So, that was the famous "Fox documentary".

It is even worse than I expected.
Apparently the makers of the documentary have not done any research at all.
The HB "experts" never explained how they reached their "conclusion", nor were they ever questioned.

I want those 50 minutes of my life back.

EDIT: Who was that guy from the "Royal Photographic Society"?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

You mean all this time there were other accountants reading this board?! Now I don't feel so alone.

Who was that guy from the "Royal Photographic Society"?

David Percy, co-author of Dark Moon. Obviously he knows about as much about photographic analysis as my florist. His credential in RPS is real, but I checked on the requirements and it can be granted for artistic achievement too, so it's no guarantee he is an expert on the technical and geometrical aspects of photography that apply to his argument.

I find it especially unscrupulous that someone whose resume photo shows him next to a video camera can't tell his readers what a vidicon bloom is.

He used to answer questions from critics, but he has now almost completely withdrawn from the public. I asked him to show why his own example photos break his photo "rules", and he cut and run. He was invited to appear in Channel 5's other show on the moon hoax -- the good one where I showed examples live on camera that disputed his photo "rules" -- but he declined to defend his arguments there too. His co-author Mary Bennett emerges every once in a while to restate her claims in the face of refutation, but their policy is that everything they have to say on the subject is in their book and video.

Anybody need any other evidence of what a snake-oil salesman he is?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Obviously I was not paying enough attention. #-o

Is it just me, or many of the HB "experts" were presented with credentials that attributed them technical expertise?

Thank you for the (as usual) exhaustive answer.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Every hoax author needs some form of trumped-up credential. David Percy is indeed an associate of the RPS, but that doesn't establish him as a photographic analyst. Photo analysis is an entirely different set of skills than photography. He also claims to be an "award-winning filmmaker," but the only award he mentions is a nomination for an industrial filmmaking award in the U.K. When I investigated the award, I found that gold, silver, and bronze medals were given in the category. Presumably Percy won none of them since he mentions only the nomination. He claims to have produced, or been associated with the production of, a "mind-mapping" series for the BBC. When I contacted the BBC to inquire, they list a different producer altogether for the series. I was unable to contact that producer directly, but his web site listed several assistants and collaborators, and Percy's name was not among them.

Bart Sibrel advertises himself as a journalist with a major network, and an award-winning filmmaker. His journalist credit derives from having worked at the local Nashville network affiliate as a part-time cameraman and editor. And his former boss there disavows Sibrel and his "journalist" claim. Although information on his awards is sketchy, it appears he won a minor local award for filmmaking.

Bill Kaysing did indeed work for Rocketdyne, but his work record describes various low-level jobs centered mostly around document-writing. While he does claim to have received technical training in the Navy, it is not clear from Rocketdyne's records how that applied to his employment there. In any case he left Rocketdyne very early in the Apollo development period for "personal reasons".

Ralph Rene is at least honest in his claim to be a "self-taught" engineer and/or physicist. But he apparently does not recognize the difference between that and an accredited certification in those fields. He was, as he claims, a member of Mensa (an association for people with significant intelligence), but was apparently ejected from that group many years ago. He holds a number of patents, but these patents -- while somewhat innovative (e.g., a shepherd's crook tube with perforations to allow gas welding of pipe joints without heat loading on nearby walls) -- do not demonstrate any knowledge of engineering beyond the inuitive. Those who know him say he made his living as a construction worker.

Inflated credentials are part of every charlatan's work. It is unfortunate that organizations such as Fox and Channel 5 would validate those claimed credentials to the detriment of their viewers.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think my point was that you can make the most ludicrous idea convincing, in this case 10p disappearing into a fiscal black hole, if presented in the right manner.

It then sometimes has to take an expert like Jay, or in this case AliCali to show the gaping holes. However the flimflam has the asvantage of the Gee-whiz factor, while the truth can be some what duller.

PS, if you go out with me, bring sandwiches

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

What I love is the appearance that there is no response to the claims. "Why doesn't NASA explain this? Why didn't that NASA spokesman (Brian... Welch?) actually explain anything, instead of just dismissing it?" Nevermind that the program was edited to prevent any detailed rebuttal. They could have interviewed JayUtah, but all they would have shown was him saying, "These claims are ridiculous." They wouldn't dare have run, say, a summary of the radiation primer page from Clavius. Or any of the myriad of lengthy and detailed analyses presented here in this forum.

Have now watched my video recording of the program and re-read Phil's critique

Some issues raised, not addressed by Phil (or I missed them)

They quoted that the chance for success was only 0.007%

Area 51 has craters similar to those on the moon and has sound stages

NASA had an illustration of a blast crator ?????

The death of Thomas Rodney Baron one week after testifying about the Apollo 1 fire, followed by the disappearance of his report.

Extreme solar activity during the time of Apollo 16

The Japaneese orbiter - can it "see" the landing sites?

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

They quoted that the chance for success was only 0.007%

That was an estimate drawn up by Rocketdyne in about 1958 or 1959 before the problem was well understood, and certainly before it was well-funded.

It's a common tactic to bring up early pessimism and try to pass it off as a persistent estimate. Fallacy of limited scope.

Area 51 has craters similar to those on the moon and has sound stages

Area 51 has large buildings. It's an air base, so it's expected to have hangars. We know they flight-test secret aircraft there, so we expect the hangars not to have windows. The interpretation that these are "sound stages" is pure fantasy. The producers don't establish any connection besides innuendo. Fallacy of affirmed consequent.

Saying that some bomb crater on an Air Force target range is "similar to those on the moon" is true only in the sense that all craters tend to look like craters. Again, the tenuous attempt to draw a parallel that is ultimately inconsequential. Fallacy of affirmed consequent.

And NASA did, for training purposes, go out to a desert and blast craters in the dirt to represent accurately certain portions of the lunar surface as seen from above. This was so they could fly the astronauts over them and have them practice identifying them from a moving vehicle from a scaled-accurate altitude and correctly get the landmarks straight.

Another common conspiracist tactic is to cast aspersions on faithful simulation. Simulator people try very, very hard to make their simulations and training aids as faithful as possible because that increases their value for training. Conspiracy theorists omit this possible explanation and suggest only that such things were created as part of a hoax attempt. Fallacy of affirmed consequent.

NASA had an illustration of a blast crator ?????

Lots of artists did conceptual sketches and paintings for NASA. Before the missions actually flew, these were essential for capturing and maintaining public imagination and support for the missions. Conceptual art is not meant to be fully representational, nor did the artists necessary consult with engineers on all the details. Conspiracy theorists have no concept of artistic liberty.

The death of Thomas Rodney Baron one week after testifying about the Apollo 1 fire, followed by the disappearance of his report.

Thomas Ronald Baron committed suicide after the report was published. He had admitted to mental health problems and had a chronic illness. There was no indication of foul play.

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

You have to put his testimony into a larger context. Anti-NASA senator Walter Mondale got him on the docket in an attempt to embarrass NASA officials about the unready state of the program. It more-or-less backfired when those who supported NASA were able to show Baron to be little more than a media-hungry disgruntled ex-employee with a bunch of hearsay evidence and no real first-hand knowledge.

Read his testimony here: http://www.clavius.org/baron-test.html

Extreme solar activity during the time of Apollo 16

Let's define "extreme". It was a maximum unprotected skin dosage of 3 rem, but attenuated to about 400 millirem by the spacecraft. Protons are simply not that hard to shield against, regardless of what the doomsayers say. They don't pass well through a couple of layers of honeycomb structural panels.

The Japaneese orbiter - can it "see" the landing sites?

It hasn't been launched yet.

[Edited to correct radiation figure; read the chart wrong (durned logarithmic scales)]

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Nice to know you are human like the rest of us =D>

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

Ahah! The first figures were the correct ones, and Jay was forced to amend them to fit in with the "official" figures! He is part of THE CONSPIRACY

You're referring to the "crosshairs" that they claimed were added on afterwards (why? lol) I noticed in every example they showed the cross hair dissapears when over a brilliant white background, a clear case of blooming.

No, the argument I'm referring to is where Percy claims foul play because the highlights in the helmets are bigger on the television picture than they are in the Hasselblad pictures. Percy doesn't even mention vidicon bloom -- with which he must be familiar -- as a potential explanation, much less show why that doesn't answer the question.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base