OK, I know I'm coming in late, but here's a few points I could come up with:
Quote:
|
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
|
No attempt is made to explain
why a pure oxygen atmosphere at 5psi would have melted the camera covering. There is no sensible reason for it.
Quote:
|
4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
|
What Dave doesn't seem to realise here is that he has undermined his entire argument. His parenthetical statement boils down to his having found a piece of footage that satisfies a condition he says was not satisfied.
Quote:
|
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
|
The same way the parachutes did; by being deployed
after re-entry.
Quote:
|
1 The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
|
Firstly, the sapecsuits were pressurised only to about 4psi, not 5. Secondly, a boxer's speedbag is
designed to be unbendable, whereas a spacesuit glove is designed to bend at the knuckles.
As for the balloon men argument, obviously he does not know what a restraint layer is.
Quote:
|
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...
|
This one never fails to amuse me. I don't care what measurements of replicas were made after the event, because the EVA TV footage and photographic record is replete with images of the astronauts going in and out of the LM! If I see lots of TV of someone moving in and out of a hatch, I reasonably conclude it is big enough for them to get through.
Quote:
Quote:
|
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
|
First of all this is just slanderous non-sense without proof. Secondly, you haven't mention what Gus's son actually has and how it prooves ill-will on anyone's part. He just has it in his posession.
|
Firstly, it is no more than speculation that the Apollo 1 fire killed the first crew to walk on the Moon. All that was certain at that point was that they would be the first to fly Apollo hardware in Earth orbit.
Secondly, Scott Grissom possessed a small piece of metal that he contended was used as a 'tripper' to short out some wiring and make the spark that started the fire. An investigation concluded that this piece of metal was part of a asupport bracket for the instrument panel, cut from the bracket during the disassembly process
after the fire, and therefore could not have been used in the manner suggested.
Quote:
Over the past few months I have been having a debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website. Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program and the site also goes into detail on other anomalies that show up on space footage that they think is easily explained. During my time debating on their site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say that, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.
The three main challenges were
1. Produce pictures showing stars that are taken on the Moons surface. They say because of the very bright conditions on the Moon, stars would not be visible from its surface!
2. Show an example of Movie footage that was taken aboard the Lunar Rover whilst it is in motion. (I asked the site how could the satellite dish at the front of the rover relay the video signal to a satellite or Houston if it was moving all over the place?). I was even told that this footage does not exist?... see below
3. If I could provide film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons surface (This would prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the Moons atmosphere and vacuum would prevent such a flame).
That was the challenge... and here is the evidence... Enjoy ;o)
|
1: Dave produce some images with some spots in the sky. They could not be stars due to the previously explained and well-known limitations of exposure time and film sensitivity. He simply observes some white dots in the sky of some photos and presumes they are stars.
2: There is a very short section of TV footage of the rover in motion, when the camera was inadvertently left activated during a traverse and a brief section of the travel aligned the antenna with Earth. There is also at least one shot of the rover driving
before the camera was mounted on it, when the camera was still wired up to the LM communications system. All other footage of the rover in motion, and I'm willing to bet the footage Dave has provided (though I confess I cannot play the clips so may be wrong there), was captured on 16mm film and was never transmitted from the surface.
3; If he met that challenge he debunked one of his own arguments.
21-April-2005, 06:41 PM
Linear Mode
