Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

You were given a thorough explanation of this on page 2 of this thread. Re-read it.

The conspiracists said that no flame was visible when there should be one. I can't recall any debunker stating outright "There should not ever be a flame visible".

Read your own question: "When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)"

Am I the only one noticing how you contradicted yourself. "Instead, zero exhaust." Followed by: "I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM".

Can you not see this? Do you not realise how this makes no sense whatsoever?

Even if you did manage to catch some sceptics out once in a while, that does not prove the moon hoax conspiracy, or necessarily even strengthen your case.

CosmicDave,

Ever since the first time you posted on this BB, I have tried to examine your claims before I commented; however, I see that you refuse to do the same.

For example,

Jay states,

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’

Your response was,

"So where did all that used up oxygen go?"

You didn't even bother to look at the site I gave you as reference. Why was that? Afraid you might learn something?

Try this one

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/teac...ted/5emu4.html

Christopher Ferro:"Is anyone else having trouble with the above image? I can't seem to get it to load"

The image in question appears to be a Yahoo! Groups Image. In order to view the image you need to be a member of the particular Yahoo! Group.
I cant view it either.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-06-03 17:39 ]</font>

I suggest you go back and read what I said about the Apollo footage which I have with blue sky showing through the windows.

This is the problem. You want to limit the discussion of the phenomenon to Apollo 13, ignoring all the other pertinent data. Do you think blue haze occurred only on Apollo 13? If the same phenomenon occurs on other missions, then your explanation must account for those other missions.

but if someone more qualified than you had made sure that all those stats and figures were correct before they were committed to paper, would you be any the wiser?

But if someone more qualified than me made sure all those stats and figures and diagrams and equations were correct before they were committed to paper, then they'd have a viable moon landing program.

You seem to be under this odd delusion that science can be bald-facedly faked for thirty years. You seem to think it can appear correct to any degree of inspection, but somehow not be actually correct.

When did I say that NASA has hardly released anything?

Earlier. That may have been in conjunction with Mars data though, but I recall you had backpedalled.

Let's clear this up. Do you argue that NASA has purposely withheld from public view significant portions of its material relating to Apollo? Yes or no.

With all these jobs you reckon you've done, you must be ancient!

No, just busy.

The lunar orbiter in your estimation could not take as clear pictures as the Apollo and yet pictures were posted here that showed the opposite.

Then you must be blind.

The lines on the orbiter frame by the way is due to scanning techniques as is shown on the Malin site. thought you would know that?

I did not make the argument that the vertical lines were inherent to the photograph. That was someone else's argument. I have not commented on the Orbiter photos except to note that they were in black and white.

Your 'white specks' are not on the camera lens because the same formation appears in different areas of the lens on the pictures.

Then I have misunderstood your argument. I'll check back on that.

As has been explained here already, you generally won't see stars above any brightly-lit scene. The dynamic range of the camera (or the eye) is insufficient. Not a cover-up, just a well-established fact.

JayUtah has explained ignition transients already. What part, specifically, don't you understand?

As with a number of other things, you "seem to remember" incorrecty. Armstrong had to eject from an LM simulator, an ungainly open-frame contraption.

As to the "who dared" part, you don't seem to be familiar with much of aerospace history. Who dared to fly the P-38, or the X-15, for the first time? Who dared to fly the space shuttle for the first time. And the LM was flown and checked out in space before the 11 landing. Your question, though dramatic, is meaningless.


They didn't go, period. We went, and there is a massive amount of evidence for it. There is no credible evidence against it.

Yes, spaceflight is hazardous. Smoking is hazardous. If you smoke for a long time, you are putting yourself at a significantly increased risk of a number of diseases. If you once puff a pack of Camels over a two-week period, you haven't materially affected your long-term health.

Well, to anyone familiar with embedded programming, especially for spacecraft, the answer is simply efficent programming. Are you seriously suggesting it wasn't possible to write the guidance code in 32K?

Also, this computer was *not* responsible for managing most of the spacecraft subsystems, as you have implicitly claimed.

You have made two claims about the Apollo guidance computer which are incorrect. Do you retract them? If not, why not?

So you do believe that Apollo hardware has been imaged on the Moon since the '70s?

Anyway, you took the quote out of context. It is theoretically impossible for Hubble to image Apollo hardware. Clementine took some images which are right at the resolution limit, much as Mars Global Surveyer took pictures which *may* have shown the wreck of Mars Polar Lander.

What exactly are you trying to say with your statement? That NASA can take pictures of Apollo items on the Moon?

We also have the technology to build new Iowa-class battleships. The reason that we're not building new Apollo stacks is that there is no political mandate to do so. You insinuate that there is something sinister about this. You have provided no evidence for such a spin.

If I didn't pay for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for two years I'd have enough for a nice vacation. So? NASA has many missions, such as aeronautical research, astronomy, etc. A whopping chunk of NASA's budget is also tied up with the money-hungry Station and Shuttle. You have evidently confused "budget" with "free cash flow".

NASA has stored an enormous amount of publically-available technical material on Apollo. If contractors did not efficiently archive bulky technical material for a purpose-built rocket for a program which had run out of political steam, that's hardly unexpected to anyone familiar with aerospace, at least in the U.S.

Your premise, that we are somehow technologically incapable of getting back to the Moon, is mistaken. The technology is doable. The budget and will to do so is not.

Can you please provide the reference for this?

And, in any case, it's a non-sequitir. You have claimed that Apollo transmissions came from Earth orbit. But in the previous paragraph, you buttressed your claim (about tracking by hams) with the fact that Apollo was generally in line with the moon during the round trip.

*Nothing* in Earth orbit can move in such a manner. So, either Apollo was not in Earth orbit during the roundtrip, or you have claimed contradictory evidence for your ham-tracking point.

Which is it?

Then I have misunderstood your argument. I'll check back on that.

Okay, you were referring to the Real Video clip. I was referring to the JSC scans. I reject categorically the use of JSC scans to establish the presence of anything in the photo which might be explained by that scanning process. So you might as well forget the JSC scans.

I've looked at the video a dozen times and shown it to two other people. No one here can identify any starlike object in the sky in that video. Could you direct me to the general area of the frame where I should be looking?

... The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources

In 1960s dollars.
Adjust the cited figure for inflation and then get back to us.

Here is my reply to JayUtahs questions about the 32 questions on my site:

‘Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon’.

What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.

Not really CD, that's like saying my car is a fake because it won't do 500 mph. It shouldn't do that speed, so the argument is invalid.

‘The "official photos" Dave reproduces showing alleged stars are the low-quality JSC scans that have white specks everywhere as a result of the hurried scanning process.’

And on several of the examples I have on my site the ‘white specks’ as you call them are in exactly the same configuration in the sky, even though the camera is panning across the horizon. This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film as the 'white specks' are in different parts of the sky and do not stay in one place on the frame.

The specks are not from the lens, but from the scanner used at JSC. It was quite basic, and used in a hurry just to get all those pictures online as quickly as possible. They are slowly being updated with better scans as time permits.

‘ The astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre-breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstreams prior to doffing their helmets inside the spacecraft.’

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.

Huh. 1) Apollo 13 had more than enough oxygen for the entire journey and then some. They were not short of oxygen. 2) The pre-breathing occurred prior to launch, not during the trip.

'Photos taken of the lunar surface directly beneath the descent engine show it to have been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. Recall that the foot of the ladder is some fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.'

So the dust didn’t blow very far away, but it also didn’t land inside the landing pads either… interesting!

Because it's blown sideways, and not into the 'air' maybe?

'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'

Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

A longer ingintion transient on Apollo 16? This is just a guess, but the outer covering of the LM ascent stage got quite a beating when 16 launched from the Moon. I'm guessing the engine didn't light as smoothly as the others.

'In fact, this is quite good evidence of the progressive nature of Apollo technology. Television coverage was not strictly required in order to accomplish the landing on time, and so high-quality television for lunar EVA was deferred in its development until later in the program.'

In fact during the early minutes of the first Apollo 11 EVA the picture quality changes dramatically. Why?

Because they switched ground station settings for better reception?

'This is a natural feature of contour on the lunar surface. It is not always possible to distinguish by color or shading the crests of intervening hills.'

This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen. Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.

We've done this to death. You seem to want to put the whole conspiracy theory into one thread. Did you not see my photos from Switzerland?

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVT aNkFSsZbLNsTNeSky*dOZ2EOx3YumSg*NuunV2rX7FKOEhrimk raD!vwh4pPjlJV!RMbmx*0EmSHbafWIo26qiGAtUjs1gi[/img]

OK, here's the shadow pictures DaveC was asking about...

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVa cvK31EILzjjGUHObl1mQlWQ*EfiPXlGHZBM6uE6gJnk!2WrN2n TYx*C8FIN9W*GUvjKu60P77GXCBTar3z7!7YNcevyaBn7[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVF 2g8tjS5vFJW4R9TQN3sXw73vn*PKPZiXOhB6p2GhP!eJaW!SyF SzCp1CRyKBfZT70qGDwPOT7MaMe2JUWQN5BPbg8EXP9cY[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVr mKXyYZWQuIvIL*vk*aRIKY9yhmUFPUKrolFWxkeF8BxkfwSM5H FZ9*fBq0q8GO6gHWMEX!K9L5t63qGCfWHNxkkEj5awkvg[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVq QsjYijk0f*opb5en4yNLuT9Z1XfbjB8KE*chVggE*j!zCjkXVl x7fg2IIZaCeV8MjpZ4N1fa*xkew1pMdCNlPp6cqAXrj*P[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVy lUYhA8AYzR*Kp7HPX3*AvVnp*75qA4*AFKa!beHKDTMyFUcBq0 UpVSWw2*rLwSFnkXKE9qIvynkqOkxCnprEboai37SB!TN[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVV QUhIh1delAU3bS*V8*YVJ*C0vi6yvJRm*kXEEVMZWFdasKZFWx RR2dkiAzuAv4T8ag*XlXIaW1u8cYzATP3I1UsJh9cDB4t[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVn Nz*Ujl9oFMuSABkBJVpY9THPQlAOLLuXUNkNB!E0ymxCpAls6k lST6axeS!PCQRD92UxuHn9YTbyFjgriVQyQ5WEIfF0S8u[/img]

Here are some of the (crappy, I know) car, with a mountain in the background, changing size and position...

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVt lit4V!ABBKF3EzqEzxe*N02eumxtTimzzRClJhE808d3CXMuUJ 1yqdl2fM6BX2oSTtdKDND34UM8voMOACuRhKJgSGHNf30[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVP 7lTs9LAYX7zluHt1!Xzl2fTeDJEs8uo2pLzpHG7wgl!L2oXvh3 hQouJPNMDSXTRrjaFKdGMGXNxwTmW0*z1CiuRa!7Yz2Nu[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVJ 4Na6vaE1gQ6Dgbb2UTeVh5L93HsG7WcfDlCgZHKIxvT9VmMsD1 av87fpKrLDY!*Ik5YEwKv2PM5NTtF8BzYOP2ztGbBdT!x[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbV2 QKH6Ewge1mvcL0uJYTUpATqz47or1bZGt2*C7HbqiltiBOLer* G9Ngw8bQCT6xGWTRqMCkaidb1NGAnydMwx1PQmSKwO9Uf[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbV5 3ZRi1TmoFbjgfdKK9kudsXxP4OVBEx5iLIXUMKdHbPxbmSpR9f euobYSBtQHqPNi8Wp7AwHJ50GaTKc8dEGFqFPcGxn*mgR[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVq 28ek1!74idByV1yPlDf57dv4ViSQwZ19EF5AU3BgtardJdEQoz UJ3*yhQ3tUpTaKWDEFV9!NiPFHVJNLh0ulyZKZCg*1fDQ[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVG oF77XAabLsdvX6WWdVt9AzFQtGaOJCwoPHMuukqOmhaV5jEa*R cbauknqmRanMLyDxh7aTm2FF45LtrcJ8wt!YW*HhIM!ht[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVD YUWo8qcUul7QB0M24qI2*yv!gOOaxFMDyeVv92rV4u6WrxqPh9 vbpGeHf0Cydak**wiov9az9Pu9G4KP*t22tlXpV*UjAKR[/img]

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVp n4M6hg0dg!TU6U*qdcsqwtqGi4Zl70iC3umKxEOfi!jrDH8pHj vjbMW*wExdEZTOjUFQBtFkDKt!nMldxk5eIpBbGZnYLh9[/img]

Here are some parallel lines converging towards the top of the image. Strange.

[img]http://photos.msn.co.uk/imageserver/image.aspx?Image=*EtEZjHm6coQiDslBu2m29xQQcGLMtbVD RHZ8Qs6jay8CrI0vtg0Ou!*qQUoI5BfgFRKM6bnSc9GomZFD8t Xnt0VscM6TE8oTCRVxZxUCEsMc4HmNkrbD0fQkQLvLWUi[/img]

Make of these photos what you will.

'Skeptics say no such thing. In fact, shadows in sunlight should be expected to appear parallel in photography only under very special circumstances. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.'

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?

See shadows above.

'It wasn't extended until after splashdown. It was in its retracted position during re-entry'

So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?

Using a different antenna? (A bit off topic here?)

'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'

You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’ The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

Somebody's got to do it first. Concorde never flew till someone actually flew it. The first Space Shuttle wasn't launched till they launched it. What's your point?

In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth, jeez, even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.

In a space suit?

‘None of these extremely powerful solar events occurred during any of the missions. The events experienced by Apollo’s 14 and 16 were quite mild.’

More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt. In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.

Yes, luck. It does happen, you know. Fortune favours the brave, and all that. If you could actually point to data that a solar event of sufficient magnitude to kill the astronauts did actually occur when they were on the Moon, then you may have something. Otherwise, no.

‘Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.’

And they didn’t go either!

Not because of the shielding, but because their launcher had a habit of self destructing halfway to orbit.

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’
So where did all that used up oxygen go?

Used up oxygen? If the oxygen was breathed by the astronauts, it would become C02, removed from the air by the LHO2 scrubbers, and water.

In your Technology communications page you claim:
'The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.'

And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?

For just over a week. The cumulative dose by dentists over years and years would be more than this.

‘One man's opinion of the timetable shouldn't necessarily take precedence over those who had more information available.’

Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?

So, Gus Grissom was determining the timetables for NASA, not the engineers and managers. I never knew that.

‘Command Module 012 has been in the custody of the United States government since early 1967. If they had really wanted to destroy it, it wouldn't have been too difficult.’

But how many people have seen it? You say that it’s in the custody of the United States Government… in a locked vault or on general display? Why destroy it? If the Government doesn’t want anyone to see something in their possession then they will find ways to make sure that the evidence stays covered up. Have you seen it?

Yes. It's in a metal storage container. I've seen it on TV.

‘Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.’

If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ‘hazardous to health if swallowed’ do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

Driving a car is hazardous, it carries the risk of death. How many of us run those numbers every day?

'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

My current car has a fully automatic CVT gearbox, electric windows, central locking, etc, yet none of these are connected to any computer.

‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

Photos taken while someone was actually there.

To my question 30 on my site which states ‘ In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.’

You answer: ‘This does not prove it did not have the technology to do it in 1969. These are not skills and equipment on the same level as riding a bike or building a birdhouse. These are design and construction techniques which are highly specialized, and if not needed are not undertaken.’

But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions. What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints? Oh yes of course I forgot, they destroyed most of them. doh! How stupid. Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan, can’t they? And surely things can be learned from the Apollo missions that would help with flights to Mars and other space related missions. On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves. odd?

Could we build a Lancaster Bomber today? I doubt it.

‘NASA's mission has changed. It has also been drastically scaled back. If there were a mandate to maintain and use such technology, there is plenty of design and manufacturing capability to undertake it. Space exploration simply requires different skills and materials, and must operate on a different set of resources.’

The budget Congress agreed to, part of a larger budget bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development as well as various independent agencies, gives NASA $14.8 billion for fiscal year 2002, which started October 1. This is about $300 million more than what the Senate, closely following the budget proposal by President Bush, approved, but is about $150 million less than what the House approved. NASA received $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?

But they spend it on stuff other than going to the Moon. Plus, there's 30 years of inflation to consider.

‘The footage as shown in Bart Sibrel's video is cut up and rendered incoherent, and the voiceover makes it difficult to hear what the astronauts are saying.’

That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover. I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage. What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?

As Sibrel found it, it wasn't locked away, unless he has special NASA clearance. If there's any more secret footage, why don't you go and find it?

‘Congress provided no funding for the storage and archive of the detailed design documentation. The private companies who had custody of it did not have the funds nor the desire to archive materials that required an inconveniently large building in which to house it. They are for-profit companies, not museums. Thus the detailed documentation was regretfully discarded while the basic documentation was preserved.’

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

Same reason Ford doesn't have the paperwork for every single Ford Escort it's ever made. Why bother?

THAT’S YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND HERES A FEW MORE THAT’S ON YOUR SITE WHICH I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO:

'As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.'

This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators

Except they could tell if it wasn't in a fast orbital trajectory, only audible for minutes at a time. They could listen for almost 12 hours at a go.

‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

Because they only just decided to look? Or because it's a lot easier to hide a satelite amongst the thousands now out there, rather than the relative few at the time of Apollo?

I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

Thanks,

CosmicDave

OK, if you say so.

Hey STS 60,
Let me answer some of your questions.. hell why not? Everybody else is asking questions... even if they don't agree with each other on this board, you all have suggestions and different answers to my questions... is that scientific? hmmm.

Anyway here goes...
'As has been explained here already, you generally won't see stars above any brightly-lit scene.'

'Generally' or 'should not be' as JayUtah would have it. But which is right? Go and look at my page and explain what the '****e specks' as JayUtah describes them are? They should not be there right,according to this group. I can assure you they're not lens marks or marks out of the film because the same formation of 'stars' appear in a few different shots in different areas of the frame.

'JayUtah has explained ignition transients already. What part, specifically, don't you understand?'

I think I understand everything about this question, why can't any of you give me a straight answer about the appearance of a flame in an oxygen starved lack of atmosphere setting?

'As with a number of other things, you "seem to remember" incorrecty. Armstrong had to eject from an LM simulator, an ungainly open-frame contraption.'

Yet another person who can't read what I write... quote: 'Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully'.
Of all the other flight examples that you mention, none of these craft were landed on the Moon either. I stand by my first statement that knowone successfully landed the LEM, be it manned or unmanned on the lunar surface before the Apollo 11 mission. Check your facts!

'They didn't go, period. We went, and there is a massive amount of evidence for it. There is no credible evidence against it.'

Evidence released by one single agency, the same one that allegedly carried out the missions. Talk about slapping yourself on the back. There is plenty of credible evidence against it, but you are too caught up in NASA's hype to see it. The 'dress rehearsal' footage for starters. A film found only by chance and not in the kept along with the usual NASA footage. I see that the guy who claimed NASA released everything Apollo related in the 70's has not come forward and admitted his mistake in relation to this particular piece of film. Nice try at forgetting that I mentioned this.

'Yes, spaceflight is hazardous.'

Try telling this to JayUtah because he thinks otherwise.

'Are you seriously suggesting it wasn't possible to write the guidance code in 32K'

Yes you read right my man. I'm not going into why again, go and visit my site at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk if you want the answer.

'What exactly are you trying to say with your statement? That NASA can take pictures of Apollo items on the Moon?'

No, i'm just playing with you. People like JayUtah can come up with rudiculous comments saying that no images exist and I can prove him wrong. So why hasn't anybody backed up my evidence. Or are you all a bunch of sheep not wanting to step out of line? From the images I have seen the 'objects' could actually show anything from a large rock to a crater, but NASA says its one of the landing sites, so they must be right - right? Thought that the experienced JayUtah would have known about this and not needed a HBer to inform him of this fact?

About the scrapped Saturn V you said: 'You have provided no evidence for such a spin.'

All the evidence is on NASA's site, go check it out. Its a well known fact that the Saturn V rocket could outperform the Shuttle.

'A whopping chunk of NASA's budget is also tied up with the money-hungry Station and Shuttle'

Glad you brought this up actually. Its obvious to anyone that a Moonbase would be a far cheaper option, but has not been implemented even though one of the original reasons for the Apollo missions was to see the possibilities of a Moonbase. I wonder why they changed their minds?

'If contractors did not efficiently archive bulky technical material for a purpose-built rocket for a program which had run out of political steam, that's hardly unexpected to anyone familiar with aerospace, at least in the U.S.'

So all this Apollo stuff was only done for political security? Kennedy's speech about it being 'for the people' was a load of balony and only a kind of bargaining chip in the Cold War with Russia to make the Soviets believe that the US were more powerful and advance. Yeah I've heard that before too. And your accusing me of making the excuses?

'Can you please provide the reference for this?'

I Received this info on Email about a month ago. It was actually over Japan and not China as I first thought, pretty close though. Heres an article about it wrote by none other than the infamous James Oberg.

"Okayama - A group of japanese astronomers watching the heavens around the clock to spot any sign of huge asteroids and comets apparently found an undisclosed spy satellite, they announced Thursday.

The unidentified object was spotted at the Japan Spaceguard Association's observation center in Bisei, Okayama prefecture, in december last year.

Officials of the association said they have since studied a list of over 8,000 man-made objects in space compiled by the north american aerospace defense command (norad), but it was not registered despite its massive size -- the satellite has a diameter of 50 meters.

Aerospace engineering specialist Nobuo Nakatomi said the object was likely to be a spy satellite.

"It is a common practice around the world to secretly launch satellites for technical or military reasons, and they won't make entry on the norad list," Nakatomi said. "judging from the information available, it looks like the object is a U.S. or Chinese spy satellite."

Shuzo Isobe, director of the spaceguard association, was delighted with the ability of its 1-meter-diameter optical telescope at the Bisei Spaceguard Center.

"We will keep watching space to spot asteroids or man-made objects that can be a threat to earth," said Isobe, who is also an assistant professor at the national astronomical observatory of japan.

Spaceguard association officials said the unidentified satellite could be observed with binoculars in the southeastern sky."

'You have claimed that Apollo transmissions came from Earth orbit. But in the previous paragraph, you buttressed your claim (about tracking by hams) with the fact that Apollo was generally in line with the moon during the round trip.'

No, actually I was quoting JayUtah from his website. Perhaps you should talk to him about it?

Thats it then, Cheers...

Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction. You are all contradicting each other and yet want me to believe all of your views. Half of you are applying guesswork to your answers sort of giving your answer but also writing in a way to ask the others if your right... like the second aerial quote. I've heard it all now. hehe. Your giving me a hardtime because you say I have not produced the evidence. Who's kidding who here?

Liked your holiday shots by the way, nice low cloud in those mountains to fog them out and make them appear lighter.

Oh and the pictures of the tree shadows, would they appear different lengths because one is considerably taller with foliage than the other by any chance? Nice try. I see you even mirror images some of them too. I'm a bit cleverer than you are crediting me for I'm afraid.

Dave, when John says "DaveC" he means someone other than yourself. He's copied and pasted the captions and image URLs from a thread on a different message board.
The shadow pictures are to demonstrate converging shadows not differing shadow lengths.

Cosmic Dave,

The specs may have been on the scanner. How many times?

Oxygen, or at least oxidizer, was part of the mix stuffed into the engine. How does a welders torch work underwater?

How do you think it would be possible to test landing a LM on the Moon without actually trying to land a LM on the Moon? Underwater, perhaps. Or on Ganymede?

The footage, when seen unedited, is obviously just a rehearsal.

Spaceflight is hazardous, but the hazards are well known, and catered for.

I could write guidance code in 32K. Remember those early Sinclair Home computers? I had a 16K version, yet managed to program a Moon sim.

So, the images exist, but are fake? I don't get your point. If they exist, they were there.

Yes, the Saturn out performed the Shuttle. An F1 car out performs my Uno. But it's a ***** to take shopping, or to Switzerland.

A Moonbase would not be cheaper than the ISS. How daft. It also cost a lot more just to visit.

Yes, Kennedy was full of hot air. He had to sell the idea to the public.

So that satelite could be Chinese? It could also have been launched yesterday.

Apollo transmissions changed in character after TLI, from fleeting overpasses, to longer transmissions from the direction of the Moon.



























Why leave long gaps at the bottom of each post?

"Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction."

Could you cite a few examples of this please.

"Knowone" is denying that nobody landed the LM prior to Apollo 11, but since it was only designed to land on the moon, and not the earth, how would someone test it?

These guys were TEST PILOTS! Do you know what TEST PILOTS do? They TEST unTESTed aircraft, including things like the LM. Unfortunately there was "knowone" to test it before the first landing, which is why it was the first.

The point about the satellite is puzzling. We are saying the CM, especially in 1969, when not alot of hardware was in orbit, would have been easy to spot from observatories all over the world. You post a story were a spy satellite was secretly launched into orbit, and it is quickly picked up by an observatory.

It seems to me that that is exactly what we are saying.

Cosmic Dave (Not DaveC), I havn't mirrored any of the images. Why do you say that? The images show converging shadows that should be parallel, nothing else. It's two different sets of posts.

The sand pictures show how shadows change over terrain, and if the terrain is made up of a single coloured texture such as sand or lunar surface, it's sometimes impossible to see the variations in the terrain without cues from the shadows.

The statements I make using questions are actaully a bit of sarcasm, obviously something way over your head to comprehend.

If you ever get round to having a point, would you please let me know?

even if they don't agree with each other on this board

There isn't, in general, much disagreement here -- mostly what you're trying to drum up by means of your innocent or deliberate obtuseness.

Even if there were, disagreement among us does not prove you are correct. You must provide positive proof in order to establish a proposition, not simply the appearance of disagreement among your opponents.

you all have suggestions and different answers to my questions... is that scientific? hmmm.

Yes, if the answers are harmonious.

'Generally' or 'should not be' as JayUtah would have it.

No, you completely missed the point of my answer. You brought up Yuri Gagarin's observation as evidence that the Apollo astronauts should have been able to see and photograph stars from the lunar surface. I'm trying to show you why Yuri Gagarin's circumstances were different than those for the Apollo astronauts.

Do not try to chalk this up as an example of what you perceive to be our indecision. This is quite clearly your inability to read carefully and comprehend.

Go and look at my page and explain what the '****e specks' as JayUtah describes them are?

You have two major pieces of evidence on your site. The JSC scans contain white specks. You cannot prove those specks are stars, and the circumstances under which the JSC scans were produced makes it rather probable that they are contamination during the scan.

Your other piece of evidence is a Real Video clip, six seconds long, which, in my opinion, doesn't show anything resembling stars. Please enlighten us as to what area of the sky we should be paying attention to.

I think I understand everything about this question, why can't any of you give me a straight answer about the appearance of a flame in an oxygen starved lack of atmosphere setting?

You are incredibly dense. I literally know 12-year-olds who grasp these concepts faster than you do.

The appearance of the plume has to do with the preinjection of oxidizer. This makes for a visible flame during the transient, until the ratio equalizes. This typically happens both in air and in vacuum.

The lack of air is what accounts for the failure to produce the red cloud, which is the oxidizer's response to the air when fired on earth. You can't seem to keep these simple concepts distinct.

Your complaint at the lack of a "straight answer" is simply your inability to grasp a basic concept of rocket propulsion. It's your fault, not ours.

Of all the other flight examples that you mention, none of these craft were landed on the Moon either.

Irrelevant. All those flight tests exceeded the known envelope from previous testing. That's the key concept. At some point a flight test had to be attempted, accepting all the inherent risks of it.

I stand by my first statement that knowone successfully landed the LEM ...

And I stand by my original objection to that statement: you have not demonstrated that you know anything about the philosophy and procedures of flight test. Therefore your opinion of what constitutes an adequate and successful test is irrelevant.

There is plenty of credible evidence against it

Then by all means, provide it. So far you've offered only innuendo, speculation, and handwaving.

A film found only by chance and not in the kept along with the usual NASA footage.

False. Bart Sibrel clearly stated it was included in a package of otherwise ordinary Apollo footage.

I see that the guy who claimed NASA released everything Apollo related in the 70's has not come forward and admitted his mistake in relation to this particular piece of film. Nice try at forgetting that I mentioned this.

I wish you would make up your mind. First you claim that NASA is hiding footage. Then you claim you make no such argument. Now you're back to claiming NASA hid footage.

Try telling this to JayUtah because he thinks otherwise.

False. Kindly refrain from telling the board what I think. That's my job.

I claim manned flight to the moon is not as hazardous -- in mode and extent -- as you have purported. Since you are the one claiming it is more hazardous than generally accepted, it is your responsibility to provide a suitable quantitative argument. You refuse to do so.

Yes you read right my man. I'm not going into why again, go and visit my site at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk if you want the answer.

The answer is not to be found on your site. You have given us absolutely no indication that you have any expert knowledge of computers or how they may be used to guide a spacecraft. Further, you made several factual errors which I addressed, and which you have not conceded.

I require a detailed discussion -- not buzzword-laden handwaving -- of why the Apollo guidance computer was not sufficient for the tasks assigned to it. Keep in mind that I have a copy of the AGC source code and the expertise to read and understand it. I am competent to discuss spacecraft guidance to any degree of detail you wish. And so naturally I expect a high degree of detail.

Thought that the experienced JayUtah would have known about this and not needed a HBer to inform him of this fact?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you have mistaken someone else's argument for one of mine.

All the evidence is on NASA's site, go check it out. Its a well known fact that the Saturn V rocket could outperform the Shuttle.

At twice the projected cost per launch, and with no payload return capacity. The space shuttle was expected to reduce the cost of launches through reusability. In hindsight that has not happened, but the designers of the space shuttle did not have the luxury of our hindsight.

I wonder why they changed their minds?

Loss of the public mandate.

So all this Apollo stuff was only done for political security?

You're missing the point. There is a perfectly valid reason for destroying certain Apollo documentation. You haven't addressed it at all.

...the satellite has a diameter of 50 meters.

... or about three times the size of any existing U.S. recon satellite.

Aerospace engineering specialist Nobuo Nakatomi said the object was likely to be a spy satellite.

And how would he know? How would a Japanese engineer learn about the most top secret space technology from the United States in enough detail to identify it from a speck in the sky?

You have nothing but speculation here. As usual.

Spaceguard association officials said the unidentified satellite could be observed with binoculars in the southeastern sky.

Recon satellites cannot -- and therefore do not -- hover. They transit the sky in a matter of a few minutes, moving quite noticeably. A visible object hovering in one spot in the sky cannot be a satellite.

No, actually I was quoting JayUtah from his website. Perhaps you should talk to him about it?

You still have not responded to the substantive points.

1. S-band receivers require fine alignment. Reconcile this with your claim that amateur trackers would not necessarily have known the origin of the signal.

2. LEO satellites necessarily transit the sky with only a few minutes between ephemerides. This is wholly inconsistent with the experience of trackers who were always able to find Apollo in the general direction of the moon.

You have exhibited a woeful ignorance of orbital mechanics and tracking procedures. I suggest you educate yourself on those topics before further embarassing yourself.

Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction. You are all contradicting each other and yet want me to believe all of your views.

No. What you're perceiving as contradiction is typically your inability to read and comprehend. It's also your odd propensity to apply rebuttals intended for one argument, to another.

Your giving me a hardtime because you say I have not produced the evidence. Who's kidding who here?

Well, we've asked for evidence and you've bluntly said you aren't going to provide it. This after we've provided countless references and examples, which you don't seem to understand.

Don't blame us for your obtuseness.

I just went into Starry Night and tried to replicate the picture where CD claims he can see stars, looking at the brightest stars on the program, they look nothing like the white specs in the picture.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 20:46 ]</font>

Basically, the argument is this: Apollo 11 couln't have landed on the Moon because it had never been done before. I'd just like to ask how it would have been tested, in 'Cosmicdave's' world, without someone biting the bullit and actually having a go?

Dave, I also noted that on your site where you point out the pictures with the "stars", you fail to mention that those pictures were taken from INSIDE the LM.

Makes a bit of a difference, doesn't it?

Oh and one other question. You are saying that the pictures on your site show stars. What does that hope to prove? Obviously, if that were the case, the pictures were taken on the moon. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what you are arguing?

"You are saying that the pictures on your site show stars. What does that hope to prove?"

Quite obviously it doesn't prove anything as far as the argument that the moon landings were faked. In fact, he's actually finding evidence that that damages the case of most conspiracy theorists.
He's just trying to catch out the debunkers wherever he can, just so he can say "Ha, see! I proved you wrong!".
Like with the LM ascent engine exhaust, it was the conspiracists who said that there was no exhaust plume indicating that it was hoaxed. They were told that it indicates no such thing. Then Dave went out and tried to prove there was an exhaust flame, in a vain attempt to expose an inconsistency in the arguments of debunkers. He's actually doing damage to his case.

Oh, and while we're piling on, you write on your site:

"I would like to know how the TV signal from the Lunar Rover was relayed to Houston when the satellite dish it was sending the signal through was moving all over the place when the Rover was on the move? Anyone who has set up satellite equipment will know that a dish has to be finely tuned within a few inches to receive a signal... How could the Rover camera have sent a picture when the dish was not pointing in one specific direction. (A sceptic on the Bad Astronomy Board accused me of lying about there even being footage available that was filmed while the Rover was moving, so for his benefit and yours here it is! I don't have to make up lies when NASA has made plenty themselves do I?)"

It has been pointed out by Johnno (the "skeptic" at BA) over and over and over that the footage you provide is from the movie camera, not the video camera. They shot that footage and then developed it when back on earth. This is a very easily verified fact (as a matter of fact the "live" video camera is IN THE SHOT, at the bottom right, duh.), I can't see why you won't at least take that mistake down.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 21:45 ]</font>

Also, Bill Kaysing still appears to be "Head of Advanced Research". Why has this not been rectified?

Two things,

I don't believe that the white specks on the photographs are anything but poor developing, artifacts, etc., One of my hobbies is amateur astronomy and I've taken hundreds of photographs of stars. One of the things that I've noticed is that, when photographed, stars show up in a variety of colors. So I believe that any "stars" that show up would have to show this variety of colors. Furthermore, as I said in an early post, one of the shuttle astronauts at a public forum said that he could see stars from shuttle and they were much more colorful than those observed from the ground. The only things he needed to do was not look in the direction of the Earth.

Anyone with a 35mm camera and a tripod could do a simple experiment. Drive out to the country at night, set up your camera and take some photographs using 10-20 seconds exposures. I found that slide film works best. Once developed, you will see that stars come in a variety of colors.

The other thing which I think is eqaully amusing is the LRV movie and video camera issue. At Space Center Houston, one of the children's rides is driving a LRV over the lunar surface. The ride projects some of the footage of the traverse across the surface. In this footage, the video camera is clearly visable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-04 00:17 ]</font>

I think this has gone on long enough. Tempers are flaring, and clearly continuing this conversation can serve no useful purpose.

I am locking this thread. I suggest everyone take a day or so, relax, and cool off.