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.

The "Quantec method" is actually a well known method of feature and contour extraction from certain types of medical imaging, including x-ray and visible light photography. However in this cited study Groves is clearly outside his stated area of expertise.

Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the actual conditions to which the film was subjected.

No, it goes much deeper than that. Dr. Groves is apparently unaware of the various characteristics and behavior of x-rays. He is also apparently unaware of the most basic principles of thermodynamics, a topic most prospective scientists learn in their teens.

Everything is sensitive to radiation if you hose it with 100 rem!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-29 14:02 ]</font>

re dosing the film with x-rays, 8MeV is the "intensity," but what was the duration?

It's like saying, "I exposed the film to a 40W light bulb." Um... For how long?

Silas

Dave,

I look forward to your article about the air brushing. I hope you are going to give us a name, instead of the usual unnamed source. I also hope that you give us some detailed information, like where she worked, how long she worked, her boss, etc. The reason I say this is that I live in the heart of manned space flight here in Houston and I know many people, from grunts to big wigs who worked on Apollo. I'll see if her credentials check out.

I hate to say this but I tricked you on the Hasselblad question. Mainly to see if you know what you are doing. When someone states "did you do a thermal analysis of the camera," anyone who is a thermal person immediately knows what that means. That does not mean subjecting a piece of hardware to an arbitrary temperature range, it means determining the temperature range that a piece of hardware attains under various environmental conditions. As Jay has already pointed out, a black asphalt road is much hotter than its surroundings. On the moon, this asphalt surface would be much hotter because there is no convection to the air and conduction through the lunar soil is very low. The question that needs to be asked here is this "If you were going to test the asphalt what temperature would you use, the temperature of the surrounding air or the temperature that the asphalt reaches during a full sun condition?" The answer's quite obvious.

In space, the temperature of an object is determined by how much solar energy it absorbs, how much infrared energy it absorbs and how much infrared energy it emits to deep space. (For you purists, I made my comments simple and one could state that the geometric factors are already included in my statements.) So to keep an object cool (or make it hot) in space, all one needs to do is to coat it with the right materials.

Since you quote Jan Lundberg quite extensively he could probably give you the thermal analysis report for the Hassalblad camera. Then you would know exactly what temperature to use. There is one very telling statement in your own website, "Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine." From my viewpoint as a thermal person, that sounds like NASA wanted to added some protection to avoid excessive tempertures.

BTW, if I find a thermal analysis report on the Hasselblad camera, I be more than happy to send you a copy. You'd be amazed as the things I find here at garage sales.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-29 17:57 ]</font>

8MeV is the "intensity," but what was the duration?

I assume it's expected to be inferred from the given dosages: 25, 50, and 100 rem. Since all three exposures were using the 8 MeV x-ray emitter, we must assume dosage was varied by varying the exposure duration. In any case, his x-ray energy is three orders of magnitude higher than ambient cislunar. That alone invalidates the experiment.

It's not even the intensity, more like the 'color'.

But that might be confused with wavelength. Various actual wavelengths qualify as x-rays. Given that there is an intuitive correspondence between the electron-volt measurement and its ability to penetrate various substances, "intensity" is not too inaccurate a characterization. But I see your point. If we're going to be picky, we might as well be picky.

You mean Donna Tietze? Here's a link to a partial transcript of her radio interview. You may notice she never disputes that Apollo happened or that men made it to the moon. Her claims of "air brushing" have to do with the removal of evidence of UFOs from various photos, Apollo and others.

She also says she was told that Aliens may have caused and definitely rescued Apollo 13.

http://www.cowan70.freeserve.co.uk/s...ed_photos.html

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

It sounds to me like a bit of 'reverse engineering'. Percy goes to Groves and asks for data concerning how much radiation is necessary to fog the film. He then uses this data to feed back in radiation values into his argument.

Film fogs at 25 rems, so for our argument to succeed, cislunar radiation must be at that level. This would fog the film. (It would also make the astronauts ill, damage the spacecraft electronics, etc etc, blah blah). Trouble is, the universally accepted values are nothing like this high, not even close.

I left my laptop in the car yesterday, and the sun came out. It's in a bag. It's also got a shiny metal cover, and it was in the footwell, in the shade. The inside of the car was roasting when I got in it. You know, when you can't even hold the steering wheel it's so hot. I took the laptop out of the bag to check it hadn't melted or anything, and it was cold. Obviously, some strange advanced cooling system has been developed by Samsung to keep their laptops cool in cars. Or it could have been in a bag in the shade. You decide.

(More twisting of the truth from John Witts)

BTW, Nice of you to type in the whole of page 540 from 'Dark Moon'.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-05-29 18:57 ]</font>

You mean Donna Tietze?

Yes, that's the gossipy story that's been passed among UFO enthusiasts for quite some time. Unfortunately Ms. Tietze has not made herself subsequently available for discussion or further questioning. Her story remains completely unsubstantiated.

Therefore we have no choice but to evaluate her credibility based on the plausibility of her story. And again unfortunately, her story is not plausible.

1. Someone who held a security clearance and who was privy to secrets which are still secrets would be extremely foolish to reveal those secrets on a public radio broadcast, especially those to which her clearance did not strictly give her access. This is tantamount to going on the radio and saying, "I set houses on fire," or "I am a child molester."

2. If an activity is protected by compartmentalized security, one cannot just "wander in" to the areas where that activity is being undertaken without presenting suitable credentials.

3. Her depiction of security procedures is laughably implausible. She claims she was given a guided tour of this facility and the work that was being done there, but the worker adopts a cloak-and-dagger approach when it comes to talking about details. This is not an accurate depiction of compartmentalized security. If she were not cleared to know everything that was going on there, she would not have been admitted to the room.

4. Her testimony regarding UFOs and Apollo missions and NASA spacecraft being "tailed" by alien spacecraft is third-hand hearsay. It also has nothing to do with the photographic alterations she claims to have witnessed in her earlier statements. She does not say she believes she is looking at pictures of the lunar surface, or any other Apollo mission. In fact, she gives indications (e.g., "pine trees") that she believes she is looking a photo of terrestrial terrain.

This is not compelling testimony. It seems more likely that she is telling exciting stories to willing and gullible audiences, not recounting what she actually heard and saw. Sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that.

I just did a search of the NASA libraries and couldn't find a thing about her. Not even her name in a document. I'll check some of my Apollo documents to see if she's there. I suspect that she was just one of many people that worked for NASA during the Apollo era.

The listing of her awards are nothing either. Everyone who works for NASA has several of these types of awards. If she had a Silver Snoopy or a Space Flight Awareness Award, which are given typically for career service then I'd be impressed. Of course these awards are very traceable.

For example,

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/media/re...-059A.DOC.html


I checked all the NASA press releases for an award for her and of course didn't find one. Nothing about her award from governor Ann Richards in the Austin (Texas capital) paper archives, or the local paper archives. Makes me wonder. Of course, a google search only comes with UFO/HB websites.

But obviously since she had top secret clearance in the photo archives where they were falsifying the photos, all record of her employment would be naturally erased. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

This is one of those stories that just stretch all the factors of credibility. It's mostly hearsay: "Yeah, I know a guy who says the astronauts told him they were chased by UFOs." And what isn't hearsay can't be corroborated and makes no sense. Plus, it's quite convenient: someone claiming to be from NASA, claiming to have exactly what the UFO buffs need in order to corroborate their story.

Plus, it quite clearly contradicts nearly every thing else on Dave's page, and written about by Bennett and Percy. The astronauts with whom Ms. Tietze's guard friend was sequestered weren't, according to Bennett and Percy, anywhere near the moon. So it makes it hard for them to have been tailed there by UFOs.

Sorry, but I have little patience for arguments that can't even be reconciled with themselves, much less with the known facts.

Thanks CosmicDave that is an entertaining site. Much the same as the X-files is entertaining. Using methods of observation similar to those presented as proof that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon, I find that I actually did not go on my last vacation. Bummer! I thought it was fun but the backlighting and the angle of the lights....

__________________
A. Elk (Miss)

hey cosmicdave, perhaps you should read what we actually say, so that you could remove the silly stuff off your webpage that we've proven wrong.

"How could the Rover camera have sent a picture when the dish was not pointing in one specific direction."

Answer: it DIDNT, because you can see the camera in the video, clearly the camera didnt transmit the footage. And yes Dave, you're still a liar.

Silly Dave, really silly. But then again, that's the level of intelligence I would expect from you.

We've debunked your entire site, but you refuse to change anything at all... perhaps when adding new stuff youll remove your old silly claims?

Mrs. Anne Elk . . . I mean 'Miss' Anne Elk R U An Expert on Dinosaurs. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I haven't heard that skit in years.


Oddly enough I haven't been able to verify the credientials of Donna Tietze Hare. Not of lack of trying but I can't find one of the organizations she recieved recognition to namely Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates. Granted after 8 years it could be going by some other name but I figure the Texas online website would have some info but I couldn't find it.


Hauteden



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hauteden on 2002-05-30 03:03 ]</font>

Oh, please! Don't write as though there's some kind of stalemate between equally compelling arguments! The faulty reasoning in every single assertion you have made has been all but pulverized by the contributors to this board (most expertly by JayUtah).

You cannot deny that your arguments have been shown up as weak, illogical, and on occasion, smack of dishonesty (just like those of all moon hoax conspiracy theorists).

There can never be any intellectually equal debate between hoax believers and those who defend the reality of the Apollo program. Why? Because all hoax believers are either incapable of comprehending the facts supporting the evidence for the Apollo program, or are deliberately ignoring the evidence in order to deceive people with their ranting and raving. I suspect it to be a combination of both.

You have lost, Cosmic Dave. You never had a hope of successfully defending your arguments. When faced with incontrovertible evidence and the intellectual capacity to comprehend it, the minds of the public will invariably see nothing other than the reality of the Apollo program. Ergo, hoax believers will ultimately always fail in their efforts.

Time to give it up, Dave. Your inane drivel is becoming tedious. Get with reality.

JB

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

Hello everybody, this is my first post here (or anywhere for that matter)
This is slightly off topic but i may be able to clear up one query in this thread. The instiute of physics is a UK based organisation that promotes physics education and research to other scientists and the public. Membership of the institute of physics has several grades. The affilate grade is open to anyone with an interest in physics, other grades require proof of a physics qualification. For example i was a graduate member of the institute as i graduated with an astrophysics degree, i had a chartered physicist to act as a supporter and sent off my cheque for membership. Membership of this organisation does back up your credentials but does not mean you are an expert in all areas of physics.

<pre>dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21)
</pre> 6:13 A.M. Pst lemme !rattle your cURRENT cage
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#20020218.7:37

Ok, so it seems like its just little old me against the rest of the World. I have taken onboard some of the points that have been discussed on this forum and have (if you'd care to read) added some of your 'facts' to my Apollo Hoax article, when I updated it a few months ago. I AGREE that there could be 2 light sources acting on the Moon, (Earthglow and the Sun), so please don't patronise me. I do not however, agree with the two light sources being able to cast shadows at 2 completely different angles, and any one of you who is going to come back and debate that this is the case is simply talking (expletive deleted by the Bad Astronomer). Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions. The two light sources would converge, otherwise with your theory, every object would have 2 shadows.

I really like the way that you guys say that I shouldn't be commenting because I am not an astrophysicist, rocket engineer or anything else in the space rocket/science field. Its really like saying, 'If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be watching it'!. I am none of the above, but I do have common sense and I am quite entitled to have my own thoughts on the Apollo missions and if I am not trained in a certain field, whats wrong with me reading someones report who is. Its obvious that you are going to tear anyones evidence to shreds even if they are scientifically trained in that area, because this board is run by sceptics for sceptics. Some of my friends really couldn't believe that I had the balls to come onto this group in the first place to discuss the Apollo stuff - but there you go - its a good job were all not alike.

People on this board keep setting me challenges and when I meet them you pick holes at it, even if it comes from a qualified professional, who none of you know, but sure are quick to jump on their backs. I do incidentally personally know Mary Bennett who co-wrote 'DarkMoon' and if I had her Email address I'm sure she would happily come on here and answer your questions.

For the record, it was asked earlier on in this debate about the Australian newspaper which ran the coke bottle story during Apollo 11. I and Mary have both written to the newspaper, but they prefer not to correspond. I cannot investigate this part of the story any further unless of course I travel to Australia, which I don't plan doing, so please before you speak your opinions have a little respect.

I don't need anyone here to tell me what I can or cannot put up on my own site - unless of course one of you is willing to pay my internet expenses and electric bill.

Your right, you have explained some of the stuff I've questioned very well, but on the otherhand, other questions that I keep asking and asking are simply forgotten about or not answered to my satisfaction.

I am not surprised that you cannot find this airbrush artist in any NASA books. Since 9/11 and some of the stories i've read, it doesn't really surprise me some of the lengths that the US goverment will go to cover things up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-05-30 12:53 ]</font>

Haven't you seen the photographs, taken on earth, that show the exact same phenomenon? Shadows appear not to be parallel in many situations; they converge or diverge.

Have you ever seen a fan of sunbeams? They don't look parallel. But they actually are. It's an artifact.

Nope. We're saying that you aren't learning. You're repeating the same errors, over and over, and you won't acknowledge them.

Silas

Ok, so it seems like its just little old me against the rest of the World.

Yes, it does. You know, there's an old saying: "If one man calls me an ***, I can ignore him; but if ten men call me an ***, perhaps I'd best shop for a saddle." Now I'm not trying to call you an ***, but when it seems that many, many people can adequately respond to your challenges and questions, perhaps it's time to rethink your theories and discover just how supported or unsupported they really are.

Now it's plain that your theories are basically just those of Mary Bennett and David Percy. We could go on and on through all 500-odd pages of Dark Moon and all 200-odd minutes of What Happened on the Moon? and show you page after page, minute after minute, of deception, pseudoscience, misrepresentation, and faulty logic.

But if you learn anything, it ought to be that when a theory disagrees with your preconception, you check it out, but when a theory agrees with your preconception, you check it out even more vigorously. Don't accept a faulty conclusion just because you like how it sounds.

I have taken onboard some of the points that have been discussed on this forum

It seems to me that you bring them up just to mock them. Further, it sounds as if there are more answers here now than when you last visited. For example, when you said there was no explanation for the blue windows, half a dozen people or so said "scattering" in chorus. That's a pretty clear indication that you're the only one who doesn't know what causes that.

I AGREE that there could be 2 light sources acting on the Moon, (Earthglow and the Sun), so please don't patronise me.

Well, earthglow is not photographically significant at the camera settings used in most of the photographs. But if you want, I can dig up some pictures from my collection which are photos of the moon taken from lunar orbit using nothing but earthglow as the light source.

The primary source of lighting on the lunar surface is, obviously, direct illumination from the sun. The secondary source of lighting is sunlight reflected from various surfaces, most notably the space suits and the lunar surface itself.

But you're talking about shadows, of course, and reflected light will not account for your allegations of shadow convergence and divergence.

Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions.

Absolutely false. Light from the sun does indeed run parallel, but that does not mean the shadows should always appear parallel when photographed or observed directly. You must account for the effect of terrain in some cases and of perspective in all cases. In fact, shadows appear parallel only when the line of sight is exactly perpendicular to the line of illumination. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.

See, for example, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

On Monday I took about 100 photographs showing exactly the types of suncast shadows that you find in lunar surface photography, taken right here on earth in normal sunlight. I'm in the process of scanning them right now, so I can't point you to any of them. But you may also want to consult the more theoretical treatment of perspective and photography at

http://www.clavius.org/perspshdw.html

That page is still under construction, unfortunately, but the first section should explain to you exactly why shadows which are parallel don't always look parallel when photographed.

Its really like saying, 'If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be watching it'!.

No, it's not like that at all. You're trying to say what's possible, impossible, expected, and anomalous in these various fields. That's not merely a passive experience with those sciences. If you don't know how a rocket engine works, then you have no business telling anyone that some particular rocket engine isn't working correctly. That is essentially what you're doing. If you can't describe how much and what kind of radation is to be found on the moon, then you have no business telling us it would fog the film. If you have never worn a space suit then you have no business telling anyone that it's impossible to operate a camera while wearing one.

The kinds of allegations you're making require detailed and expert knowledge of the equipment, procedures, and scientific fields that bear upon them. You don't have that knowledge, which is why you're deferring to the authors from which you've cribbed your allegations. Unfortunately those authors don't have the required knowledge and expertise either.

We, collectively, do have that knowledge. So it's not a matter of dismissing us because you think we're skeptics. It's a matter of who has the expertise and is therefore best qualified to make a judgment.

I do have common sense

That's not enough. Common sense will not compensate for lack of aa law degree if you happen to be defending someone in court. It will not compensate for lack of pilot's training if you're behind the controls of an aircraft. It will not compensate for a lack of surgeon's degree if you're holding the scalpel.

You cannot simply assume that your common sense will tell you everything you need to know about science and engineering. The allegations you're making are not suitably supported merely by common sense.

... and I am quite entitled to have my own thoughts on the Apollo missions

Quite true. Yet you are not justified in claiming that your opinions are better founded and more accurate than those who have trained for a lifetime in the fields in which you are not qualified. Yet that's essentially what you're doing in your page. You bring up various anomalies. You say those anomalies prove the Apollo record and possibly the missions themselves were falsified. You don't consider the possibility that your "anomalies" derive from your own lack of understanding and that of your sources.

...and if I am not trained in a certain field, whats wrong with me reading someones report who is.

Nothing is wrong with reading whatever you can find. However, it is rather dangerous to assume that everything you read is on the up-and-up. There is a vast amount of pseudoscience available to be read, and so it's best not to rely on one expert or one paper.

A paper prepared specifically for a conspiracy theorist for inclusion in his book is not generally a good source of reliable scientific information.

Its obvious that you are going to tear anyones evidence to shreds even if they are scientifically trained in that area

But David Groves isn't trained in that area. Do you know what his PhD is in? It's in the extraction of three-dimensional features based on two-dimensional depictions. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics or radiology. And, predictably, those of us who do have training in thermodynamics and radiology have serious problems with his findings.

That's your problem. You're swooning over his PhD and so you forget to check his work to see if it's actually correct, or actually applies to his expertise. "Gee," you say, "he's got an advanced degree and he's a member of this organization, so he can't possibly be incorrect."

I assure he most certainly can be incorrect, and most certainly is in this case. And the sad part is that you're so bruised over having your "expert" witness attacked by whom you perceive to be die-hard skeptics that you haven't even stopped to think that maybe our scientific rebuttal actually does make sense and that maybe David Groves is just a guy being paid by a conspiracy theorist to dress up a cockamamie idea with some pseudoscience.

You don't have to trust me. Go ask anyone of your acquiantance who is a bona fide expert in thermodynamics whether Groves' assumptions of the lunar environment are correct and whether baking film in an oven is identical to using a film magazine on the lunar surface.

Go ask anyone of your acquaintance who is an astrophysicist whether two weeks' worth of ambient x-ray exposure would result in a 25-100 rad absorbed dose.

You want to claim we've attacked David Groves simply because we're skeptics. Why not consider that we've attacked David Groves because he has conducted bad science?

People on this board keep setting me challenges and when I meet them you pick holes at it

That's because you're not sufficiently meeting the challenges. You have apparently very little idea what it takes to prove a point using evidence, and especially when that evidence is scientific in nature.

If you can't walk the walk, it's foolish to talk the talk. I think there are a lot of people here who would be willing to answer your questions if they had some assurance that you would actually listen to their answers.

Why do you think I'm here? I'm here because I love talking about science and engineering and space travel. I like sharing what I know with people. Why don't you ask me about space travel instead of just assuming I'm here to talk trash about people?

... even if it comes from a qualified professional, who none of you know, but sure are quick to jump on their backs.

In the first place, I know who David Groves is and what his expertise is.

In the second place, you don't need to know who someone is in order to evaluate his claims. In fact, evaluating someone's claim based on knowing him can actually be a form of ad hominem fallacy. The best analysis of David Groves' work would be done not knowing who wrote it.

You keep hammering on the notion that David Groves is qualified. He is, in various sciences not having to do with bombarding photographic film with x-rays. But I am not a stranger to the ivy-clad halls of academia and I can assure you I am not intimidated by a doctorate, nor unduly impressed by one. If a PhD gets his science wrong, I will unabashedly call him on it.

David Groves has got his science wrong in this particular report, and nothing you can say about his qualifications will change that.

See, expert witnesses can in most cases stand on their qualifications and credentials. A doctor, for example, would be considered an expert on diseases and injuries, and his opinion on matters that come down to opinion would be considered evidentiary. But when the matter at hand is not a question of opinion, but of accepted fact, then expertise does not provide an excuse for getting that fact wrong.

David Groves' qualifications do not allow him to rewrite the rules of thermodynamics. They do not allow him to change the observations of x-ray energy and flux in cislunar space.

I do incidentally personally know Mary Bennett who co-wrote 'DarkMoon'

Then you should be able to tell us what her qualifications are for writing a book discussing highly technical details of the Apollo mission and space exploration in general.

if I had her Email address I'm sure she would happily come on here and answer your questions.

Well, I happen to have David Percy's e-mail address, and I can assure you that the last thing he wants is to appear in a debate with us. I know this because Percy has stopped corresponding with me, and he has essentially forbidden me from pointing out the flaws in his theories on his web site. He further erased all my prior comments, most of which provided material contrary evidence.

I know Bennett and Percy make a big show about wanting to have their faith in Apollo restored and wanting people to disprove their arguments. I also know it's just a big show. I have had private dealings with them, and I can assure you that in private they are quite intent on protecting their little conspiracy theory dynasty and milking it for as long as it lasts.

But since you know Ms. Bennett personally, perhaps you can extend a personal invitation for her to come here and defend her theories. There are many people here who would like to ask Bennett some questions about her findings.

I and Mary have both written to the newspaper, but they prefer not to correspond.

Very strange. Most newspapers are quite anxious to confirm or disavow having run or not run a particular story, especially when it is being alleged that they did, in fact, report something which they may not have reported.

I cannot investigate this part of the story any further unless of course I travel to Australia, which I don't plan doing

So why do you continue to publish an allegation which you know has not been confirmed by its source? You are doing nothing but supplying rumor as if it were fact. The very least you could do is to annotate your page and say that you have not confirmed the story. If you are not sure whether something is true or not, you have the ethical responsibility to convey that uncertainty to your readers.

When you make an allegation of fact, as yuo have done, you are representing that you have investigated that fact and determined that it is true. You have not done so in this case. The truly honest thing to do would be to remove the story altogether pending confirmation. But it would be honest of you simply to say, "I haven't been able to determine whether this actually happened."

please before you speak your opinions have a little respect.

Did you fail to notice that a reader here, who lives in Australia, has examined the archives of that newspaper from the likely dates in question and has found no trace whatsoever of any story resembling the one you allege?

We respect you as a person who legitimately believes what he claims, but you must admit at this point that you're simply repeating gossip which is highly improbable on its face, has several factual inconsistencies in it, and for which there is credible evidence that it is indeed false.

Consider that your page makes a number of allegations of fact which can be construed as accusatory or offensive to those in the aerospace industry, or others who worked on the Apollo program and continue to work in space exploration. While your request for respect is not out of order, consider that your entire page is, in a very real sense, disrespectful by nature.

I don't need anyone here to tell me what I can or cannot put up on my own site

Free speech is your right, and along with it comes the responsibility of dealing with criticism. If you want to say or print something in public, then you had better be prepared for the public's reaction. In your case, the public's reaction is that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

This is especially acute since you are levelling accusations -- fraud, misappropriation of funds, scientific dishonesty, perjury. It is typically impolite to make an accusation with such flimsy evidence.

on the otherhand, other questions that I keep asking and asking are simply forgotten about or not answered to my satisfaction.

Some of that is just the nature of debate. I don't think anyone is intentionally dodging your questions. But these sorts of discussions do tend to bounce around a lot.

Tell you what. If you think we're ignoring your questions, or giving bogus answers to them, just simply point out those questions. Start another thread, if you have to.

As for me, I'll put my money where my mouth is. You may have visited my web site

http://www.clavius.org

Within a few days I'll respond there to the 32 or so questions on your site that you say remain unanswered. I'll post a link to my answers here, and I'll discuss them here with you to any length you wish. Would this convince you that we indeed take your allegations seriously?

I am not surprised that you cannot find this airbrush artist in any NASA books.

It's more than just that. There is no trace of her anywhere that would be consistent with her claims.

Her claim is absurd on its face, and her credentials are in question. What would a reasonable listener conclude in that case?

... it doesn't really surprise me some of the lengths that the US goverment will go to cover things up!

Sorry, you can't compensate for the failure of your initial conjecture by simply adding more conjecture to it. Contrary to what you see on television, the U.S. government cannot simply make people disappear without any remaining trace.

If you believe her claims are true, and that the U.S. government has "erased" her, you must provide evidence for that theory. A more straightforward theory, requiring less conjecture, and already mosly proven, is this: her claims are exaggerated.

The acceptance of her story was based on the condition that you could substantiate her identity and claims of employment. You can't, so we reject Ms. Tietze as an expert witness on allegations of Apollo photograph retouching.

CosmicDave,

I'm a lot like you Dave. I'm not an expert in almost all of the areas of science that are involved in the Apollo missions. Thats why I ask a lot of questions and review the answers given by people who do know. Many times the answers supplied from a number of different sources all jive and at least to my feeble mind give me a good idea of what was taking place. If I have any doubts then its my job to do the study and see if they are right or wrong.

The one area in which I am reasonably astute is photography. I can say with complete certanity that the shadows we see in the Apollo photographys are exactly how they should be. Of this there is absolutly no doubt. The shadows the HB community seems to think are strange in the lunar photographs can be replicated in the sunshine right here on earth. In fact they are next to impossible to create with studio lighting. I spend a lot of time creating very complicated studio lighting setups. I have studied the Apollo images in great depth and if they were studio shots with many lights (or even two for that matter) the evidence of that would have been plain to see. Its just not there. The shadow issue is really a non issue. The shadows have been discussed at great length here and my other places as well. The conclusion is always the same, at least by those who really know what they are talking about. If you choose not to believe or fail to test it yourself then that is your choice. Just dont expect me to to take your words as fact.

"Could not possibly"? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then how do you explain this picture? It was taken in a park next to my house, and the only source of illumination is the setting Sun.



You seem very sure of yourself, yet you are wrong in nearly everything you claim. It's really that simple, and this picture should be a pretty clear indication of that fact.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-05-30 12:58 ]</font>

The instiute of physics is a UK based organisation that promotes physics education and research to other scientists and the public.

Thanks for that clarification. Would you know if the institute provided peer review services for publications by its members? If so, it might be advantageous for Dr. Groves to submit his findings to other members of the institute for review.

Membership of this organisation does back up your credentials but does not mean you are an expert in all areas of physics.

I personally do not doubt that Dr. Groves holds the degrees he claims. I know of Quantec's work, and something of Groves' contribution to them. I also know he is or was on the faculty of a U.K. university.

His PhD is irrelevant to anything covered in the referenced paper, but it is relevant to his other work undertaken for Dark Moon. That does not mean that we don't find flaws with it, but it does mean we have to give Groves the benefit of the doubt where his expertise may apply.

His BSc would be relevant to much of this analysis, but in this case it is irrelevant.

Someone who holds a PhD in history might say that the American revolution was fought in the years 1852-1855, but he'd be wrong. His advanced degree does not excuse him from misrepresenting fact. Similarly a professional mathematician could assert on the basis of his credentials that 1 + 1 = 3.

Groves' qualifications do not ensure that his interpretation of NASA's statements regarding temperature on the moon is properly applied to the photographic film and that his experiments therewith are valid. They do not ensure that his simulation of the lunar environment is faithful and justified by thermodynamics.

And it's a sad fact these days that science can be bought and sold. There's a big business in science for hire. Private research corporations all over make their money on conducting those "independent surveys" that indicate preference for the client's product -- surveys we all suspect of being far less than independent. I remember reading in a scientific journal several years ago a document which leaked from one of these private companies that listed procedures for falsifying findings: numerical manipulation, subtle sampling biases, etc.

I know for a fact that Quantec is no such company. And I have no evidence that David Groves intended to produce findings he knew would be incorrect. His study is seriously flawed, and therefore inapplicable. That's all I can say given what I know. But the nature and extent of those flaws raise suspicions.

Cosmicdave-

I just reread the “results” Dr. Grove’s tests you posted – IMO a classic case of misleading the public using scientific facts.

The only time he mentions the NASA or Apollo in the X-ray testing is when he states that he used a film stock similar to that used on the moon.

The only mention of NASA info for his heat test is that the film was exposed at the high end of the lunar surface temperature range for 4 hours.

He does NOT say (at least in what you posted) that his tests represent the actual conditions that the film experienced – but does say IF the film had been exposed to the conditions presented the any pictures taken would have been unusable. He does not misrepresent any facts but he does leave it up to the reader to figure out for him/her-self whether or not the test conditions reflect the real environment. Which they DON’T!

Here in the US we are bombarded with this kind of misinformation on a regular basis in many forms – Advertisement as mentioned is one. Another is the news reporting of statistical data, usually in the likelihood of your contracting some disease or another. The report will state ‘if you are X then you are 2 to 3 times more likely to contract disease Y’. Scary! What you are not told is what the actual probability of getting disease Y if you are NOT X. If the 30% of the population will contract the disease then a 2 or 3 fold increase is VERY disturbing. If only 0.5% will get the disease then 3 times that isn’t much to worry about. The base line information is very important.

Quote: 'That's not enough. Common sense will not compensate for lack of a law degree if you happen to be defending someone in court. It will not compensate for lack of pilot's training if you're behind the controls of an aircraft. It will not compensate for a lack of surgeon's degree if you're holding the scalpel'.

Are you sure about the above statement, because I am sure that I could do a better job than some of the cases taken before a court that I have seen. It really seems that some Judges do lack common sense sometimes.

But seriously, I am finding this debate forming into two different sides. For instance, if I said to anyone in this debate 'well if I did this experiment on Earth', the first thing you would say is 'but the Earth is nothing like the Moon, so therefore you cannot use experiments be it with light or radiation on Earth', or at least that was the gist of the answers I got the last time I discussed the shadow anomalies. There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test. Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right, so I am turning the tables... whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

To give you a good example and to answer the guy who said 'you cant simulate the shadows on the Moon footage with artificial light', I was watching 'The Sky at Night', a program which has been on the BBC here in the UK for a very long time and which discusses space and astronomy. On this particular episode, the host (Patrick Moore) was talking to none other than Douglas Arnold, the very same Mr. Arnold who appeared on 'What happened on our Moon'. But surprislingly, he was in the same camp as you guys and said that all the anomalies could be explained. Now considering that this was not his stance when the video was made 3 years ago, I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise. Anyway, during the show, Arnold tried to show viewers how the shadows could be reproduced in the studio, proving that they weren't hoaxed, but for me, he proved the very opposite. Here he was moving small models of the astronauts in front of the LEM under studio lighting... of course it looked similar to the Moon footage because both were filmed under studio lights.

Hope you enjoyed that one folks!

I suspect I am wasting my time, but...

This is incorrect. The Earth in the lunar sky is not bright enough to cast visible shadows in the lunar photographs. The Sun is far, far brighter, and would wash those shadows. The only source of light bright enough to cast a shadow visible in the pictures is the Sun. Therefore, you only need one light source in modeling the shadows.

The airless conditions and lower gravity do not play a substantial role in the converging shadows; only perspective does.

If you want to now think about the shadow filling that ocurred, then you can consider secondary light sources, because that is where they become important.

Some of the things on the Moon can be modeled simply on the Earth (shadow converging, shadow filling) and others cannot (flag fluttering, temperature measurements). You grossly oversimplify the situation when it suits you and make it more confusing when it suits you. The world doesn't work that way.

Not exactly. What we're saying is more like, "If you don't know how the insides of a TV work, you shouldn't be going around claiming that it's impossible for a TV to work at all."

Your views about Apollo are very much like those of someone who knows nothing about electronics, RF transmission and reception, cathode-ray tubes, electrophorescent phosphors, or video signal encoding, who then swears that there's no way that moving pictures and sound could appear from out of nowhere on a box in his living room.

The only difference, really, is that I can plug in a TV set and prove that fellow wrong in seconds, without his having to learn about electronics, RF transmission, et. al. Unfortunately, the evidence for Apollo is less direct -- but to most of us, no less compelling -- than the latest episode of "The Simpsons".

It's a shame we can't take a little trip to the moon to see the Apollo landing sites in person. Until that time comes, people like us who are interested in space exploration will have to learn a little bit about science and engineering to understand how the Apollo landings were accomplished.

To return to the TV analogy, it's as if all TV broadcasting stopped in 1974, and the only way to convince you that TV was real was to teach you the details of the underlying theory. Common sense might tell you it couldn't have happened, and all those photos of people gathered in front of their sets to watch "I Love Lucy" must have been faked.

But just like Apollo, it could happen, and did, and still could again.

Or instead of a large sum of money maybe just a small dose of reality was all that was needed. What Arnold was demonstrating was that what hoax believers like to trumpet as "anomolies" are really nothing of the kind. They're just normal properties of light and perspective that can be reproduced in simple, everyday experiments. You remind me of the medieval church claiming for centuries that heavier objects fell faster, but never bothering to actually drop two objects and see. You tell me, Dave, what should shadows from the moon really look like and why you think you should see that?

Oh, come now. Surely death threats is an equally valid reason for him to change his mind. After all NASA has supposedly bumped off numerous astronauts, why not this guy? Or maybe they grabbed him and did a bit of the old "Manchurian Candidate" routine on him. Money is so... prosaic. While we're tossing around utterly unfounded accusations, might as well argue they got some of those ear burrowing things out of Star Trek (III? beats me) and are using one to control him. Or one of those shapeshifting critters out of Star Trek: TNG or DS9 (or SW: Episode II, not that it really came up in more than passing).

C'mon, if you're gonna argue at least make it interesting! Because if you're going to be boring you might as well postulate that he changed his mind based on the evidence, or that he hasn't changed his mind at all but has been misrepresented (or misinterpreted by you) in one of the 2 occasions you mention.

Actually, this post is mainly to thank JayUtah... gotta love the time and effort you're willing to put in on this. Thanks a bunch, I've learned stuff I didn't even know I didn't know. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Are you sure about the above statement?

Yes, I am. In fact, I'll say it again: Common sense does not substitute for the lack of specific necessary knowledge and understanding. You say you have common sense. Very well, I have common sense and an science education. Which of us is most qualified to comment on science questions?

if I said to anyone in this debate 'well if I did this experiment on Earth', the first thing you would say is 'but the Earth is nothing like the Moon ...'

Proper scientific understanding will tell you when it is applicable to apply an earth experiment to lunar conditions, and when the earth environment is unsuitable. The answer, in fact, is that sometime experiments are applicable and sometimes they are not. There are people who know about such applicability. They're called scientists, and the scientists say you're wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.

There is no way that you could stage a proper scientific simulation of the shadows under natural lighting conditions here on Earth for the simple fact that there would not be two natural light sources strong enough at night to carry out the test.

Things like shadow direction, shape, and coherence can be fully and accurately reproduced on earth with no lack of fidelity whatsoever. This is because sunlight is just as parallel on earth as it is on the moon.

Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right, so I am turning the tables... whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

No. You're just quibbling with our results because you don't like them. You can't intelligently discuss any error in our methods or strategy. You're just trying to throw mud at them in hopes some of it will stick.

On the other hand, we can show very precisely, according to common and reliable principles of the physical world, exactly how and why Dr. Groves' experiment is wrong. You seem utterly amazed that people here would have more expertise on matters such as thermodynamics and radiation exposure than Dr. Groves.

I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise.

Oh, please! The principles of perspective have been known since about 1400 a.d.! Just because David Percy doesn't understand them, and by extension neither do you, doesn't mean everyone is so terribly ignorant. You've been shown theory, you've been shown example. Yet you still persist in thinking this is all just a matter of opinion.

of course it looked similar to the Moon footage because both were filmed under studio lights.

No, you have missed the entire point of the discussion. David Percy and others claim the misdirected and misshapen shadows they're seeing can only be produced with studio lights. In fact, both with theory and with example we can show that they can only be produced with direct sunlight and cannot be produced with studio lights.

Most of The Sky At Night dealt with things like the intensity of diffusely reflected light, which can be simulated on a small scale with studio lighting.

What cannot be simulated in the studio is the simultaneous effect of stark shadows cast by parallel light rays onto tens of thousands of square feet of reflective surface.

With every post you demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the behavior of light, either on earth or anywhere else. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't keep insisting you are right.