If you watch Douglas Arnold in 'What Happened on the Moon?', you will see that none of his statements support the hoax. How his statements are taken out of context, and manipulated, makes him look like he doesn't know which way to point a camera. Also, we never get to hear the questions he's been asked, or his whole reply. I'll bet he's mortified on being included in such a video, with his statements used to support the HB's arguments.

There are numerous examples of manipulative documentary production in What Happened ...?.

The "duel" between Jan Lundberg of Hasselblad and Brian Welch of NASA over the reseau fiducials is the best example. Welch says that under certain circumstances the fiducials can be used to measure objects in the photo. David Percy then goes to Lundberg and says, "NASA claims you can use those fiducials to measure objects in the photo. Is this possible?" To which Lundberg replies, "No, you would need stereo pairs."

At this point the video moves on to something else, leaving us with the impresion that the Hasselblad expert has dismissed NASA's claim. Of course Percy neglected to pass on Welch's crucial qualification: "... under certain circumstances." And for some reason, after obtaining Lundberg's opinion that stereo pairs would be required, he didn't go back and ask Welch, "Was that the 'certain circumstance' you were talking about, and did astronauts take any of those stereo pairs?"

Of course, both Welch and Lundberg are talking about photogrammetry, but Percy isn't going to make sure we understand that. Further, the astronauts indeed took hundreds stereo pairs, and David Percy knows this -- he claims to have exhaustively examined the Apollo record and would surely have seen at least one such pair.

David Percy makes sure it looks like Brian Welch and Jan Lundberg are saying completely different things. Foul!

Here's a point. Since these hoax believers have never been to the Moon and don't understand the science behind it, they wouldn't know a Moon landing simulation from a real Moon landing, right?

__________________
~AstroMike

There would be no confusion, wavelength is exactly what determines the energy. The energy of a photon is related to the wavelength by Planck's constant.

The intensity, or flux of the photons is the rate at which they occur. The fluence corresponds to the integrated flux, equivalent to exposure.

Peer review is more meaningful because the people doing it understand what you are doing. I've beem blasted out of the water on this forum more than a few times for making errors.

cosmicdave

Perhaps you might tell us what, if anything, would convince you that Apollo happened exactly as NASA said it did.

And would you be willing to tell us what, if anything, might convince you to remove some or all of your 32 points.

Incidentally, I'm the person who emailed you a month or two ago, challenging most of your 32 points.

I'm also the person who looked up the "West Australian" on microfilm, and found nothing about a Coke bottle being seen on the Moon during Apollo 11. I found lots of reports about the mission itself, much discussion of whether West Australians would see Apollo 11 live on TV, and a few letters to the editor, roughly equally split on whether the missions should proceed. But nothing suggesting, or even speculating, that the missions were faked.

Now it's easy to imply that the microfilm records have been changed, thus adding to the conspiracy, so I hope that if that claim is made, there's some evidence to go with it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter B on 2002-05-31 01:36 ]</font>

There would be no confusion, wavelength is exactly what determines the energy.

Well, yes, but let me try to supply my prior mindset. I'm trying to decide how best to explain this to someone for whom Planck is a unit of lumber. You know, kind of the same way some people use the properties of water as analogues to electrical wattage, voltage, and amperage. I didn't make that very clear earlier.

The ability of a photon, proton, electron, or steamed carrot to penetrate some certain substance to a given depth is a fairly intuitive concept. And relating that to energy is an intuitive leap. Color and wavelength have an equivalence, and also with energy, but it's not intuitive. You don't naturally think of color as relating to penetrative ability.

And that's were it becomes counterproductive to substitute an analogy. Which is why I agreed to your point. It's best, in the long run, to rely less on analogy and more on explanation. I've always prided myself on the ability to distill difficult concepts into some suitable analogue, but this time it's not working.

The intensity, or flux of the photons is the rate at which they occur.

And actually we haven't even discussed flux yet in relation to this issue. We are dealing in ambiguous terms such as "intensity" which could be applied to several characteristics that relate to exposure.

The fluence corresponds to the integrated flux, equivalent to exposure.

... and from thence to absorbed dose. Unfortunately Dr. Groves doesn't give us any specifics of how he went from 8 MeV to 25 rads (assuming he meant rads).

I've beem blasted out of the water on this forum more than a few times for making errors.

Haven't we all? That's what it's all about. What the conspiracy theorists don't understand is that we don't just pick on them; we pick on each other too. And that's how science works. I may be wrong at times, and you may be wrong at times, and the Bad Astronomer may be wrong at times, and so forth. But the chance that we'll all be wrong together on the same question is fairly remote.

let me start by saying that i really enjoy this discussion.

i'm not a rocket scientist either, but i enjoy a decent logical debate and hold the opinion of more experienced people in the highest regard. thus i only posted a few messages, but i've been following this debate for ages.

it's been interesting to see a person like Jay disecting dave's statements in essay format. nice going boet!(boet is an Afrikaans word meaning brother)

however, what makes a debate a debate? someone to oppose your opinion. i would hate to be the opposing party in this argument. especially if lacking technical knowledge on the subject.

so here's a non-technical question for dave.
one portion of your site is dedicated to prove the apollo hoax, another to prove the theory of an alien presence on the moon(experienced by apollo astronauts). which is it now? hoax or aliens?

]
Also, its not the intensity of secondary light-sources, but the nature of the source. The sun is effectively a point source, and as a result produces distinct shadows. Indirect illumination from the lunar surface/atmospheric scattering on earth is going to be a diffuse source and hence won't produce any shadows. On a sunny day you get sharp shadows because the sun is main (point) light source, on an overcast day you get no shadows, because the clouds are a diffuse light source.
I think what Dave needs to explain is exactly what kind of lighting conditions he believes would cause non-parallel shadows.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 4-Lom on 2002-05-31 07:58 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-05-31 07:52, 4-Lom wrote:
More specifically – non-parallel but single shadows since the photographic record only shows single shadows for each object.

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'

I don't recall anyone saying you cannot perform any experiments on earth, only that those experiemnts must take into account the actual... actual ...conditions experienced on the moon. Dr. Groves' experiemnts fail not because they were conducted on earth, but because he used the wrong set of conditions; he assumed the film was left unprotected on the lunar surface. It wasn't.

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.

Why "night", Dave? The Apollo landings took place during lunar day, with the sun in the sky. A good approximation on earth would be a sunlit day at the beach, or on a glacier, or any similarly highly reflective surface.

Some people here have accused Dr Groves of not getting his experiments right...

As stated in many posts, he didn't get them right; he used the wrong conditions. (I doubt anyone here would dispute that, had the film been left unprotected on the lunar surface for four hours, the photos would have been damaged. But it wasn't and they weren't... except, IIRC, for one roll of film that was damaged when it was removed from its protection briefly. Can anyone confirm? I think Keith mentioned it long ago.)

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

Boy, I gotta admire your chutzpa, Dave! It couldn't have been that he was taken out of context in the video, it couldn't have been that he reviewed the facts and changed his mind, he must have been "bought off"!

Hope you enjoyed that one folks!

Immensely! I now have something for that "funniest hoax believer statement" thread. Thanks.

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

CosmicDave,

First of all, I don't care if you don't even have a high school diploma (or the UK equivalent). The smartest and most sucessful man I know, never graduated from high school, he decided that fighting in WWII was more inportant than that. This man (not my father) eventually created an international manufacturing business which makes a variety of fiberglass/resin products. He did not, however, just stumble into this, he spend about ten years of his life running a bridge painting company and about ten years researching composites materials and how to make them. My point is this, it takes time to become an expert in a field but you don't always have to go to school to suceed.

If you look at my first post directed to you, you will see that I asked you what your background is/was.

My own background is that I have 20 years of experience in thermodyanmics, heat transfer and fluid mechanics, from basic fundamental research to computer modeling. Of those 20 years, 12 years have been devoted to a NASA contractor in Houston, 5 1/2 years in college and the remaining years split between General Motors Research Division, the Army Corps of Engineers and a software computer. I've done just about everything one could do in the world of heat transfer. I also used to teach at a local college in Denver in the evenings. More recently, five years in August, I worked on the designs of various EVA hardware which is being used assemble the ISS. I know a lot about space suit glove design and the space suit in general. One can't make a tool which damages the suit or the crew member inside.

About 17 years ago (it lasted for 4 years), I was involved in research on melting and solidification processes and at one point I was considered an expert in this field, but since I haven't done reaserch in that area in about 10 years I would no longer make that claim. When I read about people like Bill Kaysing saying that the rocks were cooked up in a ceramic oven, I know that they have no idea about what they are talking about. The crystalline structure of a solid is a function of the fluid flow in the melted liquid which is in turn a function of the Earth's gravity. A rock from the moon will have a distinct and non-terrestrail structure.

As you can see, when I made the comment that the authors of "Dark Moon" or their sources had no background in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics or EVA glove or tool design, it was made with 20 years of experience. Not all of it with a NASA contractor either. I also read you website and feel the same way. Part of me feels that you took people's word for things without checking them out. I would agree with you that traveling around the world to verify every claim would be extremely expensive, but what I would do is find someone who feels like you do and have them do the legwork. Like I also said earlier, if I ever find the themal analysis report of the Hassalbald camera, I will send you a copy.

Here's an example,

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and
that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM. I don't have the documentary, so I could be making a fool of myself right now, but I'll admit to that and that I'm wrong.

The LEM in Space Center in Houston hangs from the ceiling about 20 feet up and there is no access to it. In my many trips to this place every year, its always been there. How were these measurements made then? To me it sounds like you used some else's information. Also this LM was a trainer version and may not be the same as the actual LM. My NASA experience has been that training versions are close but not the same. There are two moon versions of the LM in still around and these should be examined. Do you see the problem here? You're making claims that this couldn't have happened, because you're using the wrong piece of hardware.

Now on to Donna Tietze. I searched all the NASA servers and couldn't find a trace of her anywhere. If you want to believe that NASA erased her name from various documents that's fine; however, I have many documents which precede 9/11 or her 1995 interview and she doesn't appear either. I also can't find her in any of the newspaper archives in Texas.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-31 09:42 ]</font>

Ok, thats a hell of a lot of questions pointed my way, so I'll answer all the ones that I can remember.

Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles. As anyone knows who lives on Planet Earth, the Moon is not bright enough to cast any shadow here in the day, so this renders any experiment using natural light on Earth from two different sources impossible. Now, if this is wrong you only have yourselves to blame, because as I said in an earlier post, this was news to me, but I added this theory to my site.

However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions, then I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths.

Someone asked me about the two Apollo pages on my site, one of which talks about the Apollo hoax and the other about photos taken around the Moon of UFOs. That's quite easy to explain actually. All of the pictures that appear on the Moon photograph pages (except one) show UFOs whilst in orbit and thats exactly fits in with my theory that man didn't land on the Moon. The picture that does appear on that page shows Aldrin (I believe its Aldrin) with a bright light above him, so whos to say that this light is not a lighting gantry?

I could easily turn the tables on this debate with all the allegations flying around about my lack of qualifications to comment and that you are all scientifically qualified to have your say. I could easily point out that none of you have been to the Moon so how do you know that what you take as textbook in experiments on Earth, happens exactly the same on the Moon which lacks air or an atmosphere?

What would convince me that Man went to the Moon...erm, let me see....? a few pictures of the landing sites perhaps which could have been taken by the Clementine probe or spy satellites. Yes, before anyone shouts out that such pictures exist, I have seen them too, but am not convinced by a small blob measuring a few pixels across that could really be anything. Before any of you reply about the incapability of any such satellites being able to take such pictures, how come that spy satellites can take clear pictures of things on Earth the size of a pencil and yet not capture an object weighing several tons on the Moon? The satellite wouldn't have any trouble trying to spy through clouds either.

Does anyone on the group know if the remote cameras used to film the LEM taking off from the lunar surface worked for very long after it was left there? And whats stopping a probe landing with new cameras powered by solar panels to take other pictures?

Hope this has explained a little.

Your profile states that you joined the BABB on 5/28/02 – what was your screen name when you were on this board discussing Apollo a few months ago. I only ask because I wanted to find the thread you were referring to.

"However, if you all believe that these light experiments can be reproduced in natural lighting conditions, then I challenge any of you to reproduce the differing lengths shown in the footage on my site which show two astronauts standing within a few feet of each other, but casting shadows of considerable different lengths."

JayUtah deals with this "anomoly" on his internet site here:
http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html

Let's throw some numbers in this statement and see if I can help you answer your own question. Why can't a spy satellite, in low earth orbit a couple of hundred miles from it's target, get pictures just as clear from the moon 180,000 miles away? Are you beginning to see the problem?

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be trying to work both ends of the argument. Earlier you complained about comments stating that sometimes conditions are different on the moom then on earth, now your saying things are different on the moon, but how would we know how different so therefore you must be right. You ask about a bright spot in a photo and ask who's to say it's not a lighting gantry. Aldrin, NASA and a bevy of other scientists say it's not. I've seen their evidence. Where's your more convicing evidence that it is a lighting gantry?

My point is this, it takes time to become an expert in a field but you don't always have to go to school to suceed.

Right. School gives you a leg up, but it doesn't guarantee your success. One of my friends who lives in Italy is a millionaire CEO of an oil company, which he runs out of an office that looks like an explosion at an office supply store. He has a basic high school education, yet he is one of the smartest and most insightful people I've ever met.

My philosophy is that you are never too old to learn, and never too smart to make a mistake. And those are primarily maxims I apply to myself. I've learned many things without getting a degree in that field or without sitting in a classroom.

I said earlier that common sense does not substitute for specific detailed knowledge of a particular field. That's still true. But it doesn't mean you have to get a degree in the subject in order to acquire that specific, detailed knowledge.

More that a library full of books, more than a wallet full of money, more than the most erudite professors on the planet -- the single most effective resource for gaining wisdom is the willingness to be taught. The actual information is almost always readily available.

Scientists, engineers, and other highly trained people can sometimes come off as arrogant. In fact, science begins with the observation, "Hey, that can't be right." A scientist can't be successful scientist until the point at which he is willing to admit he may be wrong about something.

Of course that doesn't mean we have to go back and question first principles every time. As I said, the very basic laws of thermodynamics are not likely to be wrong.

But what I'm trying to get at here is the notion of "teachability". That's really a synonym for humility. Scientists have to have a certain amount of it, otherwise they'll fail. And in fact anyone who wants to learn something has to first realize that he doesn't know it, but would like to.

At age 35 I decided I wanted to learn about theatrical lighting design. So I volunteered at a local theater where I studied it under their chief lighting designer. Now this guy didn't have a college degree whereas I did, and as part of that had studied the physics of light. On top of that I had taught illumination modeling to graduate students at a university that produced such household names as Gouraud and Phong. One could, in a certain sense, call me an expert in illumination.

But I didn't know a scoop from an ellipsoidal, or how to wire a resistance dimmer, or any of the specific skills that were necessary to the job. Nor did I understand the vast amount of art that has to go into such an endeavor. And so while I could comfortably stand in a college classroom and discuss topics such as irridescence, diffusion, and specularity, I was completely at the mercy of this relatively uneducated master of his art, who had a wealth of information, skill, insight, and who with careful experimentation had observed empirically many of the phenomena that I had learned theoretically.

I could have approached this experience with the notion that I knew it all already and that there was little this old fellow could have taught me. But instead I chose to be teachable.

As you can see, when I made the comment that the authors of "Dark Moon" or their sources had no background in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics or EVA glove or tool design, it was made with 20 years of experience.

And when I said they knew nothing of aerospace design, that's from my ten or so years consulting for design engineers from TRW, Morton Thiokol, Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, and others.

And when I said they know nothing of perspective, that's partly from having grown up in a family of architects and having learned to draw accurately as soon as I could hold a pencil, and partly from having taught principles of numerical projective transformation to college graduate students. After learning it myself, of course.

It's also simply from observing perspective in the real world. See, I can slam out the linear algebra that defines a conical projection through a lens from affine space into projective space. But Bennett and Percy wouldn't understand the proof. If they did, they wouldn't be making the arguments they're making. So my training in this type of geometry is really only good for discussing the subject with other people who have had similar training.

Proof in this case is probably best accomplished by means of empirical evidence. That is, myriads of photographs that show that parallel lines -- be they features of objects, lines painted on the ground, or shadows cast in sunlight by parallel objects -- only rarely appear parallel in photographs.

I would agree with you that traveling around the world to verify every claim would be extremely expensive

As would I. But thanks to the miracle of the Internet the people who live in Australia or England or Indiana or Houston can do the research. Thanks, guys!

Like I also said earlier, if I ever find the themal analysis report of the Hassalbald camera, I will send you a copy.

I have several hundred megabytes and several shelf-feet of printed material having to do with many aspects of Apollo. Just tell me what you wish you had available, and I'll either be able to supply it or find it.

The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston

Are you talking about LM-9?

The LEM in Space Center in Houston hangs from the ceiling about 20 feet up and there is no access to it.

Yeah, you can look right up its skirt.

The upshot is that there's no actual LM anywhere in the world that you can just walk up to with a tape measure and start taking measurements.

Collier measured the hatch on a LM cockpit simulator, which he just assumed was cut to the same dimensions as the flight hardware.

My NASA experience has been that training versions are close but not the same.

The sine qua non of any cockpit simulator is the positioning of the controls. Everything else is negotiable. The main goal of the cockpit simulator is to give the pilot the "blindfold touch" experience. That is, pilots generally have to be able to sit (or stand, in this case) in a cockpit blindfolded and reach out and touch a specific control without fumbling for it.

Now on to Donna Tietze.

It's a staple fantasy of the conspiracy theory crowd that the government can make all traces of someone disappear just by the push of a button. It makes for great Hollywood movies, but it's impossible as a practical measure to accomplish that.

And ironically, the more notable someone is, the less possible it is to "erase" them. Ms. Tietze apparently had a long and distinguished career at NASA. People who have long and distinguished careers have to interact with other people in their field. They write papers, they go to conferences, they send letters to people, they win awards.

Someone somewhere will have a copy of the paper she wrote, her name in a conference proceedings, letters, articles, books. Someone will remember attending her awards ceremony.

Now in terms of inductive proof, it's impossible to prove she didn't work for NASA in the claimed capacity. The absence of evidence is generally not evidence of absence. But it can be, depending on the thoroughness of the search and the objective probability of any such search turning up the information.

If Ms. Tietze did do all she said, there would definitely be a pretty hefty paper trail of it, much of that in private hands where the government doesn't even know it exists. To find no traces anywhere of Ms. Tietze to substantiate her claim is indeed very highly suspicious.

But we've got the cart before the horse. Since a search for her identity would be conclusive only if exhaustive -- and that would be impossible -- it falls to Ms. Tietze to offer substantiation. In short, it can't be proven that she didn't work for NASA, but it can be proven that she did, if she did. Let her produce a pay stub, or the names of employees who would have known her, or an offer letter, or some other reasonably uncontestable bit of evidence that shows she did what she said she did.

Sadly, often investigation must proceed along the lines of what can be proven, not what ought to be proven.

The very fact that you would ask this, and in an accusatory tone, indicates very strongly that you have not done any research on these topics! This claim by the HBs has been debunked thoroughly, and in many places, including (as has been pointed out) JayUtah's clavius.org site.

And here we see the core of the problem. Many HBs, and that includes you, cosmicdave, find a site you like, making claims you want to believe in. Then you mirror them, but do not do any work on your own to find evidence that supports or does not support the theory.

Scientists are different. We look for that evidence. I went out and took pictures showing non-parallel shadows. I have other pictures showing how natural sunlight can produce a spotlight effect, which both Sibrel and Percy claim is evidence for fakery (I'll note they both also claim to be award-winning photographers, a claim I find very difficult to take seriously).

I looked up how the spacesuits worked in a vacuum environment. I read up on heat transfer (a topic with which I was already familiar as well). I did some basic math showing that speeding up the footage by a factor of 2 should make the astronauts look like they are moving in an Earthlike environment. I could go on and on.

People with hoax sites like yours almost never do anything to support their ideas other than make accusations and claims with no factual evidence to support them.

Do yourself a favor: go to JayUtah's site. Read it. Thoroughly. Then honestly look at your site and and see what makes sense and what doesn't. Until you look at your own claims honestly, you cannot honestly say they are correct.