Well, well. The real agenda is pretty clear now, isn't it?

You clearly know nothing of the science and technology of space exploration. You have no basis for understanding the Aulis claims (and, in particular, why they're wrong), but you parrot them because they fall in line with your political bent.

Good heavens, man, how can you compare the Apollo program to the situation in Southeast Asia? You might as well say that everyone who got an operation paid for by Medicare that week has blood on her hands because the money to pay for it came from the government that was napalming villages!

The thing that amazes me is that NASA's opponents seem to think that the money spent on the space program was packed into a trunk and left on the moon. Don't you understand that it was all spent here, on Earth, and that most of it went to the private companies (the contractors) that you seem to alternately praise and revile? That it percolated through the entire economy like any other government spending program? That it paid the wages of janitors, factory workers, secretaries, and truck drivers as well as engineers and astronauts?

You can rail all you like about other ways the money could be spent that might be more effective, but in the end, this country is a democracy, and (thankfully) my vote counts as much as yours. Feel free to write your congressman -- but if you happen to live in a district where there are any businesses getting NASA contracts, don't be surprised if she decides the jobs of those other voters are more important than your opinions.

Okay, we're getting more of that circular HB "logic" that gives me headaches.

1. I don't trust the Apollo photographs and videos because they were obviously faked.

2. I know the gloves used by the Apollo astronauts were too cumbersome to have been used efficiently.

3. I base #2 upon my viewing of the Apollo photos and videos.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] ??huh?? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

(Jay, love the small town cop allegory.)

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-20 12:04 ]</font>

The evidence which was examined was based on the photographs of the moon walkers. Why should I ask NASA to give me a "lunar glove" to examine, when they probably would use the ole ‘bait and switch' technique? How do you know that the glove which NASA gave you was the same one that was used on the moon? Again, what we need is independent confirmation, which all scientists should understand.

First of all, I know that the glove I used was not used on the moon. I believe that all of the gloves were left behind on the lunar surface. So the best that I know is that the glove had the same design.

OK, so from your theory, NASA had or has two sets of gloves. One that was used for the fake pictures, video ect., and one given to fool the general public and all those that work at or for NASA and all those who have worked at or for NASA. And in 33 years or more if you count the development time, I haven't heard of one person coming out and saying that they made fake gloves. The same arguement would go for the spacesuit, its back pack etc. Boy that's sure a lot of folks that worked on making two sets of suits, gloves back packs and interestingly enough no one has ever said they built a fake suit, and also interestingly enough in more than thirty-three years, thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists who have examined these suits, gloves and back packs think there real.

Boy something just dawned on me, maybe the moon landings were real and there weren't two sets of everything.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-20 13:33 ]</font>

After a while the argument, "There must have been two sets of ...", is readily perceived as grasping at straws in order to maintain a desired conclusion in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

And the argument, "I am allowed to use NASA-provided evidence to bash Apollo, but you are not allowed to use it to defend Apollo," is readily seen as a clumsy effort to load the dice in one's favor.

There was independant confirmation shortly after the laser reflector was installed on the lunar surface during Apollo 11.

That was apollo hardware and the observatory that 1st confirmed it was not NASA.

Another independant confirmation: the TV signal was being picked up and relayed from Australia in real time.
--Tommy

I thought that I’d step in here to lend a hand to ngant17 . Yes, its your old friend Cosmic Dave from Cosmic Conspiracies (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk). As you may have read on this board recently, I have been trying to do the same thing. It’s nice to see that another person is prepared to voice his opinions and stick up for people who are not swayed by everything that NASA claim.

He said “I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to
guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?”

I couldn’t have said it any better!

Paul Unwin says ‘Even if an Earth-orbiting telescope could resolve objects that small on the moon, and I don't think they can (yet), I don't see why you would believe a photo provided by NASA or the government.

Besides which, it's a phenomenal waste of resources to direct these satellites onto a target of absolutely no military or scientific use, especially when the majority of people don't need convincing of this point.’

Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle? Why is NASA bothering to carry out experiments in space – could somebody answer that? What is the point exactly?

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being told ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

As I’ve said before recently, NASA only agreed to take pictures of the face on Mars after a campaign by the general public to make them. Really if NASA don’t want to take the pictures then they don’t have to… and that’s where the problem begins. I have said the very same thing that ngant 17 said, NASA hasn’t got to answer to anyone so their data and information could be rather biased!

I see were back to the old moon rock debate. I agree there are lots of moon rocks in NASA’s possession, but it doesn’t mean that they went to the Moon to get them. Ever heard of meteorites?

Peter B said: “As far as I know, companies which want to put satellites in orbit have a choice of NASA, the European Space Agency, Russia, China, and possibly one or two other launchers. By the looks of it, that’s an open market.”

Cosmic Dave replies: I suppose that you could apply the same argument regarding NASA and Dennis Tito? NASA had a real problem with Tito going into space and even tried to tell Russia what to do.

Peter B also says: “Have you actually checked the accuracy of weather forecasts?”

Cosmic Dave replies: “Actually yes I have, and I can tell you that they are often wrong. In fact since the really bad gales that struck here in the UK in the mid 90’s the weather forecasters never predict any weather more than 3 days ahead - a lesson learned during the gales here when Michael Fish (a BBC weatherman) said that a viewer had written in to ask about a hurricane that she had heard was about to hit the UK. He assured her and other viewers that such a hurricane was not about to happen, but as we all know it certainly did and his comments continue to appear on many shows over here to this day”. If the weatherman doesn’t know – who does?


It's interesting why one commented that if the Moon landings were hoaxed why did the Government let the FOX tv program go to air?
Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'. Or do you guys really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald carried out the killing? Sheesh your dealing with Government here so why do you trust them so much when they can lie through their teeths about many other things (the recent poll fixing in Florida comes to mind)... and Im not even a Yank!

C-Dave – would you please elaborate on your response. From the way I read it you’ve just confirmed that NASA and the U.S. Government are not the all powerful forces you and the other HB’s claim. I mean, if NASA is all powerful and can eliminate people, change the historical record, falsify scientific data, etc. – how in the world did Tito ever end up visiting the ISS.

If the Russians collaborated with NASA on the Apollo Hoax, as the HB crowd claims must have occurred, don’t you think they would have bowed to the NASA pressure to keep Tito from flying? I mean, all they had to do was ask NASA for $20,000,000.

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem during good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being old ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

It's more analogous to being told it can correctly resolve the entire building 3 miles from where you are, but cannot correctly resolve individual specks of dust on the shop over the road.
The objects that HST looks at in deep-space are much larger in angular size (something you obviously don't understand) than man made objects on the moon.
Does that make it clearer? It seems to add up perfectly to me.

Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle? Why is NASA bothering to carry out experiments in space – could somebody answer that? What is the point exactly?

I know this point has been made to you before, but seriously, why bother sending something else to the moon just to photograph the Apollo sites? You don't believe any of NASA's evidence now, are you really trying to claim that new photos from NASA or the military would make any difference to your beliefs? I think that the majority of taxpayers in this country would have a major problem with spending a bunch of money for the sake of satisfying a small minority, most of whom wouldn't believe the new evidence any more then they believed the old evidence.

(darned spelling again)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-21 09:41 ]</font>

On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being told ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

Dear cosmicdave !

The issue here is the actual size of the viewed object compared to how far away it is (i.e. "angular size")...

The largest piece of Apollo equiptment on the lunar surface is the lower part of the LEM: 10 metres across. That´s 0,01 km. Now, the Moon is 400.000 km away. That amounts to a tiny, tiny dot on the lunar surface. A lunar surface already illuminated by the Sun and therefore shining. That tiny dot is simply too tiny compared to the distance - to make it visible to the Hubble. The "angular size" is too small.

A galaxy in deep space is easier to see for the Hubble, because allthough it is indeed far, far away, such a galaxy is also very big and that more than compensates for the huge distance. The "angular size" is simply bigger. (I´m sure that other posters can provide you with specific numbers.) (And besides, the galaxies are points of light surrounded by black - in contrast to the tiny LEM dot on a lunar surface illuminated by the Sun.)

- To illustrate "angular size", this is how you would determine the "angular size" of the Sun:



If we moved the Sun closer to the Earth, the Sun´s "angular size" would get bigger - and we´d get The Tan Of The Century ! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]. If we moved the Sun away from the Earth, the Sun´s "angular size" would get smaller.

I see were back to the old moon rock debate. I agree there are lots of moon rocks in NASA’s possession, but it doesn’t mean that they went to the Moon to get them. Ever heard of meteorites?

Yes, and I have also heard of this guy making a very good point
(http://www.moonhoax.com/_disc1/00000172.htm)

"How are meteorites different from genuine moon rocks?

There are several differences, but I'm no geologist so I'll only cover them in a simple way here. Please do go out and find a geologist (try a local university) to verify that what I am saying is correct. First, when a meteorite enters the atmosphere, friction with the air (drag) turns its kinetic energy into thermal energy. Since a meteor typically has a great deal of kinetic energy (it is moving very fast), it is superheated as it falls to earth. The same is true of any spacecraft entering the atmosphere, and I think most people are familiar with this process. As a rock is superheated, its chemistry can change. Depending on the type of material, it could burn, melt, change its crystal structure, etc. A geologist with the right equipment can find the tell-tale signs of heating left in the rocks. Note that this isn't just the surface of the rock, the entire meteorite will be heated, so scraping off the outer layers will not obfuscate a meteorite's past."

Since the Apollo moon rocks have NOT been heated on their way through Earth´s atmosphere (they were inside the capsule), then one can tell them apart from the lunar meteorites, which DID pass through our atmosphere - unprotected by any spaceship.


It's interesting why one commented that if the Moon landings were hoaxed why did the Government let the FOX tv program go to air?
Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'. Or do you guys really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald carried out the killing?

Hmm ! Could it be that The Evil Government did NOT try to stop neither the FOX show NOR "JFK" - because they don´t have anything to hide ? We always hear from the conspiracy theorists about all kinds of "mysterious deaths", yet all the critics: Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Oliver Stone, Mark Lane (and Jack White) etc. etc. etc. are still very much alive ? Why ?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sea of Tranquility on 2002-06-21 09:27 ]</font>

Cosmic Dave, could you spot an ant from 100 yards away? No you couldn't. Non one could.
Does this mean that you can't see beyond 100 yards?

Touche. Nice point.

But - have you ever seen "Them!"?
There are ants one can see from 100 yards... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Sorry to burst your bubble Dave (although I'm not the first), but Hubble HAS imaged the moon, as seen here:
http://hubble.stsci.edu/news_.and._views/pr.cgi.1999+14

cosmicdave,

(1) It has been very clearly explained to you why HST can *not* image an Apollo artifact on the moon. Your statement of personal incredulity is not a convincing counterargument.

Again, it was thoroughly explained to you using basic optical principles - do you still claim it is possible to image such an artifact with any instrument currently in orbit? If so, please provide quantitative arguments to back up your claim. If not, well, acknowledging a mistake will enhance your reputation, not diminish it.

(2) You may be surprised to find that many of us agree with you that ISS in its current incarnation is a waste of money, and that as amazing an engineering feat as it is, the money could have been better spent within NASA. But this is totally irrelevant to your belief that Apollo was faked. Certainly no one is going to build a Lunar mission with the express purpose of photographing something we left on the Moon three decades ago. Not even the most pork-friendly Congressman could get away with that.

(3) You have yet to answer with quantitative arguments your prior claims that the Van Allen belts would have been lethal to moonbound astronauts, and that the AGC was incapable of navigating the spacecraft to the Moon. You have been provided a wealth of data, explanations, and links which refute these arguments, and have been repeatedly asked to either back up your claims or acknowledge that perhaps you were mistaken.

cosmicdave, please address your claim from point (1) or either claim from point (3). (I'll stick to these for right now, just so we can get started on some specific points.) Because otherwise, your credibility to "back up" ngant17 is, well, nil, because these three claims (among others) seem to indicate you do not have a grasp of the technology and physics of Apollo.

Looking forward to a quantitative answer!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-21 10:28 ]</font>

When presented the ability to corroborate the data from Russian sources (as requested), why is there nothing but silence?

The dependence of high-energy charged-particle fluxes in the equator region on geomagnetic activity

Basilova, R. N.; Volodichev, N. N.; Grigorov, N. L.; Galaktionova, Iu. F.; Kalinkin, L. F.; Pugachev, G. I.; Savenko, I. A.
AG(Moskovskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, Moscow, USSR)

Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiia, vol. 14, Sept.-Oct. 1974, p. 899, 900. In Russian.
1974Ge&Ae..14Q.899B

ABSTRACT: Results of measurements of the dependence of high-energy electron and proton fluxes on geomagnetic activity during the period from July 6 to Oct. 10, 1966, using instruments mounted on board the Proton 3 satellite. Separate recordings were made of the total flux of electrons with energies greater than or equal to 20 MeV and protons with energies greater than or equal to 500 MeV, on the one hand, and of the electron flux with energies greater than or equal to 80 MeV, on the other. The total flux of electrons and protons is found not to depend on geomagnetic activity and to remain constant to the nearest few percent. It is concluded that the electron flux with energies greater than or equal to 80 MeV may vary from 10 to 15% with an increase in geomagnetic field perturbation.

I was watching the Simpsons the other day and Homer has the perfect quote to describe this HBCosmicDave situation.

"Facts are meaningless"

You know how the old saying goes, "With friends like this......"



But seriously dave, You have made some statements here that are not just wrong, they are so easily proved wrong that it is impossible to believe that you have any idea of what you are talking about.

The Hubble mistake not only has been pointed out in previous threads, but also in this same thread only a couple posts above yours! How could you have possibly missed that?

The same situation holds true for the moon rocks and meteorites. This has been explained over and over, yet you refuse to listen, but give no reason for your skepticism.

Note that these two points depend on no direct information from NASA to debunk, the HST informaton is simple mathmatics and the moon rock question is common sense and high school geology.

CD,

Here are some links to a geological paper (in three parts) on the Apollo 17 landing and samples. Why don't you review this paper and tell us where the NASA hoax is.

Thank you

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...17.ppintro.pdf

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...7.pplmarea.pdf

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...a17.ppsta1.pdf

For the rest of you, some pretty cool pictures of the lunar samples.



P.S. One more thing, how were the 2.95 meter long core samples made?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-21 11:28 ]</font>

Well said, Tomblvd; I would just add for completeness that a meteorite has very specific characteristics (think fusion crust) that distinguish it from a sample picked up in situ and returned by spacecraft.

cosmicdave, you agreed that NASA has plenty of moon rocks. They cannot be meteorites because they do not have the required characteristics of meteorites. In light of this fact, please tell us how they came to be in NASA's possession.

I would also like to see your responses to the three points on my last post:
(1) Hubble can't resolve Apollo artifacts.
(2) Van Allen radiation is not lethal to properly-shielded crew on Apollo lunar trajectory.
(3) Apollo guidance computer was fully capable of navigating the vehicle.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-21 11:38 ]</font>

cosmicdave, while we're at it, could you at least prove to us that you have even the slimmest regard the truth and remove the "lunar rover camera" footage from your site?



As has been pointed out over and over, the footage you have there was filmed using the 16mm movie camera and NOT the video camera, which just happens to