For CosmicDave: A Thread Devoted Entirely to the Rover Video

[Tomblvd]

For those of you just joining us, there has been a question concerning a video clip on cosmicdave's website Cosmic Conspiracies. The clip is shot from a moving Lunar Rover, and the implication is that this is impossible because the television camera, which shot the live pictures, attached to the rover could only function when the hi-gain antenna is pointing directly at the earth. And since the rover was in motion, this would be impossible. Hence, another piece of evidence that the Apollo landings were faked.

This "evidence" overlooks one important fact, the television camera was not the only video camera on the rover. A 16mm motion picture camera could be mounted on the rover. It is this camera which captured this clip on cd's website.

Here is a link to a picture of the clip in question from cd's site. If you compare it to the diagram of the rover below, you see somthing interesting, the television camera is actually in the clip itself! How can the television camera take a picture of itself?







A simple mistake you say. Of course, and any normal person would have simply removed it from the website and moved on. But not cosmicdave. We know that BA board member Johnno pointed this error out to cd over a year ago, and yet he still persists on demonstrating his ignorance. In fact, the past few weeks the same question has been asked of him over and over again on different threads, and each and every time he completely ignores the question.

Well dave, here's an entire thread to ignore.

Can you do it?

[JayUtah]

I certainly look forward to participating in this thread. There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the footage on Mr. Cosnette's site alleging to be video transmitted while the rover was in motion is, in fact, 16 mm DAC film footage.

It is clear Mr. Cosnette has no real understanding of many of the principles his site discusses, and an insufficient familiarity with Apollo equipment. His obsession with the appearance of inconsistency from his opponents seems to be all he's got.

[Geo3gh]

He does seem to be a firm believer in the "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance..." adage.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Sigh. He refers to you folks as "Bad Astronomy writers". I don't think I'll even try to explain that I am the only writer from this site, and that you guys happen to post on the bulletin board here, which is totally unaffiliated with what goes on in the main site...

[jrkeller]

Here are a couple of nice photos emphasizing the video camera and the 16mm movie (film) camera.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-82-11121.jpg

This one also has a nice one of the Hasselblad too.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-85-11471.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-86-11603.jpg

Enjoy

[CzC]

On 2002-06-28 18:29, JayUtah wrote:
I certainly look forward to participating in this thread. There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the footage on Mr. Cosnette's site alleging to be video transmitted while the rover was in motion is, in fact, 16 mm DAC film footage.

It is clear Mr. Cosnette has no real understanding of many of the principles his site discusses, and an insufficient familiarity with Apollo equipment. His obsession with the appearance of inconsistency from his opponents seems to be all he's got.

Not meaning to get off topic but the video that shows the fly-by filming of the Surveyor III, which he claims the video was shot by the LM (Intrepid) on it's descent, is not true. Here's the link to the real video.

http://www.solarviews.com/cap/apo/apo12b.htm
(4 megs)


But I am kind of curious where his 'fly-by' video came from. it's very hard to make out the surrounding area.

CzC

[dasi]

Cosnette has finally acknowleded this error:

61. There is television footage of the rover in motion.
Jay: It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera.61.

[cosmicdave]: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?

dasi

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dasi on 2002-06-29 10:49 ]</font>

[Rift]

Odd that Dave admitted that in a seperate topic, about 61 items down, and not in a topic that was created soley to ask him about it...

[jagster]

Actually, I think we can all agree that this was not odd at all considering whom we're talking about.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jagster on 2002-06-29 12:17 ]</font>

[pvtpylot]

How much you wanna bet his site won't get changed any time soon. despite his admission here?

[Tomblvd]

On 2002-06-29 12:41, pvtpylot wrote:
How much you wanna bet his site won't get changed any time soon. despite his admission here?

I'd say that's a virtual certainty.

But it is nice to FINALLY see him concede this one point. Considering it took over a year, it goes a long way to prove his pathology.