No, have you ever been to Area 51? Can you show us the map since we do know what the landing sites look like?

As Jay can attest, the soil near Area 51 has simply the wrong color and wrong consistency, and it does not have Heiligenschein, which the soil in the Apollo photographs do.

__________________
~AstroMike

Um, you were the one who argued that a spy satellite should be able to see the Apollo sites right now. Remember: 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. Stop trying to play both sides of the debate, please.

As for Area 51, no, I haven't seen a map of it and neither have you. It's not like the Air Force passes out tourist guides for cryin' out loud! They don't even admit the place exists.

Actually, when I speak of shuttle footage, I'm specifically referring to footage of the astronauts themselves within the shuttle. In those shots, you can see the earth moving below. But even if it were a blur, you could easily pick out the movement from blue to white, as the cloud cover changes.

That brings up two other questions. First, why don't we see that change of color? Close to the earth, you see blue change to white, it isn't a homogenous blue color. And second, how did they cover up moving from dark to light? While orbiting the earth, there is a constant moving from night to day. Why don't we see that?

Perhaps they have more bells and whistles now, but the optics of the still film cameras and movie cameras are pretty much the same. But please tell us how this "higher quality" is going to have any difference on something so simple as picking up the earth out a window.

Of course, and your point is?

Considering Percy, Sibrel, Kaysing, et al. have a financial interest in keeping this hoax charade alive, your statement is utterly ridiculous.

Rephrase that. You have a hard time UNDERSTANDING some of the evidence. And the phrase "that NASA has released" makes it sound like they are holding on to certain pieces of information and dribbling it out a little at a time. Of course that is also extrememly misleading, as all the pictures and video have been available since the '70s.

I've seen the terrain surrounding "Area 51" and I've seen many pictures of all the Apollo missions, and I can state categorically that the two are not ever remotely alike. As a matter of fact, the fact that you do find them "uncannily" alike, betrays your bias and your very poor perception.

Hey pvtpylot
You must either be very niave or dont know what your talking about when it comes to Area 51. Of course the place exists. Just because your own country doesn't release pictures do you think that will stop anyone else releasing them? Ill point you towards my page on it at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicarea51.html

The pictures there were actually taken by Russian spy satellites. Until a few years ago you could actually drive up onto nearby mountains and take pictures of it with powerful camera equipment, so it definately exists. I saw the Area 51/Apollo landing sites comparison on a recent UFO documentary here in the UK and I also seem to remember coming across it on a website not so long ago. I will try and dig the video up to see it again and give you more details.

Perhaps the reason why you cant see any movement outside of the window is because the camera is focused on the astronaut ...

Then you admit there is no visible motion outside the windows in any of the Apollo shots, as would be expected if it were the earth from low earth orbit. Now you're just trying to come up with conjectural explanations for why it looks exactly like what we say it is, and why it doesn't look anything like what you say it is.

Your argument is along the lines of, "I know it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck; but it's really a toadstool."

The shuttle footage is focused to pick up details on Earth as it passes overhead.

No. The shuttle footage we're thinking of is documenting what's going on in and around the space shuttle. It accidentally picks up details of the nearby earth. It looks nothing like what you say.

Also todays cameras are of a far higher quality than were used on the Apollo 13 mission.

Granted, but perhaps you would consent to applying your expert knowledge of the difference in chrominance and luminance response among vidicon, CCD, and 16mm film to the notion that you're seeing sun scatter through window contamination in the Apollo film footage.

Perhaps you would also like to compare the 16mm film footage of the early shuttle flights with the 16mm film footage of the Apollo flights and give us your expert photo analysis opinion on the similarities, if any, between them.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The footage in question has all the hallmarks of what we say it is (sun scatter) and none of the hallmarks of what you say it is (the earth seen from LEO). You have bandied about for three or four days here without providing any substantive evidence that your hypothesis is correct and ours is wrong. Your argumentation has consisted of nothing but attempted excuses for why it really is what you say, but instead looks very much like what we say. This point began with you telling us we could not come up with any explanation for the window glow. It's all too apparent that it is you who you cannot come up with any reason for why your hypothesis ought to be believed.

of course it would have to be placed near the Moon to take the shots of the landing areas... how good do you guys think these cameras really are?

The details of your proposal were not clear. It certainly sounded like you were arguing the Apollo debris should be visible to spy satellites in earth orbit.

Now that I have explained to you some of the problems in imaging the landing sites using spy satellites in lunar orbit, I wonder if you would be so kind as to explain just why we should undertake such a mission and who's going to pay for it? You just off-handedly remark that it could be done and ought to be done as if it's suspicious that it hasn't already been done. Well, I know why it hasn't already been done -- it would cost a huge amount of money and provide almost no benefit.

Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon

No, I don't think so. You are going to extreme lengths to employ conjecture in order to explain away a vast amount of evidence that very clearly and nearly conclusively points to the conclusion that the Apollo missions were successful. People who want to believe in a certain proposition do not ignore solid scientific reasoning that favors it and instead embrace pseudoscience that supports the converse. They do not delve into colossal amounts of speculation in order to evade the natural conclusion.

It's quite clear that you prefer to believe it was hoaxed.

...but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released.

Only because you have already decided to believe something else. And we have demonstrated that your disbelief derives mostly from your lack of understanding of what you're seeing, your lack of scientific understanding for what you expect to see, and your strong compulsion to believe a different conclusion regardless of the evidence.

There is absolutely no merit to the allegations that there is something somehow "wrong" with the Apollo records. It can be quite easily shown that the so-called inconsistencies and anomalies are merely the hoax believers' misunderstanding and ignorance of common scientific principles.

Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?

I've done one better. I live not too far from Area 51, and in any case I'm very familiar with the deserts of western Utah and Nevada. I can say with first-hand authority that the soil and terrain characteristics of this terrain is nothing like what is visible in the Apollo photographs, films, and video downlinks.

You cannot fart in these deserts without raising a visible cloud of dust. Yet no such clouds are visible in any of the Apollo coverage, even when the astronauts are walking and scuffling through the regolith. Evidence of wind erosion -- lee scouring, dunes, etc. -- is ubiquitous in these deserts and totally absent in the Apollo coverage.

You're talking about the terrain where I have lived for ten years, and I can say conclusively that you are wrong.

You must either be very niave or dont know what your talking about when it comes to Area 51.

No, it is you who is naive. I live near it. You've obviously never been there. The notion that the Nevada desert could pass for the lunar surface in dozens or hundreds of hours of EVA footage is completely ludicrous. The soil is the wrong color, the wrong consistency, has none of the optical properties visible in the EVA footage, none of its mechanical properties, and displays the common response to wind and displacement that is so conspicuously absent in the EVA footage. Further, the stark difference between shadow and light is most notably absent in the Utah/Nevada deserts.

Once again it is you who don't doesn't know what he's talking about.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-01 18:56 ]</font>

Hey Tomblvd,
You got it exactly right, NASA are keeping things from us and are releasing it slowly, how long will it take you to sit up and take notice? For instance lets take the water on Mars as an example. I seem to recall hearing this from a scientist in the late 80s, why did it take NASA over a decade to tell the general public if they aren't hiding anything? Also lets consider the latest mission that mapped Mars. It was only after many people protested that NASA finally relented and decided that it would photograph the Cydonia region, namely the face on Mars and the D&M Pyramid areas. If NASA hadn't been pressurised by people like me they wouldn't have even bothered to map the place again, leaving us all to ponder that wonderfull image of the face from the Viking pictures.

My site is done as a hobby, theres no money involved... sorry to disappoint you. Percy and Co may be a different kettle of fish, but I am in the UFO field purely because I have a great interest in the subject, nothing more, nothing less.

Your argument about the blue sky turning to white is invalid. I have watched hundreds of hours of live shuttle footage and many times have seen just blue sky from out of the windows, especially if they are over a hot country where cloud cover would be at a minimum. Secondly, I was watching the latest shuttle mission 'live' when the crew were told that within the next few minutes they would be going to be talking live on a local news channel to a college who had questions to ask. I can tell you, I was really amused that within a minute before they went live on air on US TV that the shutters came down on the windows of the room that the astronauts were occupy..now why would this be when they had not done so for the hour or so that I had been watching previously?

As regards to your Area 51 quip... check out the above reply from me to another guy. I like the way that you say that I have poor perception when you haven't even seen the pictures. I really hope that I can dig up the pictures so that you will eat your words.

Oh, be serious. You've got a some ariel shots of an airport along with a bunch of of text claiming it's Area 51. It could be any of four dozen fields out west. I know because I've flown over many of them (most US bases are in Class D airspace) and they all look very similar, expecially to non-pilots who aren't used to such perspectives.

Area 51 is a designation that was invented by UFO believers. No Air Force facility was ever known by that name.

Try some supporting evidence, cosmicdave. It works better. Give me a Lat./Lon. location for these photos and I'll look them up on a VFR chart and tell you what you're really looking at.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 19:34 ] forgot something...</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 19:59 ]</font>

JayUtah,
Perhaps I should have explained that the Area51/Apollo comparisons are from the air and not on solid ground. The shots that I have seen were aerial shots, that could be superimposed over one another and perfectly fit. Considering that most of the pictures of the Moon from Space are black or grey and white, soil comparisons could not be made.

As regards to this sun scatter theory... if one was to look directly out of the window, would the sky still look blue? even if the camera was placed directly at the window? or does this effect only happen when the camera is focused on the window from a distance?

Since we are talking about the Apollo missions, can you give me specific examples of what informaiton was withheld initially, only to be released later? You can't, because ALL the still film, motion picture film and video was released almost immediatley.

And found nothing.....

MAY! What do you mean may? Those guys are in this for one thing and one thing only, MONEY. And since you made the statement that most HBs want to believe it wasn't a hoax, my comment stands. You may not be in it for the money, but most others are.

Now you're just making things up as you go along. Since the "hot country" is not blue, why would we see blue when the shuttle went by? You would expect to see a brownish color reflected. You also neglected to mention how they covered up going from dark to light.

What are you talking about? What were they trying to hide if the entire mission was broadcast, (as they all are)?

Are you trying to say that they tried to cover up the evidence by pulling the shades when the newscast was on, but they didn't feel the need to cover up the rest of the hundreds of hours of video?

Please point out to me where I said I didn't see the pictures? There was a website, long since defunct, that hed the picture on it. It was an aerial picture with craters, wow.



But you miss the point, as you are so apt to do. I was saying, rather clearly, I thought, that I've seen the Groom Lake area, and I've seen thousands of pictures and videos of the moon surface, and the two could not be less compatable if one were made of peanut butter (chunky). There are virtually no similarities.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 19:37 ](damm sppeling)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-01 19:38 ]</font>

Perhaps I should have explained that the Area51/Apollo comparisons are from the air and not on solid ground.

Exactly. You're looking at a photo taken from 150 miles above Area 51, and we're talking about thousands of photos taken from an altitude of five feet.

The shots that I have seen were aerial shots, that could be superimposed over one another and perfectly fit.

Then put your money where your mouth is. Take the Area 51 photo, superimpose it over the landing site, and show us that they perfectly fit.

Then explain why, if we can have hundreds upon hundreds of genuine photographs taken from lunar orbit, why NASA would have to try to pass off a photo of the Nevada desert as it if were the lunar landscape. If, as has been implied, NASA can obtain many close up views of the actual lunar surface by means of unmanned spacecraft, why would it need earth photos?

Further, since the Soviets undoubtedly had lots of interest in Area 51 and their photo experts would undoubtedly be quite familiar with that area looks like from space, why do you think NASA would believe it could sneak "lunar" photos of Area 51 past the Soviets, whom NASA was supposed to be fooling with its hoax?

Considering that most of the pictures of the Moon from Space are black or grey and white, soil comparisons could not be made.

That's the point. The lunar surface and the earth's surface in the region where I live look totally different from an altitude of five feet, and from an altitude of two hundred miles. You're the one trying to argue they're identical.

if one was to look directly out of the window, would the sky still look blue?

If you could eliminate the effect of scatter and of reflection from internal images and light sources, the sky would appear black.

It is less a function of distance from the window and more a function of the angle at which light strikes the window, and the angle at which it is viewed from inside.

There is also a difference in how the eye perceives this phenomenon and how the camera perceives it, largely because there is a difference between eye and film in perceiving nearly everything. Film is accumulative, while the eye is not. Film does not adapt to ambient chromatic variation, while the eye does.

pvtpylot,
Yeah thats right, it could be any US airport... how many US airports do you know with a 6 mile long runway? How much evidence do you want? I know people who have filmed the base from mountains as I have said before. If this base doesn't exist, why did the US government buy several more thousands of miles of land around it to stop people getting anywhere near it and why is the place designated as a no fly zone if it doesn't exist? Doh!

Were talking about Russian intelligence here, remember... the same guys who beat the US to putting everything else up in space except a man on the moon!

I'd go and read a bit more before making silly comments.

If the Shuttle is over an ocean you would see blue - no? I am talking specifically about the Apollo 13 footage on my site which shows blue sky outside when the camera is filming directly out of the window, the Apollo 13 is supposedly 8 minutes away from the explosion and around 200,000 miles from Earth. Could sun scatter create blue outside with the camera filming right against the window?

Tomblvd,
You did not say first of all that you were talking about the Apollo missions when talking about NASA keeping things back from the public.

JayUtah,
I will really try my best to track down those photos for you. I know I saw it on a site about 4 months ago, but which one?

Wish me luck.

Six miles?? Your own website says the runway is 11,960 feet. Doh, indeed. Do the math. The US currently has 65 public use fields and 38 military bases with runways at least that length or longer. Again, give me a lat./lon. for those pics so I can tell you if the airspace is restricted or not, and what ARTCC controls it. How much evidence do I want? How about something that doesn't require me to take your work for it.

(corr. spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-01 20:11 ]</font>

Hey pvtpilot
Check lower down the page where it shows the whole base in a dry bed lake. It also says a 6km runway! (I worked in miles because we do here in the UK, my mistake, was working from memory). It is the size of Switzerland!

Also, if you dont believe the info on my site, check out http://www.area51researchcenter.com/
which is probably the most comprehensive database on the area. It also has maps so you can pinpoint the base.

If the place doesn't exist, how come I have all the military frequences used there on my site and also pictures of warning signs and surveilance equipment on the way to the base? Why also are jets chartered from Las Vegas everyday to the base if it does not exist?

If you have the answers I'd be interested to know.

pvtpylot,
If your a pilot, why not try flying over the region of this imaginary base. See how long your aircraft lasts before the F16's shoot you down... lol

Ahh, I found the map coordinates for the area... here they are:

Rachel, NV (Research Center) 115š44'00"W 37š38'30"N
Groom Lake Base, Bldg 170 115š49'00"W 37š14'00"N
Freedom Ridge 115š38'30"W 37š20'30"N
White Sides Mtn. 115š37'30"W 37š22'00"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š21'30"W 37š21'00"N
Papoose Lake (northernmost shore) 115š51'30"W 37š07'30"N
Groom Lake, center of lake bed. 115š47'30"W 37š16'30"N
Black Mailbox 115š29'00"W 37š27'30"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š22'00"W 37š21'00"N
Janet 737 Terminal (Las Vegas) 115.16450šW 36.09212šN
Area 51 Nightclub (Las Vegas) 115.17714šW 36.12340šN


Items in format 115š22'00" are from map (to nearest 30"). Items of format 115.12345š are GPS coordinates, precision unknown but usually within +/- 200 feet.

Also, if you dont believe the info on my site, check out http://www.area51researchcenter.com/
which is probably the most comprehensive database on the area. It also has maps so you can pinpoint the base.

Here's a quote from the webmaster of the Area 51 Research Center: I now consider all alien claims, or government conspiracy stories associated with "Area 51", as lies, disinformation or simply misinterpretations or wishful thinking from the minds of a sub-culture of paranoia. The majority of the "true believers" who have claimed an alien presence at Groom Lake, wanted it to be real, thus it was real, to them at least. One thought became pervasive during my research- Truth Is Subjective.

My own personal belief is that the Groom Lake facility is nothing more than a top secret testing area for advanced aircraft and weapon systems that the government and the military would much rather keep secret than to have in the public eye. The rest, I believe, is disinformation or pure rubbish. I think that speaks for itself.

If the place doesn't exist, how come I have all the military frequences used there on my site

You have a list of frequencies. Some ar