Lest I be accused of piling on, I want to assure everyone that I only post this with the best of intentions.

Since Dave has been "gracious" enough to admit the Lunar Rover video section of his webiste is in error and promise to delete it, I figured that, while he was at it, he could correct some of the other things that we have proven to be incorrect. With this thread we are giving Dave just one place he has to go to get the information he needs.

I'll start off:

1. The rover video, of course. This has already been admitted, and I look forward to its demise.

2. Under Dave's 32 questions, "The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering ". Without rehashing the discussions, I think it is safe to say that this should be deleted.

3. Also under the 32 questions, "There should have been a substantial crater blasted out...". Now this was just covered and the amount of thrust at the mouth of the engine nozzle was only 1.5 pounds per square inch, hardly enough to move all but the very surface dust. This conclusively proves that there should have been no blast crater. Please remove the question.

4. 32 questions again, "How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry? "

It didn't, a second antenna was raised after reentry. Here is a link to proof.

5. And finally, the 32 questions continue to dwindle, "With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?" This has been discussed ad nauseaum to everybody's satisfaction, no rebuttal was ever attempted, so this should come down too.

I realize we believe his entire website has been thoroughly debunked, but I'm concentrating on issues that have black and white answers that can be pointed out. If I'm not mistaken CD has never rebutted the explanations for these, so they should come down.

I know there are others, so if you would like to add your favorite, please do.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-07-01 19:08 ]</font>

He could just delete all the words between This and guestbook.

That would increase the credibility of his argument no end.

Mr. Cosnette has, I believe, conceded that he does not know much about the Apollo guidance computer, therefore I would suggest he remove the statements which argue that the computer was insufficient to its tasks.

Agreed. And a couple more:

6. JApanese astronomers and spy satellites aside, we've proven that the TETR-A satellite could not have transmitted the data from the proper point in space to convincingly fake the mission.

7. "If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope...". I believe that cosmicdave has admitted this is inaccurate, so it should go.

8."Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed....". The national archives contain some of the blueprints. This is inaccurate.

I thought it was common knowledge that Apollo debris couldn't be seen with any telescope at all, even the Hubble. Why does Edgar Mitchell seem to be saying otherwise?


"There are remnants of our visits still sitting on the lunar surface, and scientific equipment like laser reflectors that are still in use for scientific work. Ask any experience astronomer, and/or look through a good telescope." Edgar Mitchell on his EDM discussion group

link:
http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/_d...3/00000066.htm

main page of the discussion group:
http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/discgroup3_toc.htm

The next two responses are Jay Utah and, the BA himelf, Phil Plait. Since they didn't politely correct him, I'm assuming I misunderstood him. Or maybe they might've deemed it somewhat inappropiate.

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/_d...3/0000006b.htm

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/_d...3/00000071.htm

CzC

Dont forget stars!

I really do hate to be the pin in the balloon here, but I think the current Vegas odds on cosmicdave changing anything on his site in response to his debates here is about the same as the Lions winning the Super Bowl. 'Taint gonna happen.

Or maybe they might've deemed it somewhat inappropiate.

I thought about correcting him, but I'm reluctant to dispute a prominent figure on his own web site. As soon as I get to it, I have some private business with him so I'll mention it then.

Of course, as has been shown here and other places, the artifacts on the Moon are far too small to image.

The retroreflectors can be used to bounce laser pulses, but it takes a big 'scope to do it. The one used at McDonald is about 75 centimeters across. That's not beyond a dedicated amateur, but the laser setup is also pretty sophisticated. See here for more. Perhaps this is what Captain Mitchell means.

I was wondering if it was something along those lines. Because he did mention laser reflectors prior to the telescope sentence.
This is what I was meaning when I said "I'm assuming I misunderstood him."

CzC

The Australian coke-bottle section should be altered to admit that it hasn't been confirmed. CD has admitted to not having established it conclusively, so it should not be labelled as fact at this time.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<a name="20020702.3:3"> page 20020702.3:3 aka I did NOT read this thread
On 2002-07-02 03:04, David Hall wrote: To: NOVA "to the MO"
The Australian coke-bottle section should be altered to admit that it hasn't been confirmed. CD has admitted to not having established it conclusively, so it should not be labelled as fact at this time.
3:31 A.M. I hope there are enought lines
the number i HEARD on the VHS was 20 billion
last month {YOUR June} I bought an IBM call
option.. IN one week [that followed] IBM annunced
'EXPECTATIONS' and the total Value of all
outstanding shares TIMES the drop in price
computed out on my organizer as 25Billion 240 million [in 1 week] NOT the 12 years of NASA on TV nightly?/

Cosmicdave, I just got back from your website, and I noticed the rover video was still there. Have you gone back on your word?

We're all patiently waiting.......

Is he saying that the video is a tv transmission? Can't he see the tv camera in that video?

I am kind of confused as to what the LRV antenna function is, is it to send the signal to the S-band antenna next to the
LM then to Earth, or straight to Earth from the LRV? And would it be impossible to send a viewable TV signal at all, while the LRV is moving?

If it is possible to send a signal from a moving LRV, then CD wouldn't have an argument even if it was a film of a tv transmission (which it clearly is not).

CzC

There were two cameras on the LRV - the DAC (Data Acquisition Camera) and the TV camera. The still frame on Dave's site is from DAC footage, in which you can see the TV camera. As someone mentioned earlier, one camera is filming the other.

The DAC was a film based camera, so its pictures weren't available until the film was developed back on Earth. The TV camera, however, broadcast in real time.

But the restriction on the TV camera was that the LRV antenna needed to be pointed straight at the Earth for NASA to receive the signal. As a result, the TV camera was switched off when the LRV was moving. (Actually, there were one or two attempts to broadcast on the move, but they generally weren't successful.) If you read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, one thing you notice is the repetition of the sequence:

1. Arrive at location;
2. Align antenna;
3. Switch on TV camera;
4. Do stuff at location;
5. Switch off camera;
6. Drive to next location.

What Dave has done is to confuse the DAC footage with TV footage. He's right that it would be impossible for the TV camera to broadcast such footage in real time, because the antenna would rarely be pointing in the right direction. But the point is that the footage he has is from the DAC, not the TV. This makes his argument fall over.

I say delete everything that violates any known laws of physics, chemistry, engineering. You get the idea, that would be everything.

how would they align the antenna, just aim by sight or were there settings? how precise did it have to be?

CzC

CzC

You're best off going to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for the answers there. IIRC, there was some sort of aiming device, given that the Earth was generally high overhead, and it was difficult for the astronauts to lean back far enough to see the Earth.

I think there may even be one or two pictures of an astronaut adjusting the antenna.

While we're on the subject of the footage from the moving rover, occasionally we see a gold covered flap wafting up and down at the front of the rover.

Questions...

a) What is it?

b) If the rover was driving in air, wouldn't this flap stay either in the downwards or upwards position, held in place by the airflow?

The flap is the battery covers. They could be opened or closed for thermal reasons when stopped.

The LRV might not have been moving fast enough for any "airlow" to have affected them, but that is indeed one factor that suggests airlessness.

But remember, one of the HBs arguments is that the footage was filmed at normal speed then slowed down to look like it was filmed on the moon. So that 5-10 mph (8 -16 kph) is really something more like 30-50 mph (46-80 kph). I think at that point, the air flow would definately keep the flap in the same position. Unless of course, the footage was filmed inside some giant vacuum chamber (tens of square miles or square kilometers).