haven't you anything new or better to do?

I don't understand. Are you admitting that your theories aren't worth discussion? It is my understanding that you published your page and included "challenges" with the express intent that they would be discussed and answered.

Well, we're discussing and answering. Is this not what you wanted?

I moved on from this debate ages ago.

There are new people here now, and we have serious issues with your web site. You can either ignore the criticism, or you can take responsibility for your allegations and defend them against the criticism you solicited.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window.

How is Mr. Witts' answer "twisting" anything? He has pointed out a very salient fact which the hoax believers have not generally addressed.

I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory?

No. It is the hoax believers who assert that the blue glow seen in the windows can only be the nearby earth.

Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency?

First you must prove that there was a transparency before you can argue what, if anything, lit it.

or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

No, we are taking into account all the available facts, not just the ones that lead to the predetermined conclusion. You're a fine one to make that accusation. Your post is riddled with factual error, most of which have been pointed out to you. It is also filled with allegations of fact without any documentation or evidentiary support. What is your defense for that?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth.

Your proposition, as stated, is incorrect. A blue glow is noted. It is not established factually that the glow is being caused by the nearby earth. That is the assumption of the hoax believers, and it is not one that I share.

We've known for more than 25 years what causes that glow in the spacecraft windows, even when they are far from earth. And we've known for centuries why that glow is blue. It's the same reason the sky is blue. The sun puts out primarily yellow light. So why isn't the sky yellow? It's blue because blue wavelengths are the most susceptible to scattering.

Miles of air scatters the sunlight, so that the light we see indirectly is that which has been scattered. Similarly, contaminants on the spacecraft window (gasket outgassing, LES exhaust residue, and in the case of Apollo 13 condensed breath moisture) scatter the sunlight just as frost on the windshield on a cold morning scatters the sunlight and makes the windshield appear to glow no matter where in the car you're sitting.

Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Incorrect. For a time, aerospace engineering was my profession. I know when Aerozine-fueled engines should produce a visible flame and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should produce a reddish cloud and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should make a loud roar and when they shouldn't, and why.

Your page amply demonstrates that you understand none of these things. You're simply trying to stir up enough controversy that it seems you know something about this. I will be glad to discuss the combustion characteristics of the TR-201 engine to any degree of detail you wish.

The red cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with the atmosphere. It happens when you first light an engine -- in that atmosphere -- that uses this substance as its oxidizer. It is common to preinject oxidizer into a rocket engine's combustion chamber. You claim the red cloud should be visible under all circumstances. I want to know why your assertion contradicts both observed fact and theoretical predictions.

Because of the oxidizer preinjection and other factors, any rocket engine will burn unstably for a brief time. The transient for the space shuttle main engines, for example, is about six seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne J-2 is 3-4 seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne F-1 is a bit less than eight seconds.

TRW's documentation for the TR-201 gives its transient as 0.310 second to 90% rated thrust. Therefore we can expect to see a visible flame -- indicating sub-optimal combustion for that propellant -- for about a third of a second, perhaps a bit longer. After that, the engine reaches steady-state combustion at optimal propellant mixture, whereupon the flame is essentially transparent.

Had you studied even the most basic principles of rocket motor operation, you would have been introduced to these concepts. Contrary to your assertions, I understand rocket motors very well, and I can say with a large degree of assurity that your allegations are thoroughly ignorant.

Now you brought this up, so you can't turn around now and argue that you're no longer interested in this point. The question is whether you're mature enough to stand by your allegations and defend them against people with genuine expertise who have serious objections to them. Your choice.

I can't speak to the point of whether any Apollo defenders have made conflicting claims regarding whether a visible flame is expected. But I can speak to the point of your indecision about what the visibility of the flame means.

You originally argue that the absence of a flame proves it was a hoax. Fine; it's wrong, but it's a common misconception. But then when you think you see a visible flame, you argue that this also proves it was hoaxed. That quite flatly contradicts your original argument. They can't both mean it was hoaxed. So when you make up your mind what your argument is, come back and try to defend it. As it stands, it's quite preposterous.

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello

Well, you've done more than say hello. You've insulted us, you've attempted to poke fun at various explanations in the face of your own lack of understanding, and you've singularly avoided addressing any of the dozens of objections and inconsistencies that have been raised against your assertions.

And you think we're the ones wasting time?

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

As long as it's not the same old unsubstantiated gossip that's been floating around among UFO enthusiasts. We've all heard that one before. Unless you have the real name of a real person we can call up and talk to, don't bother.

Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

There were anti-glare and anti-reflection coatings on the windows of the LM and also of the CM. These are not dissimilar from optical coatings on photographic lenses. When you see external photographs of the LM on the lunar surface, the image of the surface reflected bluishly in the LM windows is the effect of the anti-glare coating. Without the coating the image would be much brighter, and not blue.

However, this isn't the same phenomenon which causes the blue-tinted glow seen from within the spacecraft, illustrated in the photograph above. That is scattering caused by the glass itself and by contaminants on the glass. It is possible that the coatings contribute to this effect, but not likely.

We generally don't see this degree of scattering through windows on earth because it's frequently drowned out by directly transmitted light from the atmospheric scatter -- i.e., it's scattered by the atmosphere but passes directly through the glass.

The angle at which the light strikes the glass and the angle from which it is viewed inside the cockpit determine how visible this effect is.

Well, here's something I've wondered: did the ascent module engine have enough power to boost the AM into lunar escape orbit, or did the CM/SM have to do any maneuvering to meet it and "pull it out" of the moon's gravity well?

All of the NASA diagrams show the former procedure, which would be (quite a bit!) safer. But is that the way it was done?

(This has nothing to do with the Hoax, only with a detail of the mission that I didn't know. You've already set me straight on a couple of other ideas I'd had -- since 1969! -- that were wrong, for which thank'ee!)

Silas

Hoo boy, lunar orbit rendezvous.

"Having enough energy" and "intended to be used that way" are really two separate questions. The APS was intended to put the ascent module into an orbit around the moon. That means a different trajectory than simply trying to exit the moon's sphere of dominant influence, which the APS might have been capable of, but I haven't done the computations to answer that. The ascent module pitched over after about ten seconds and started heading downrange. That's what you would do if you wanted to put the thing in orbit around the moon.

The ideal intended LM ascent orbit had most of the same elements as the CSM rendezvous orbit, except that their apsides were reversed. This was supposed to provide two rendezvous opportunities per rev. Or so the story goes. There was a whole slew of contingencies that involved the CSM swooping down and snatching the LM from the jaws of death, but none of these materialized.

Was that your question?

Addendum: I just re-read your post and I guess that was not your question. By "lunar escape orbit" I took you to mean a transearth injection, which, upon second reading was not your intent.

The answer, most definitely, is that the APS was intended to put the lunar module into a reasonably stable orbit. The LOR plan did not call for the CSM, as a matter of routine, to swoop down and save the astronauts from the jaws of death. If, for any reason, the APS failed to put the ascent stage into a stable orbit, there were various down-swooping manuevers that could be attempted, but that would be a contingency, not a nominal flight plan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:35 ]</font>

About one second after the LEM lifts off.

The message dated 14th of April was directed at readers to my site - not this one. What I meant was, I had forgotten all about our little debate on here months ago, but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it. All I read is 'this person said this and that person said that', so what. You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest? constant bickering won't get anyone anywhere.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it.

Actually the topic just arose again a few days ago. Your site gets period mention in various online forums. We haven't been discussing your site continuously since your departure.

And it's not a matter of "can't" stop talking about it. We like talking about space travel, and especially about Apollo. Many of us are considered experts in Apollo, or at least in some aspect of space travel. When you make preposterous allegations having to do with our fields of expertise, it's not strange that we would want talk about it, and that we should expect you to be fortcoming with support for your statements.

You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest?

Because some of us feel strongly enough about our expertise and education to correct the rubbish that's being said about it. You don't just insult someone and then tell them to lighten up about it.

The reason we don't agree with you is because we have professional and educational qualifications in the fields that apply to your statements, and we find your theories to be rather ignorant. Yet you profess to be right.

The issue is not agreement. The issue is which of us is most likely to be correct. Clearly you want your theories to be regarded as correct. Unfortunately you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes in order to establish that perception. You want to spread your statements far and wide regardless of whether they can be factually supported. And you seem to want to be able to do this without anybody objecting to it.

Got news for you: we do object, and trying to make us look silly for objecting won't get you very far. In the end it's you who looks foolish for trying to make public statements without backing them up and without dealing with criticism.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

The question is not whether one is convincing. That's a matter of rhetoric; one can be convinced of something that is not correct. The question is whether one is right or wrong. You have made allegations of fact. Those are either right or wrong. Those of us who are experts in the relevant fields have claimed that your allegations are wrong, and have provided various arguments to establish their point.

What can you do to prove you're right?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:49 ]</font>

Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe. Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day. Its all documented and indexed in the book. No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM? surely they would have told the artist what to draw? Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Oh and don't worry yourselves about speculating about my article about the NASA airbrushing before its released. I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

Cheers

Dave at CC

Percy and Bennett's book is so full of errors that my highlighter ran out of ink about 100 pages into it. I rewcommend people read it too, to show just how silly HB claims can be.

I'm just glad someone sent me their (gratis) copy, so I didn't have to pay for it.

Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend ...

... and from whom you've uncritically cribbed most of your web site. I know. I have read the book and I have watched the video.

... and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe.

No. Bennett and Percy are masters of appearing to substantiate with expertise, while subtley avoiding any real expertise. For example, they ask Jan Lundberg -- a mechanical engineer -- questions about lighting and exposure. He is not presumed to be an expert in those fields, and people whose expertise in them are not questioned, disagree with Dark Moon.

The supposed rocket scientist gives his opinion that the F-1 engines weren't powerful enough, just by looking at the plume. However, he can't profess to having even seen an F-1 firing, much less done any computations to prove his point.

Did you know that the F-1 is used to concepts of current rocket engine design? It's considered one of the best rocket engine designs ever, and many people know about it. Why have none of these unquestioned experts come forward with their doubts? When you have one "expert" whom nobody's ever heard of contradicting the combined expertise of people who are household names, it's pretty clear what's going on.

Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day.

... and who have disavowed the conclusions in Dark Moon. Including those you mention by name.

Its all documented and indexed in the book.

No, very little of it is sufficiently documented to allow anyone to duplicate the research. It's just there to make you think they did their homework.

No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Passing the buck will not avail you. I suppose, then, that you really don't understand any of the arguments put forth in your web site.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM?

Oh, please! Do you understand what "artist's conception" means? What some artist thinks, believes, or chooses to depict has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually is. You claim that the video footage, is wrong because it fails to meet your expectations of reality. Clearly the substantiation of your expectations is crucial to your point.

So you saw a painting that depicted a fanciful scene, and you believed it. So you saw some photographs of red clouds without understanding where they came from. And so now you're an expert in Aerozine combustion.

Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

No, it is not. David Percy is not a rocket scientist. Mary Bennett is not a rocket scientist. Bill Kaysing is not a rocket scientist. These are the people laying out their expectations which you have uncritically subscribed to, and I want to know where those expectations come from. If all you can do is point to some painting, then you're on way thin ice.

Do you, or do you not, know anything about the operation of an Aerozine-fueled TR-201 engine in a vacuum?

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Upon what is your objection based.

I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

So if I were to call up NASA's personnel office and ask if this person worked there, and in what capacity, I would receive a satisfactory answer? And if I were to call up this person and ask him or her to produce evidence that he or she has retouched NASA photographs with the express intent of hiding material information contained therein from public scrutiny, I would not be disappointed?

If you can pull that off, I'd be impressed.

IMHO this statement belongs at the very top of What Moon Hoax Idea Has Made You Laugh The Most?

Along with the simulated painting showing a crater under the LM as proof that one should appear in the photographic record!

[added crater reference]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-28 15:21 ]</font>

First of all, I do own your book "Dark Moon". I take it, it's the version released in England, since the price listed is in pounds.

I found this book very interesting, especially since it was trying to prove various scientific and engineering principles yet failed to provide the most basic engineering equations. Of course it failed. From reading this book, it is clear to me that the authors or their sources know nothing about heat tranfer, combustion, fluid mechanics, nozzle design, EVA glove design, EVA tool design. Or maybe they just choose to ignore it.

Dave, if you want more specifics, I'd be happy to give you some specific examples.

When it comes to your website, you obviously ignored information staring you in the face. For example, question 20. The Apollo space suit did not discharge water directly to a vacuum. These used a sublimator. Ice to vapor cooling. Why? Because boiling water which is what you have in a vacuum situation is explosive and unpredictable.

It took me five seconds to find this,

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...alsj/plss.html

Question 23. You just don't understand American politics. Webb was from the Johnson Adminstration and Nixon was coming into office so it was bye-bye.

"I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth."

I think this occured around 95 hours into the mission (around 6 or 7 hours before landing).

Cosmicdave, Bill Wood, the tracking engineer mentioned in Dark Moon, has written this review at Amazon about it:

Total Garbage!, June 26, 2001
Reviewer: William O. Wood (see more about me) from Barstow, CA USA
I received a copy of "Dark Moon" directly from the authors as I gave David Percy and his assistant a tour of the Goldstone tracking facility and was interviewed on camera by David in December of 1997.

I worked at the Goldstone Manned Space Flight Network station during all Apollo missions and was an eyewitness to those events. However this book is filled with half-truths and total fabrications about the Apollo program. It will only be of interest to people who like things about "Area 51," "Crop Circles," Roswell "UFO's" and other weird "happenings."

Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of photography and physics can see through the so-called "facts" presented in this fabrication. It should be considered a work of fiction instead of an independent view of a historic event.

Bill Wood, Retired Tracking Systems Engineer, Barstow, CA

__________________
~AstroMike

No sorry I lied there, it was actually 63 hours or so into the mission.

Aye! That was my question. I'm heartened to learn that there were plans for such contingencies, but, of course, much more heartened that they weren't necessary!

(You could write some hair-raising science fiction about that, since, with no atmospheric drag, such maneuvers could take place right down to the deck...)

Thanks for setting me clear!

Silas

As is usual with the Moon and orbits, Arthur C. Clarke already did write this. A guy is stuck in an orbiter without fuel to raise his orbit, and he is only a kilometer or two off the surface. He asks for help, and they tell him to jump for it...

... but I won't spoil the ending of this wonderful (very short) story. Anybody know the name of it?

CosmicDave (Percy?)... I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window... qoute: 'and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window'. I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory???

Twisting things? A bit rich, don't you think?

A few years ago I had a car with a flat windscreen. In my wisdom I put spotlamps on the roof. They were far enough forward for the light from the lamps to hit the windscreen at a shallow angle. I thought I'd be OK because none of the light actually came in through the windscreen, ie, they didn't light up the top of the dash or the inside of the car. Now, the first time I tried them, I could no longer see where I was going, because the whole screen lit up in front of me and the glare drowned out the road. I fixed the problem by moving the lamps further back.

We also have a big patio light at the back of our house. When it's on, it shines down the windows on the same walls and you can't see out of them, particularly if they are a little dirty. The previously pitch black sky is now lit up like daytime as the double glazed panes scatter the light.

You don't have to be in a spacecraft heading for the Moon to see these things. They happen at home too.

Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency? or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

Well, we can never accuse the HB's of letting the facts get in the way of a good theory.

I remembered reading that one too, but couldn't remember the name. I finally dug it up. It's called Maelstrom II and it's in The Wind From The Sun collection. It was written in 1962.

It's also in The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke, which I highly recommend as it includes every one of his short stories in one volume, including a bunch of his earliest stuff. I found mine (hardcover) for $8 at a used bookstore and never regretted it once.

<font size="-1">(Edited a minor typo.)</font>
_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-05-28 20:26 ]</font>

such maneuvers could take place right down to the deck.

On one mission, Apollo 8 I believe, they talked about inserting into a 60-mile orbit, only to notice the 70-mile tall mountain on the far side.

CosmicDave,

Two questions

First, I need some clarification on a statement you made in your first post which was,

"Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US."

Are you saying that NASA still employs people to airbrush photographs or that they did? Please explain your statement.

Two, since the folks that wrote Dark Moon seem to be such experts in telling their readers what the temperature of the Hasselblad cameras would be on the moon, maybe you could tell me how they (or you) arrived at these numbers. What thermal analysis methods, techniques, modeling software, etc were employed to arrived at these temperatures?

I can honestly say that I don't know if NASA are still airbrushing out things that they don't want people to see. The NASA airbrush article that I am adding to my site soon is about a lady involved during the Apollo years right upto the start of the Shuttle missions.

I have heard many times from people such as Jeff Challender who records and scrutinises every shuttle mission, that certain anomalous objects (lets call them 'objects' for the sake of not starting yet another arguement), that appear in the 'Live' transmissions are cut from the reruns later in the day? I put 'Live' in speech marks by the way, because as we all know a lot of the Shuttle stuff that is supposedly live is nothing of the sort.

The interview that I will be posting to my site concerns a female slide technician, Formerly of NASA, who was the recipient of numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project, numerous other awards for her skill as a technical Artist, honors, awards and a 1994 recommendation by Texas Governor Ann Richards to the Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates.

Hope that clears a few things up for you,

Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
She has spent most of her professional life involved in the Space Program as a technical illustrator. She drew lunar maps, landing slides, she worked in the photo lab, Precision Slide Lab, reducing art work to one inch by one inch drawings. She drew launch sites, landing sites and was employed as a sub-contractor to NASA for over 15 years. She worked on flight manuals for astronauts & has the wonderful ability to put words into images but uniquely, learn to do everything backwards, including mathematical computations, the writing of words, to put it simply, this woman has seen just about all the different kinds of images one could see that are used in Space Programs.

what's the address of your site, dave?

Some of you have questioned that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I know nothing about photography. I agree, I am not a photography expert, but I never claimed that I was one anyway. I can however, quote an expert in the field who does know what their talking about.

Here is a report on the effects that radiation and the fluctuating temperatures would have had on the Ectachrome film used on the lunar surface. Identical films were tested to that used during the Apollo missions.

The person who carried out the tests was Dr David Groves PhD who owns Quantec Image Processing in the UK and has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics. So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film, even if I am not... Sorry its a long post, but I want to show you that I do have the data in front of me and have not just pulled out my theories out of thin air!

Evaluation of Ionising Radiation (X0rays) on Extachrome ISO 160 Professional 120 Colour Reversal film - David Groves PhD

1) Introduction
I am informed that Extacrhome EF ASA (ISO) 160 high speed colour reversal film was used for lunar photography during the Apollo lunar surface EVAs.

2) Aims
This investigation aimed to establish the effect of ionising radiation on 'correctly' exposed latent images on fresh Extachrome 160T film.

3) Methods
A Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera was used for the tests. Five Ektachrome 160T film were exposed at the 'correct' exposure of a JOBO Labortechnik colour test chart. The chart consists of six colour patches (additive primary blue, green and red and subtractive complimentary colours yellow, magenta and cyan) and six neutral 'grey scale' patches from white to black with a density difference of one aperture difference (0.3D) between each.
For exposure the test chart was illuminated evenly using two 60 watt tungsten lights, one placed each side of the camera. 'correct' exposure (1/60th sec @ f5.6) was determined using a spotmeter on the mid grey tone to an accuracy beeter than 0.6 of a stop (0.18D). The exposed films containing latent images of the test chart were then exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays using a linear accelorator. The film was then E6 processed in the normal manner. The results are given in the next section.

4) Results
Film strip 8
Film strip 8 contains 'correct' exposures (1/60th sec @ f5.6) of the test chart which were then exposed to 25 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images, although visible are seriously damaged rendering them unusable.

Film Strip 9
Film strip 9 contains 'correct' exposures (1/60th sect @ f5.6) of the test chart which were exposed to 50 rem of ionisiing radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images are barely visible, the x-rays having near obliterated the latent images.

film strip 10
Film strip is the sam as above nad was exposed to 100 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays). The film was processed in the normal (E6) manner. The images are completely obliterated by the x-rays.

5) Discussion
Ektachrome ISO 160 appears to be significantly sensitive to x-rays. Above 100 rem exposure to x-rays any latent image is completely obliterated. Between 50 and 25 rem exposure to x-rays the remaining image is visble but extremely faint. The estimated radiation dose required to degrade the image to the level produced by four hours exposure to the maximum temperature expected on the lunar surface (see below) is estimated from the above results to be in the order of only 5 rem.

6) Conclusion
Even a modest radiation dose to the film (5 rem and greater) would produce significant reduction of contrast and image density in the resulting Ektachrome ISO 160T transparencies.

EVALUATION OF HIGH TEMPERATURE ON EKTACHROME ISO 160 PROFESSIONAL 120 COLOUR REVERSAL FILM - Extract from report by David Groves PhD

1) Introduction
The following test was undertaken with fresh Ektachrome 160T film. According to NASA's own data, the temperature range the Hasselblad 500 EL/700 camera was subjected to whilst on the lunar surface was +180 F (+82.2C) to -180F (-117.8C).

This range of temperature is well outside Kodak's recommendation. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the behaviour of Ectachrome ISO 160 rill film when used at the high end of the temperature range.

2) Aims
This investigation aimed to evaluate the photographic behaviour of film at +82.2C by recording images at the 'correct' exposure to test the effect on the image density and colour hue.

3) Methods
The same Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera as was used for the radiation tests was employed for the image density and colour hue tests. Again the JOBO Labortachnik colour test chart was illuminated evenly using two 60 Watt tungsten lights. 'Correct' exposure was determined as before (again 1/60th sec @ f5.6) using a spotmeter on the mid grey tone to an accuracy better than 0.6 of a stop (0.18D). A test on the effect of persistent high temperature (+82.2C) on the latent image recorded on Ektachrome 160T was then carried out. A time of 4 hours was chosen as a number of lunar EVAs lasted this period. Film stip 7 contains 'correctly' exposed images recorded at room temperature as described above. After recording the latent images, the film was baked in an accurate temperture controlled oven for four hours at +82.2C.

4)Results
When compared to the control strip the resulting transparencies in test strip 7 show significant 'lightening' apparent both on the film between and to the side of each exposed image.

CONCLUSION
Extended exposure to the higher end of NASA's anticipated temperature range on the lunar surface may be expected to significantly decrease image density of the resulting Extachrome ISO 160 transparencies.

Hope this clears up a few things...

Dave at CC

My website is http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk

Dave,

You are either really ignorant or deliberatly trying to "get our goats."

Have you not read or listened to ANYTHING we have been telling you? The temperature of the Moon's ****SURFACE**** ranges from -118C to +82C, NOT...*******NOT******* the temperature of the camera or of the film or the astronauts or the near vacuum of the space above the lunar surface.

The test results you posted are irrelevant. The film and camera were not left laying on sunlit lunar soil for four hours at the maximum lunar surface temperature.

I can't speak to the x-ray test, but I am sure others can, and will. I suspect the lunar radiation environment bears little resemblence to the x-ray test at all.

CJSF
(hmm... my signature seems rather relevant here, assuming you are genuine)

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

The name of the school that supplied these degrees seems noticeably absent here. "Chartered Physicist" with what organization? And, what is the "Institute of Physics"? I believe there's an adjective missing from that title.

In any case you can run all the tests you want, but until you can show that the Apollo film was exposed to the same conditions you've tested for (it wasn't) it's a meaningless exercise. I can show you data that implies Kodak film can't survive being doused with dog wiz, but that has nothing to do with conditions on Apollo (at least, I sure hope not! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) Where's the data proving that the Apollo film was exposed to the conditions quoted in your tests?

"exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays"

8MeV? Where are 8MeV X-rays gonna come from?
8MeV X-rays will be very penetrating, there's no doubting that, but I don't think Apollo encountered such high-energy wave radiation. Only particle radiation of that much energy. But if you took high-school physics then you would know that particle radiation doesn't have anywhere near the same range.

I am not a photography expert, but I never claimed that I was one anyway.

Nor, apparently, are you an expert in propulsion, thermal design, photographic analysis, engineering, or any of the other fields that apply to the page

I can however, quote an expert in the field who does know what their talking about.

But since you're not an expert, you have no way of knowing how representative this person's opinion is of the prevailing theories in the field, how applicable his expertise may be to the questions at hand, or the scope and magnitude of his assumptions.

As a matter of fact we have examined David Groves' research on a number of similar points and we have found it to be almost laughably inexpert. His claims of precision in his photogrammetry are completely indefensible, in the expert opinion of photogrammetrists I've consulted who are not being paid by a conspiracy theorist. But he needs that degree of precision in order to prejudice the results against the more natural and logical conclusions.

Further, he claims to be able to measure the depth of terrain features to within a fraction of an inch based on analysis of the apparent direction of shadows. Notwithstanding he does not have the required photogrammetric data in order to make that computation to that degree of precision, this contradicts the opinion of the other "expert" photographer, David Percy, who claims that terrain has no appreciable effect on apparent shadow direction.

To a real scientist this is quite plainly just polemical pseudoscience, the kind used every day to give the appearance of scientific support for some person's agenda. We're simply not fooled.

So I guess he is pretty qualified to comment on the film, even if I am not.

Membership in organizations is only a partial indicator of qualification. Did Dr. Groves submit his research to peer review? Was it published in a refereed journal? Have any other scientists or engineers endorsed his findings?

In fact, this research was conducted specifically for David Percy and Mary Bennett for their book that attempted to prove the moon landings were falsified.

and have not just pulled out my theories out of thin air!

I don't think anyone is accusing you of pulling theories out of thin air, although some of your assertions do lack any sort of documentation. It's been apparent to anyone who has read you site that you pulled your theories out of the work of Bennett and Percy, and are now trying to shift the responsibility onto them for defending those theories.

Very well, they are their theories, not yours. But by advocating them you take some responsibility beyond just parroting them. Obviously Dark Moon and its video sibling make some very astonishing claims. What lengths did you go to in order to assure yourself that those highly controversial claims were backed up by solid science?

It looks to me like you simply took their word for it without applying any critical thought, or consulting any other experts.

I've had conversations with David Percy, and an ongoing indirect debate with him for more than a year. I have presented him with solid scientific findings, ample publishing theory, and empirical examples which clearly refute his theories, and those of Dr. Groves. I presented them on their web site, set up for that purpose. Do you know what their response was? They erased all that information, forbade me from contributing further, and carried on as if all that contrary evidence never existed.

This is not the behavior that characterizes a legitimate scientific inquiry. These people are out to prove their point regardless of any contrary evidence, whatever it takes. Just as the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit can produce actual doctors who are willing to testify to the extent and cause of the injury, people out to prove their political agenda will obtain whatever experts are willing to give the appearance of expert support.

If David Groves wishes us to believe in his Apollo findings, let him submit his work to any recognized scientific body that has demonstrated expertise in photogrammetry, and let him solicit their endorsements.

I am informed that Extacrhome EF ASA (ISO) 160 high speed colour reversal film was used for lunar photography during the Apollo lunar surface EVAs.

Actually a wide variety of films were used. The Ektachrome reversal film was provided in two ratings, ISO 64 and ISO 160, and supplied on the Estar base. The black and white negative film was provided in a very wide range of ISO sensitivity ratings, but not all missions carried all the varieties.

The trade description for the stock format is 70mm longroll, providing between 180 and 200 frames per roll.

A Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera was used for the tests.

Since the design of the Apollo Hasselblad film magazine, in which the film was kept continuously throughout its trip to and from the moon and during use by the astronauts, was modified to account for space conditions, this is the first major error by Dr. Groves. He has neglected to faithfully duplicate the conditions under which the Apollo film was used and stored.

A stock Hasselblad longroll magazine would have probably been sufficient, but since David Percy claims to have worked closely with Hasselblad in the production of his book and video, he should have been able to provide to Dr. Groves an example of a modified Hasselblad longroll magazine such as was used by the astronauts. At the very least he should have been aware that the magazines were modified with thermal and radiological properties in mind.

The exposed films containing latent images of the test chart were then exposed (without any surrounding shielding) to 8 MeV X-rays using a linear accelorator.

This is the second big blunder. As discussed above, the film magazine casing was intended to provide a measure of shielding against radiation, as well as thermal isolation. Further, the film spent most of its time in the MESA or in the lunar module, which is an added measure of protection.

This paragraph also contains the third big blunder. The average reader wouldn't be able to tell a MeV from a dingo dropping. Do you know what a MeV is? I do.

Would you know how powerful 8 MeV x-rays are? I do. Would you know whether that was a reasonable estimate for the amount of such radiation found in ambient cislunar space? I do.

Most celestial sources give off x-rays in the 0.5 to 5 keV range. As you can imagine, a keV is 1/1000 of a MeV. The average cislunar x-ray energy is 3 keV, according to various published sources.

So ambient x-ray energy in space is about 0.0375% as strong as the horrendous blast of energy to which Dr. Groves subjected his film strips. No wonder he cooked his photos.

Now the energy of the x-rays in question are important for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the more energetic the x-ray, the more it's going to fog the photographic film. It's just like bright light versus dim light.

Second, and less obviously, the amount of shielding required depends on the energy of the x-rays. That's the thing about x-rays. Everybody gets paranoid about the lead aprons at the dentist's office. And that's because lawmakers are equally paranoid. The legal dosage limit for the average joe is about half a rem a year. The lethal dose is about 350 rem. Clearly the laws are very, very conservative. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But the lead apron is there to comply with the law, just in case you end up needing twenty or thirty x-rays that year. It's not because you're going to turn into Spiderman without it.

While we're on that subject, have you ever wondered why they have to put the x-ray machine right up next to your face? That's because if it were any farther away, the x-rays wouldn't even make it to your face. That's right. 3 keV x-rays will only penetrate about 12 cm in air. That's right, air. To be sure, a dentist's x-ray is on the order of 30 keV, but the point is still the same.

Even if Dr. Groves had used a realistic amount of x-rays, the fact that he neglected to test any kind of shielding, including the shielding known to have been used on Apollo, makes his study completely inapplicable to the Apollo environment.

... which were then exposed to 25 rem of ionising radiation (8 MeV x-rays).

... or about 22 times the estimated dose on the outside of the film magazine due to all combined radiation sources for the journey, including two passages through the Van Allen belt!

Ektachrome ISO 160 appears to be significantly sensitive to x-rays.

Based on this experiment, this is like saying tissue paper is significantly sensitive to the heat of a blowtorch.

Sure, this will fool laymen, but it doesn't fool scientists. Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual experience of film on the Apollo missions. It's polemical pseudoscience designed to convince people of the desired conclusion, not to discover the truth.

According to NASA's own data, the temperature range the Hasselblad 500 EL/700 camera was subjected to whilst on the lunar surface was +180 F (+82.2C) to -180F (-117.8C).

No. This is the temperature estimates given by NASA for the lunar surface -- that is, the rocks and dust which make up the natural surface. It is not the expected temperature range for any or all objects similarly situated. This is because thermal factors of material such as absorption and emissivity dictate the equilibrium temperature that material will reach.

NASA does not specifically say the film is expected to suffer thermal excursions through that range of temperature. The figure cited is only the extremes for lunar surface material.

Since there is no air on the moon, comparison of this temperature to ambient air temperatures on earth is meaningless. Right now the ambient air temperature outside my house is 75 F. But my asphalt parking lot, albedo 12%, is at 130 F. Why? Basic thermodynamics, which Dr. Groves has either forgotten, never learned about, or is convenienty ignoring for the purposes of this experiment.

The Apollo Hasselblad film magazines were coated with polished aluminum. The thermal properties of aluminum, specifically those having to do with radiant and conductive heat transfer, are radically different from those of lunar surface minerals, to which, and only to which, NASA's temperature estimates apply.

Polished aluminum reflects away a great deal of the radiant energy that strikes it, absorbing only a very small percentage. The lunar surface material, on the other hand, absorbs 70-80% of the radiant energy that strikes it.

Since there is no air to pass along the heat to the film via convection, the only paths of heat transfer available to photographic film inside a magazine in the lunar environment are radiant transfer from the inside of the magazine -- negligible in this case -- and conductive transfer through the winding mechanism.

Since the aluminum doesn't get very hot to start with, it can't pass much heat on to the winding mechanism and therefore to the film. At any rate, the film generally touches the winding mechanism only at by its edges.

Someone who holds a B.S. in applied physics would surely have learned about thermodynamics. Thus Dr. Groves is expected to know how NASA derived its temperature estimates, and how applicable they would be to film. On the contrary, the preamble to this section of the report demonstrates almost complete ignorance of thermodynamics. We are left with one of two possible conslusion:

1. Dr. Groves' credentials should be challenged and considered for withdrawal because he clearly demonstrates little understanding of the applicable sciences, or

2. Dr. Groves is fully aware of the thermodynamics of this situation but chooses to misrepresent them for polemical purposes.

A test on the effect of persistent high temperature (+82.2C) on the latent image

Why persistent? This is another inexplicable assumption. Does Dr. Groves believe the astronauts simply stood still facing up-sun for four hours to provide "persistent" heating for the magazines.

In fact the astronauts were moving about, turning, passing from shade to sunlight. The cameras cannot be assumed to have been in total exposure for the whole time. This is absolutely vital, for as anyone familiar with thermodynamics can tell you, as soon as you put that camera in the shade it will begin to cool radiatively. And if you bring it out into the sunlight it does not instantly rise to the equilibrium temperature.

A time of 4 hours was chosen as a number of lunar EVAs lasted this period.

A reasonable enough assumption, except that the astronauts frequently changed magazines. The magazines not in use went into space suit pockets or on later missions into the underseat storage compartment of the rover. In either case the magazine is out of direct sunlight and therefore not being heated.

After recording the latent images, the film was baked in an accurate temperture controlled oven for four hours at +82.2C.

Completely, totally, utterly, and unmistakably wrong. An oven works by convective heat transfer, which is unquestionably a mode of transfer not available on the moon due to its lack of atmosphere.

If Dr. Groves believes he can accurately simulate the conditions in which the film operated on the moon, by baking film in an oven, his research is completely without any degree of applicability to Apollo.

Hope this clears up a few things...

Yes, it clears up two things:

1. You apparently are completely unable to distinguish bogus pseudoscience from actual science. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem. Most layman fall into that category. But it means we can't trust your opinion on who is a good scientist and who is not.

2. Dr. David Groves doesn't know a darn thing about thermodynamics or high-frequency EM radiation in cislunar space. Or to be more specific, he may know about those things, but his motivation to get the desired answer instead of the right answer seems to outweigh his motivation to accurate represent the applicable sciences.

Let me be perfectly plain. I have made a very detailed study of Dr. Groves' work. I am qualified in many of the same areas of expertise that he is. I have also consulted other professionals. I completely reject his findings as presented in Dark Moon and the accompanying video. I have found significant misrepresentation, significant unjustified assumptions, significant bias that materially affected the results, and considerable lack of understanding of some basic principles. I do not accept him as an independent expert witness on the moon hoax.

I can honestly say that I don't know if NASA are still airbrushing out things that they don't want people to see.

I do.

Since the advent of space photography NASA has either directly through its own employees or indirectly through contractors employed various means to alter photographic material which is then delivered to the public.

The catch is that this is a natural outgrowth of public relations. The fact that NASA does this, or causes it to be done, is itself immaterial. The question of why it is done is at hand.

We can point to photos of the Saturn V on the launch pad with the moon in the background, for example, which we can be pretty sure are composite images. Either that or the moon came up in the north that night. We can point to photos that have been likely "pushed" in the darkroom to bring out details that would otherwise be dark. We can point to cropped photos, rotated photos, composed panoramas, and even a small amount of "joke" photos put together for humorous effect. We can even find Apollo photos from which things like lens flares and other undesirable artifacts have been removed.

All this is done in the name of presentation. Some people who use Apollo photographs want those photographs to look good. They aren't as interested in the details of historical documentation. Several books have come out now with photographs having been retouched or flipped or otherwise arranged for the sake of presentation. These are not intended as primary historical sources, although hoax believers sure like to pretend they are.

History is another question altogether. If I can go to the JSC archives and obtain the unmodified image, that's all that's required.

The question is whether any modifications to Apollo photographs have been undertaken with the express intent to remove significant material content so as to deceive any and all viewers into falsely believing it is a fully accurate depiction, and the unmodified photo is never released.

Painting out lens flares doesn't count. Cleaning up a photo for picture books doesn't count.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-29 13:41 ]</font>

Well, no, he isn't necessarily qualified. Quantec Imaging deals in x-ray imaging of medical patients; that doesn't make its owner - no matter how well-degreed - an expert on film photography.

There's an old caveat... If you want to install a ceiling fan, get an electrician to install the wiring, not an electrical engineer. We have the same principle at work hear.

Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the actual conditions to which the film was subjected. It was very well insulated against temperature and radiation, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this Board and various sites.

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