Since cancer research and ornamental fish have little to do with the topic of this forum, I will summarize the assertions made by Mr. Dave Cosnette which have been challenged or refuted on this site and to which Mr. Cosnette has declined to offer any defense of himself:

1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne. I have yet to see where Kaysing himself makes this claim. It has been shown that Kaysing was unqualified for that position. Mr. Cosnetted has not provided any authority for his claim.

2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo. He has demonstrated in subsequent conversation that he has not. For example, he categorically denies that feats of low-gravity gymnastics appear anywhere in the record, when in fact several such examples were easily found by real historians.

3. A lot of the footage was prerecorded and not live at all. The evidence cited for this is insufficient to support the scope of the conclusion. The evidence deals with the natural latency of the video signal, not the alleged prefabrication of the video footage. While it is true that the 16 mm DAC footage was prerecorded, that is common knowledge and no deception occurred.

4. The "jump salute" occurrence is an example of mismatched film and video. I have thoroughly refuted this charge at http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html and Mr. Cosnette has not responded to that refutation.

5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth. Mr. Cosnette categorically rejects scatter is a potential source for his observations, yet the phenomenon is well known.

6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F. Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.

7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings. Not what Mr. Lundberg actually said. In the Aulis video Mr. Lundberg says that stereo pairs are required to measure objects in the photo, which is a different photogrammetric problem. Further, Mr. Lundberg is an industrial engineer, not a photogrammetrist. His opinion on what can or cannot be done photogrammetrically is not considered expert testimony. Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled cirumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

8. Reseau fiducials are occasionally missing. This indicates doctoring the film. These occasionally obliterated fiducials are no mystery to other photographers, only to Mr. Percy. Mr. Cosnette has not considered the counterarguments as summarized in http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html .

9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood. Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown. Properties are never marked conspicuously, and usually not at all. Mr. Cosnette has not substantiated or defended his allegation.

10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source. Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point. He simply asserts it and sidesteps any evidence to the contrary.

11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows. This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows. Mr. Cosnette has not accounted for this fact in his argument.

12. Down-sun surfaces should not be illuminated as seen in Apollo lunar surface photography. An enormous amount of theoretical and empirical evidence has been provided to demonstrate the effect of backscatter. Mr. Cosnette chooses not to address any of it.

13. Shadow angles are wrong in Apollo 12 photographs. Mr. Cosnette has been shown the effects of perspective and surface terrain on the apparent direction of shadows. He chooses not to account for these in his argument.

14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow. Armstrong then switched lenses to the standard and put the camera in its second location. The Maurer 16 mm DAC cameras were not equipped with low-light lenses.

15. The moon's albedo is 7%. No source for this figure was provided, and it conflicts with published figures ranging from 12% to 30% depending on location and method of measurement.

16. An albedo of 7% corresponds to asphalt. To fresh asphalt, yes, but not to aged asphalt which has an albedo of about 12% according to standard civil engineering texts. Mr. Cosnette has not justified his use of misleading and "worst-case" figures.

17. Photos show pitch-black shade and shadow. This invalidates the claim that reflected light from the lunar surface is a source of fill. Because cameras can be adjusted to provide a wide range of photographic exposures, photographs are not suitable evidence of the presence or absence of light unless the specific exposure parameters are given. Mr. Cosnette has not accounted for this in his argument.

18. The lack of an atmosphere would cause shadows to be intensely black. Shadow fill is caused by indirect light. While atmospheric scatter is a source of indirect light, it is not the only source of it. Discounting one source does not discount all sources.

19. Dr. Groves has determined that the "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot is caused by a small artificial light. Dr. Groves' analysis is predicated on assumptions which border on fantasy. He grossly overstates the precision possible in this kind of analysis. Further, no secondary signs of such illumination can be detected, e.g., near-phase shadows. Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss Dr. Groves' findings with any degree of comprehension.

20. The central fiducial in AS11-40-5903 is not at the center of the photograph. The camera was tilted downward, and the photograph version chosen by Mr. Cosnette has been cropped and reframed to provide a better presentation, as Mr. Cosnette speculates. The fiducial is centered in the duplication master. Mr. Cosnette has accused NASA of fraud without first checking the primary source.

21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests? The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso. The natural attitude of the camera was to droop slightly downward, which is why the horizon appears above the optical axis in several Apollo photos. Mr. Cosnette has not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of Apollo equipment.

22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions. Mr. Cosnette habitually misstates his opponents' arguments. Retouching is a process of altering by artistic means the information on the negative, such as to remove unwanted details.

23. The postulated process is impossible because the film is on one long continuous roll. Professional photographers have pointed out here that nothing about the film's format prevents either "pushing" or retouching. Mr. Cosnette has not clarified how exactly he believes the film's format precludes the kind of darkroom techniques being contemplated.

24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft. Mr. Cosnette has not addressed any of the suggested sources of this illumination.

25. Dr. David Groves has computed that the photographer is some two feet higher than the subject in AS11-40-5903. Dr. Groves' analysis here too is based on completely indefensible assumptions regarding the planarity of the ground. Additional photos show the topology of the terrain. Further, a simple examination of the reflection of the horizon, which droops downward at the edges, demonstrates that the line of sight originates from below the level of Aldrin's head. Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss this evidence with any degree of comprehension.

26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera. The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed. See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing. Further, the cameras were provided with sighting rings that the astronauts could have used had they wished, and which were actually used during the J-mission when the 500 mm lens was attached. Mr. Cosnette refuses to defend his opinion.

28. The astronauts wore heavy, pressurized gauntlets. The outer gauntlets were not pressurized, only the inner, slim gloves which had provisions for flexibility under pressure. Mr. Cosnette cannot demonstrate sufficient understanding of space glove design and use principles. He is ill equipped to render an opinion on it.

29. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to change lenses and film magazines and operate the camera while wearing these heavy gloves. Mr. Cosnette can neither demonstrate understanding of space glove operation, nor claim experience performing these tasks himself under similar conditions. He refuses to support his opinion or retract it.

30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper. Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston. Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor). Mr. Cosnette has not researched this claim.

32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston. Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage. Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation. Mr. Cosnette does not seem to understand the principles of sample rates.

34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface. Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong. Mr. Cosnette's argument is a straw man, and his assertions of suspicion are merely his opinion. He has not elected to defend that opinion.

35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack. Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets. Mr. Cosnette does not account for any of these factors in his argument.

36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time. The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed. Mr. Cosnette's understanding of rocket propulsion is naive.

37. Hypergolic propellants should have produced an enormous red cloud. Mr. Cosnette has been given a lengthy and detailed treatise on the operation of Aerozine-fueled engines, which he does not appear to understand and has elected to largely ignore.

38. The fuel used in the LM is exactly the same fuel used in the space shuttle today. Factually false. The space shuttle does not use Aerozine, it uses monomethyl hydrazine, which has different combustion characteristics. Mr. Cosnette has not researched his argument.

39. There should have been some sort of crater under the LM. Mr. Cosnette has provided no quantitative argument to support this, nor can he discuss it intelligently.

40. The LM engine produced 10,000 lbf of thrust. At maximum throttle, yes, but not at the hover thrust level which is clearly documented as 25% or about 2,600 lbf. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any further argument on this point.

41. The exhaust plume would have been about 5,000 F. That is the chamber temperature. The exit plane temperature is documented as 2,800 F and the principles of gas kinetics apply from then on. Mr. Cosnette has provided no credible quantitative argument to support a surface impingement temperature of 5,000 F, nor does he seem to understand how one would be computed.

42. The plume should have melted some of the rock. Evidence of thermal stress on the lunar surface has been presented to Mr. Cosnette, but he refuses to accept it. Further, he has refused to support the premise of the degree of heating.

43. If Mt. Etna can melt rock at only 1,000 C, why can't the exhaust plume? Mr. Cosnette has not recognized the difference in thermal environment between the perpetually hot interior of a volcano and the transitory impingement of a gas whose temperature cannot exceed 2,800 F and is likely to be much lower.

44. There should have been dust on the landing pads. Not if the dust settled before the landing pads reached the surface. Further, the landing pads are designed to disperse dust outward. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any substantive argument for his expectation of seeing dust in the footpads.

45. Evidence of blowing dust is visible in the landing footage. How could any dust remain? There is no evidence that all the dust was blown away. The fact that dust continues to blow as long as the engine is firing indicates that dust remained after the engine shut down. Otherwise the dust would have been exhausted prior to shutdown.

46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint? The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission. It is "conceptual" footage supplied by NASA to demonstrate what such a landing might look like. NASA does not claim it represents actual mission documentation. Mr. Cosnette cannot authenticate his primary source on this argument.

48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth. On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module. Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion. That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

52. The astronauts were suspended by wires to simulate low gravity. This does not explain all visible low-gravity effects such as dust arcs. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to address this deficiency.

53. Evidence of the wires can be seen in video footage. Mr. Cosnette has provided no evidence or argument to show that these are wires and not the sun reflecting off the VHF antennas.

54. The Van Allen belts contain radiation too lethal for the astronauts to safely endure. Despite repeated requests for substantiation, Mr. Cosnette can provide absolutely no quantitative description of the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

55. NASA provided only a sheet of aluminum to shield the astronauts from this radiation, while doctors must take precautions for common x-rays. Mr. Cosnette is unable to discuss the difference between legal allowed exposure and biologically significant exposure, either in terms of quantity or of qualitative policy. He is further unable to discuss the shielding requirements quantitatively for any type or degree of radiation.

56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation. Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument.

57. Dr. David Groves has shown that the radiation would have ruined the photographic film. It has been exhaustively shown that Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual radiation types and levels experienced during an Apollo mission.

58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion. We suspect this has to do with parallax, but we cannot offer a rebuttal until actually presented with the case.

59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location. The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden. The PR production is simply edited incorrectly. Mr. Cosnette cannot show that this descrepancy exists in the primary source material.

60. There are photographs and film taken on the lunar surface that show stars. Mr. Cosnette's film was not taken on the lunar surface, but instead is an artist's conception. Mr. Cosnette's still photographs alleging stars are from scans known to be of low quality, and there is ample evidence that the "stars" are contaminants. Further, Mr. Cosnette is unable to describe any photochemical process by which stars and sunlit terrain can be simultaneously exposed on Ektachrome stock.

61. There is television footage of the rover in motion. It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera. Mr. Cosnette refuses to account for the inexplicable presence of the television camera itself in the frame he says was taken with that camera.

62. Visible flame from the LM ascent engine proves that Apollo defenders are wrong. As stated above, Mr. Cosnette has received a lengthy treatise on the operation of rocket engines, which he does not understand. He is further oblivious to the inherent contradictions in his arguments.

63. The film footage of Armstrong's descent suddenly becomes brighter, although no camera adjustment could produce that effect. Mr. Cosnette cannot adequately explain in terms of photographic exposure why the camera adjustment which is clearly indicated on the associated soundtrack would not produce the observed effect.

64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer. I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.

65. NASA faked Michael Collins' Gemini space walk photos. Mr. Cosnette has not provided the source identification for those photos so that it can be authenticated that the photo alleged to be fake is in fact one that NASA alleges to be of Collins' actual mission. Since NASA often releases training photos to help illustrate space flight concepts, it is not sufficient simply to show that NASA edited or released a particular image. It must be demonstrate that the photo was released with the intent to have it believed to be a real documentary photo.

66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture. This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

67. Some of the 11 Apollo astronauts had fatal accidents within a 22-month period. Mr. Cosnette refuses to name either the astronauts or give the dates and circumstances of their deaths.

68. The odds of this happening by chance are 1 in 10,000. Mr. Cosnette has not provided the computations which support this estimate. Further, he has indicated a relative ignorance of statistical probability which makes it likely he has performed no such computation.

69. Official NASA records show that only a couple of pounds of moon rocks were collected by Apollo astronauts. I have official NASA records which put the total at over 800 pounds. Mr. Cosnette has provided no citation for the documents he says support his claim.

70. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results as lunar material. Mr. Cosnette has not reconciled this proposal with what geologists have identified as the signature characteristics of lunar material.

71. Bill Kaysing says geologists in Washington knew of the cover-up. Mr. Kaysing's argument is carefully constructed so as to be impossible to verify or refute. Evidence in that circumstance must be discarded. If we cannot interview the geologist in question, we cannot confirm Kaysing's claim. Mr. Cosnette repeats the claim without verifying it.

72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so. Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems. Mr. Cosnette simply repeats Kaysing's claims without verifying them.

Well, Mr. Cosnette, there you have it. 72 issues you have repeatedly and stubbornly dodged here at this forum. Are you willing to stand up for your claims, or will this be another instance where you say you don't have time to spend discussing all of this? Can you really put your money where you mouth is, or are you just going to sell fish?

Whew,

Jay (and I guess CD too),

I believe and am closing in the documentation of the thermal analysis for the Hasselblad camera. I recently found the thermal analysis for the Apollo space suits and one of the surface experiments. I hope this leads to further documentation. At that point we'll all know what the Hasselblad were designed for and tested to.

No source for this figure [moon's albedo 7%] was provided

Jay, so that somebody doesn't throw this back at you, I am going to repeat a post I made on the Apollo Hoax Forum. Are the figures I quote here obsolete?

What is the accepted albedo of the Moon?

The Lunar Sourcebook says it ranges from about 7% to 24%, with maria around 7% to 10% and most highlands around 11% to 18%. Presumably, these are near-zero phase measurements from Earth during a full moon.

In a later chapter some zero-phase measurements are described from photos taken from the CM. The albedos ranged from 7% at the Apollo 11 site to 19% at a highland site.

Another study of normal albedo for 67 sites ranged from 5.7% to 18.4%.

The accepted value is published each year in the Astronomical Almanac, a product of the US Naval Observatory. I'd quote the figure right now, but I don't have a copy with me at the moment. I'll do that when I get into work on Monday.

Thanks. Here is an interesting online article I ran across, in case nobody has seen it:

http://www.roboticobservatory.com/je...ech/albedo.htm

Thanks Joe,
That's a great summation of a very complex question that everyone thinks has a simple answer. When observing the moon with my telescopes, it's easy to see such amazing differences in brightness.

As has been noted, I'm trying to bring out the issues of complexity surrounding the notion of albedo and the measurement of the moon's albedo. Whether the minimum is 8% or 12% or some other number is of little real importance to me so long as it's clearly understood that no one single number applies to all lunar photographs, and the reader understands that albedo is not the single quantitative embodiment of illuminational capability.

Boy Jay, you must be on my site more than I am. Thanks for the hits though. All these accusations and not one single reference to back up your many claims. I’m not answering all the questions you pose because we have debated them to death. From what you’ve written, nobody is qualified to comment because they are not an expert in the subject – Lundberg about sources of light, Percy about astrophysics, etc, etc. Then you go on to defend every single aspect of the Apollo missions. You, who claims to be a rocket engineer and Hollywood extra. You’re also not qualified to have a view on photography or lighting or astrophysics anymore than the others you accuse, but it seems ok in your eyes to do so. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as they say.


1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne.
Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).

2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo.
A quote from the man himself – ask him, I’m not Percy.

3. A lot of the footage was pre-recorded and not live at all.
No need to answer this as you have confirmed it is true –why did you bother bringing this question up?

4. The "jump salute" occurrence is an example of mismatched film and video.
I have presented the still picture and movie footage of this event on my site. Not once do we see this flap appear on the movie footage taken from behind the astronaut. Whether the flap was in front of, or behind the PLSS it would still be viewable from behind because it appears several inches above the PLSS in the still picture taken from in front of the astronaut. If the flap is in front of the PLSS it would be visible as the astronaut hit the ground. Refute that!

5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth.
I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.

6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F.
Jay: ‘Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.’

My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say. Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).

7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings.
Jay: ‘Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled circumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect. If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements, or did they take a tape measure?

9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood.
Jay: ‘Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown.’

My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began? So how much do they actually pay for sweeping the stage? You haven’t seen it, so it cannot be true – wrong.

10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source.
Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point.

My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?

11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows.
Jay: This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows.

My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place. Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface, several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration, the light angles still do not add up.

12. and 13. See above

14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light.
Jay: Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow.

My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.

15. The moon's albedo is 7%.
Jay: No source for this figure was provided, and it conflicts with published figures ranging from 12% to 30% depending on location and method of measurement.


My Response: A quote from Joe Durnavich, one of your groups members ‘The Lunar Sourcebook says it ranges from about 7% to 24%, with maria around 7% to 10% and most highlands around 11% to 18%. Presumably, these are near-zero phase measurements from Earth during a full moon. In a later chapter some zero-phase measurements are described from photos taken from the CM. The albedos ranged from 7% at the Apollo 11 site to 19% at a highland site.’

My Response: Who am I to believe? Does that mean that you’re wrong then? I think you should start reading the huge amounts of NASA data you allege to have, before slagging me off!

19. Dr. Groves has determined that the "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot is caused by a small artificial light.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss Dr. Groves' findings with any degree of comprehension.

My Response: Neither can you. How can you generalise on Dr. Groves’ conclusions when you are not in the position of being a photographic expert? Thought I’d throw that one in as that’s the type of thing you accuse me of!

21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests?
Jay: The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso.

My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket… straps, straps, straps… Read what you’re writing sometimes – puhhlease

22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts.
Jay: Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions.

My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.

23. The postulated process is impossible because the film is on one long continuous roll.
Jay: Professional photographers have pointed out here that nothing about the film's format prevents either "pushing" or retouching. Mr. Cosnette has not clarified how exactly he believes the film's format precludes the kind of darkroom techniques being contemplated.

My Response: You cannot retouch negatives on a continuous roll of film, as is the case with the duplicate role of film from Apollo 11 – direct from NASA themselves, in the possession of HJP Arnold.

24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
Jay: Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft.

My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a spotlight illuminating the spot. Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots (unless there is cloud cover of course) and the LEM must have some pretty unique properties if it can reflect a light spot into a crater or depressed area as is the case in the mentioned photo. Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes, we don’t need any scientist to tell us that it isn’t there!


25. Dr. David Groves has computed that the photographer is some two feet higher than the subject in AS11-40-5903.
Jay: Dr. Groves' analysis here too is based on completely indefensible assumptions regarding the planarity of the ground. Additional photos show the topology of the terrain.

My Response: Actually Dr. Groves, Percy and Bennett have successfully provided enough data about the lay of the lunar surface in their book to satisfy anyone who is inquisitive enough to dig deeper (pun intended).

26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera.
Jay: The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.

27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed.
Jay: See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing.

My Response: Yes, it is possible to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing – if the camera is placed before ones face and looking through a viewfinder. Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?

28. The astronauts wore heavy, pressurized gauntlets.
Jay: The outer gauntlets were not pressurized, only the inner, slim gloves which had provisions for flexibility under pressure. Mr. Cosnette cannot demonstrate sufficient understanding of space glove design and use principles. He is ill equipped to render an opinion on it.

29. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to change lenses and film magazines and operate the camera while wearing these heavy gloves.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette can neither demonstrate understanding of space glove operation, nor claim experience performing these tasks himself under similar conditions. He refuses to support his opinion or retract it.

My Response to 28 and 29: Whether the pressurised part of the gloves were actually within or under the glove does not change the fact that the astronauts would have found it difficult to change lenses, film and especially filters when they had pressure around their fingers. Also the gloves were not of surgical glove thickness for greater sensitivity, but rather the size of a fireman’s glove. To prove your conviction perhaps you could try changing the film in your camera with heavy gloves on, and then you will see how difficult it is, whether pressure inside the glove is involved or not.

30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

My Response: I have done nothing of the sort. I have told you that both myself and Mary Bennett have written to the newspaper without reply – how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?

31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston.
Jay: Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor).

My Response: Try and put whatever spin on it that you want. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Worlds media had to film the Lunar event off of a monitor.

32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

My Response: Same answer as above.

33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage.
Jay: Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation.

My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed? Faithful to the time domain of recording, but not of the actual live event!

34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface.
Jay: Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong.

My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies. Again your falling over yourself to prove your point without taking in what I’m writing, what should I write so that you understand me? Opinion defended as you put it!

35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack.
Jay: Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets.

My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers. Their mics are also inside the helmet, yet we hear noise. Granted, they are not in a vacuum, but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!

36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time.
Jay: The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed.

My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.

37. Hypergolic propellants should have produced an enormous red cloud.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has been given a lengthy and detailed treatise on the operation of Aerozine-fueled engines, which he does not appear to understand and has elected to largely ignore.

My Response: In the book ‘Dark Moon’, Percy and Bennett ask George Pinter – previously of Grumman Aerospace and actively involved at top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module – why no clouds of red smoke were visible on the Lunar landings or ascents. Pinter replied ‘In a vacuum the gases must disperse very widely and these gases must have become so thin that they were invisible’. So, what Pinter was actually admitting here was that there IS visible exhausts from a hypergolic engine when operating – even in a vacuum.

Pinter told Percy and Bennett to write to the American Consulate in London for a more detailed answer, of which they did. However, they were told that they didn’t have the answer and to write to NASA. They wrote that letter way back in 1996 and are still waiting for NASA’s response today!

39. There should have been some sort of crater under the LM.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has provided no quantitative argument to support this, nor can he discuss it intelligently.

40. The LM engine produced 10,000 lbf of thrust.
Jay: At maximum throttle, yes, but not at the hover thrust level which is clearly documented as 25% or about 2,600 lbf. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any further argument on this point.

My Response to 39 and 43: Any type of engine that is capable of lifting the LEM of of the lunar surface and can produce thrust on a sandy surface such as the Moon’s will at least leave scorch marks or heat up the ground. No evidence of this is seen. Even if the engine was throttled down it would have produced enough power to effect the ground underneath the engines exhaust pipe.

44. There should have been dust on the landing pads. Not if the dust settled before the landing pads reached the surface. Further, the landing pads are designed to disperse dust outward. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any substantive argument for his expectation of seeing dust in the footpads.

45. Evidence of blowing dust is visible in the landing footage. How could any dust remain? There is no evidence that all the dust was blown away. The fact that dust continues to blow as long as the engine is firing indicates that dust remained after the engine shut down. Otherwise the dust would have been exhausted prior to shutdown.

My Response to 44 and 45: To coin your phrase ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’. One the one hand your saying that the dust landed pretty quickly, and on the other your saying that it was actually airborne after the engines had been switched off? If as you say, dust was billowing about underneath the LEM after the engines had stopped, then that same dust would have fallen into the circular landing pads. Evidence taken from pictures issued by NASA fail to show this – enforcing my beliefs in a moon hoax.

46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint?
Jay: The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

My Response: I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I? Perhaps if you read what was written instead of answering what you think was written we would get somewhere. The challenge remains, if the dust was blown away due to the thrust of the engine, how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?

47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission.

My Response: Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway… and what a great picture opportunity was to be had when filming the Surveyor with the LEM nestling nicely in the background on the horizon on the top of a nearby ridge… almost picture perfect one might say!

48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth.
Jay: On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

My Response: And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon – and no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!

49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module.
Jay: Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

My Response: This does not rule out the possibility that another panel could be removed

50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

My Response: Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!

51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion.
Jay: That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar

52. The astronauts were suspended by wires to simulate low gravity.
Jay: This does not explain all visible low-gravity effects such as dust arcs. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to address this deficiency.

53. Evidence of the wires can be seen in video footage.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has provided no evidence or argument to show that these are wires and not the sun reflecting off the VHF antennas.

My Response to 52 and 53: The film evidence of wires being used is on my site. Perhaps you could watch them? And unless the UHF aerial extends to 20+ feet, your theory does not explain ‘pings’ of light in the top of the picture above the astronauts. I think you have a case of not seeing the trees for the woods. By turning a blind eye on things doesn’t make them go away.

54. The Van Allen belts contain radiation too lethal for the astronauts to safely endure.
Jay: Despite repeated requests for substantiation, Mr. Cosnette can provide absolutely no quantitative description of the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

My Response: Actually I have given a very plausible explanation in another post about the effects of radiation.

55. NASA provided only a sheet of aluminum to shield the astronauts from this radiation, while doctors must take precautions for common x-rays.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unable to discuss the difference between legal allowed exposure and biologically significant exposure, either in terms of quantity or of qualitative policy. He is further unable to discuss the shielding requirements quantitatively for any type or degree of radiation.

56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument. My Response: The required amount of shielding from radiation and excepted levels that a human can withstand here on Earth is on my site – perhaps you missed it?

My Response: Here’s your reference – and this is in relation to CCD cameras – Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

By C.J. McFee –‘An initial baseline figure of 3mm shielding was initially established for EIS, yielding an ionising radiation dose of around 7krad for a five year mission and a trapped proton dose of 6.2x109 protons/cm2. These values were considered to be too high and so after some study, a higher shielding value of 15mm Aluminium was adopted which gave an ionising dose of around 1.5krad for the mission, with an overall proton dose of3x109 protons/cm2.’

Source: http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_detect...Shielding.html

57. Dr. David Groves has shown that the radiation would have ruined the photographic film.
Jay: It has been exhaustively shown that Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual radiation types and levels experienced during an Apollo mission.

My Response: See above.

58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Jay: Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion.

My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?

59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location.
Jay: The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden.

My Response: Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors? Closing the door after the horse has bolted is not a good enough answer. I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake? By the way, any footage of the Apollo on the Moon is ‘official NASA footage’ unless of course you are suggesting that someone else took it?
60. There are photographs and film taken on the lunar surface that show stars. Jay: Mr. Cosnette's film was not taken on the lunar surface, but instead is an artist's conception. Mr. Cosnette's still photographs alleging stars are from scans known to be of low quality, and there is ample evidence that the "stars" are contaminants.

60. False – What film are you talking about being an artists concept? I don’t know what site you’ve seen this one – but it certainly isn’t mine. The group has not been able to prove that the photos on my site don’t show stars. You are guessing and cannot prove that this is a fault with the processing, and as I have pointed out in the past, this cannot be the case with the movie footage that also shows stars as the camera pans from left to right – did you forget about that one?

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.

My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?

62. Visible flame from the LM ascent engine proves that Apollo defenders are wrong.
Jay: As stated above, Mr. Cosnette has received a lengthy treatise on the operation of rocket engines, which he does not understand.

My Response: Read my answer several paragraphs above. On the contrary, I understand fully. As a scientist, surely you would know that for the scientific community to accept something it has to be reproduced and reproduced again. Considering that on some ascents the flame is visible and on others it is not – does this prove that the LEM is doing something out of scientist’s knowledge? The flame should either be visible or not visible on ALL ascents, there is no middle ground here.

64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer.
Jay: I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.


My response: In your opinion – you don’t agree with them so say that I have ‘brushed them aside’. That’s two different things.

65. NASA faked Michael Collins' Gemini space walk photos.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette has not provided the source identification for those photos so that it can be authenticated that the photo alleged to be fake is in fact one that NASA alleges to be of Collins' actual mission.

My Response: Enquiries are being made at this very moment to put this one to rest.

66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture.
Jay: This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?

67. Some of the 11 Apollo astronauts had fatal accidents within a 22-month period.
Jay: Mr. Cosnette refuses to name either the astronauts or give the dates and circumstances of their deaths.

My Response: But being the expert that you claim to be, you would already know right?

72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so.
Jay: Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems.

My Response: Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?

So there we go, I have answered almost all of the questions asked. I really can’t believe that you had the time to write such a long letter with your busy schedule as a Hollywood actor, Rocket Engineer, Satellite Expert, etc, etc. What is it they say ‘A Jack of all trades and master of none!’ When are you going to tell me that you were actually one of the Apollo astronauts or that you built the LEM?

Oh yes, to leave you with a gem – Was your involvement with Hollywood anything to do with the Apollo Hoax? LOL

Argggh... headache... banging my head against the table... trying to imagine how comicdave succeeds in being so dense... but can not.

Well, at least I got some good laughts from comicdave's "answers", even though most were just painfull to read...

Looking forward to JayUtah's response... I'm sure this one will be good! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

albedo is not the single quantitative embodiment of illuminational capability.

That is certainly turning out to be the case. I was hoping that if albedo was constant enough at a given landing sight, we might be able to roughly calculate the amount of illumination from the ground. For example, is there enough illumination from the ground to expose Aldrin's shadow side to the extent we see in the famous photo? Some of the illuminated ground in the Aldrin photo looks fully exposed. 7% albedo is about 4 stops under 100%. That's well up on the characteristic curve for (at least modern) Ektachrome film, so we should expect to see Aldrin's shadow side exposed as well as it is. (The exposure of the top of his helmet and backpack is much less though, as would be expected.)

Of course, I am beginning to realize that lunar albedo is too complicated an issue to nail down analytically. But I wondered if rough calculations might help convince people that the exposure levels are not anomalous.

Joe, If we could reach some agreement on the albedo perhaps we could do some real life testing.

Craig