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