initially yawed some 21&deg; from the sun azimuth at landing. I have not yet corrected this yaw error for the time at which AS14-68-9486 was taken, nor have I refined the photographer's position relative to the LM fore-aft axis. When I complete this work, we shall be able to determine the insolation azimuth in this photo to within a few degrees.

Based on the first-order work, I have determined that the foreground shadows are consistent with the rough approximations of the sun azimuth and the LM orientation. I therefore believe the LM shadow is anomalous in the sense of being the shadow whose direction requires additional explanation.

The LM landed having yawed approximately 21&deg; to the right of the sun azimuth as the sun was positioned shortly after landing. This is proved by examination of up-sun photographs that include the sun disk and the LM and in which the LM orientation is unambiguous. Under those conditions, the shadow of the LM should fall to the left (from pilot's point of view) of the LM fore-aft axis.

The illuminated panels on the LM ascent stage illustrate that this is still the case in the photo in question. The shadow should be displaced from the projection of the LM fore-aft axis onto the lunar surface, in a direction away from the photographer.

Most significantly, the demarcated crater which appears outside the commander's window and is visible during the flag deployment is also visible in AS14-68-9486, and is in an excellent position for its rim to interfere with our view of the LM's shadow.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson

Strangely, though, it is the HBers who make the claims of patriotism, usually as an insult, when they run out of arguments.

"Yeah, well, you're just supporting the Apollo thing 'cause you're too much of an American patriot to think your government..." and so on.

CC, my objection to your offhanded reference to the MoH and you "deserving" it had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with something I don't think you understand: respect.

I had the good fortune to work with a holder of the MoH for almost three years. I found out about him through a third party; he never mentioned it. He received his Medal not for some overblown act of patriotism, but because his men were in danger and he had to take action to save them... action which placed his own life in jeopardy and led to him being wounded three times. (He got three Purple Hearts, too.)

Your cutesy remark denigrates this man. It denigrates all those who hold the MoH, many of whom lost their lives to save their fellows.

And it reflects - very poorly - on you.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Without checking the book (my copy is out) not only did (von Braun) leave NASA in its hay-day but so did NASA's Chief Director and just a days before Apollo 11's liftoff!

CC, better get that book back!

Von Braun was head of the Marshall Space Flight Center until 1970, when NASA transferred him to DC to head up strategic planning. He left NASA not quite two years later at age 60 to go to work for Fairchild Industries.

James Webb was NASA Director from February 1961 until his retirement on October 6, 1968, his 62nd birthday. He was replaced by his Deputy Director, Thomas Paine, as acting Director until his appointment as permanent Director became effective in March 1969.

Paine served until his resignation in September 1970.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Jim, I agree with your position on the Medal of Honor. I'm lucky to live in a city with a Medal of Honor recipient. He carried the Olympic torch just a few months ago. And you can rest assured that CC's actions do not merit any award at all.

CC is from the U.K. which, as you know, is separated from the U.S. by a common language. His particular sense of humor tends to baffle and sometimes irritate Americans, or at least some of us. He attempts to punctuate his statements with sarcasm, but tends to miss the mark and cause offense instead. I can be fairly sure his remarks were not intended seriously, however insensitive they may have been.