Where can I look at the NASA film from out the window during the Apollo-12 final approach that supposedly shows the Surveyor-3 on the ground as the LM passes overhead? Or was that a 'simulation'?

Thanks!

Which footage? I just watched the landing at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...12.landing.mov and didn't see Surveyor. I know Cosmic Dave refers to the landing footage at http://www.ufo-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html except that it's a PAO animation. You didn't think he'd bother to confirm his sources, did you?

Definitely a simulation. The 16mm DAC would have been pointed the other way anyway.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Jim: The film is shown at about 1 hour 16 minutes into part one of the video "What Happened on the Moon?" which, I think, was produced by Aulis (could check that and look for credits if you wish). Some still photos from it are printed on page 160 of "Dark Moon", along with typical rhetoric from Bennett and Percy.

As JayUtah says, it is purely a simulation using a model on rocky ground. For it to have been the real thing, Apollo 12 would have had to land on the opposite side of the Surveyor crater, into the Sun, and on a roughly circular path -- points which seem to have escaped the producers.

What escaped the producers of What Happened on the Moon? would fill a warehouse.

Thanks, yes, I've seen it in the Percy book, and I'm wondering where Percy got it. Is it a motion sequence, or just a few stills?

I know this has been mentioned before, but it's another good example of one of the characteristic errors of Hoax Proponents, which you may want to point out in your book, Jim: mistaken acceptance of simulations/models/movies as evidence.

Two examples are the claims that lines from "Apollo 13" (the motion picture) provide proof that the mission was a fake, and that the astronauts couldn't have passed through the LM hatch based on measurements of early mock-ups.

I'll share my list, too -- but right now I'm focussed on this incident because it involves pictures. Where did those pictures allegedly showing Surveyor from Apollo-12 on final, come from?

Another good example is the claim that there should have been visible flames at the launch of the LM ascent module because the artist's rendition clearly shows them. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

JimO, I'm curious too about the source of that simulation footage. It sounds like a really good avenue of research. My guess is that it was created as an instructional aid for the television broadcasts, perhaps by one of the networks as opposed to NASA itself. Either that or it's from some educational film or something. Please let us know what you find.

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

JimO: In "What Happened on the Moon?" it is a motion sequence lasting six seconds. Percy says it came from "The Conquest of Space" and they briefly show what may be the case of a video tape called "CONQUEST". The title letters are formed by yellow ovals (similar to dot-matrix lettering) and it includes the words "A history of space achievements from the V1 to the Shuttle" and "Including original NASA film".

There's a video "Conquest of Space" listed on http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/books/video.htm

Googling for that title mostly brings up the 1950s sci-fi movie.

HUb'
sure? i LUV it when there are links to .MOV
only I sure wish some referance were included up front
about their length in bytes
my ontime limit for downloads here
at the TvRm/486/100/LYNK
is .98 giG's
and to find the total bytes I hit D.ownload
watch as he file gets transfered high speed S-C
on these long files even thats a long wait... )data appriciated} really

Ken tells me that Gary Neff's clip of the 16-mm landing film is linked at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/video12.html

I was referring to this footage:

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/surv3.rm

"How did the Apollo 12 crew manage to capture footage of the Surveyor
III craft that had landed at their landing site in April '67. Anyone
who watches the film will be astonished how skilfully they managed to
capture the sequence through such a small window, and whilst trying to
land their own craft. The Lunar Lander does a 360 degree turn around
the Surveyor III and not once does it go out of focus or move out of
shot. Was this sequence shot out of an open door of a helicopter?
Readers will be interested to know that a sceptic accused that this
wasn't NASA footage? beats me too!" -Cosmic Dave / Aulis

I'll check out 'Conquest of Space'...

from sci.space.history newsgroup,

JimO:
Great news! Are there any names of producers/researchers on the package or displayed on the video? Gordon, thanks!

I googled that company and found Lamancha Productions, 19 Newington Road, Edinburgh, Scotland (phone 0131 662 0521), with info such as
http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk/pressarchive/ww2.html press release on a "new Centre for Second World War Studies - the only one of its kind in the UK - is to be attached to the Department of History at the University of Edinburgh, in cooperation with Lamancha Productions Ltd, a local independent film and television production company specialising in 20th century historical documentaries."

There's also another LaMancha Productions in California which does latino gay porn movies.



"Gordon Davie" <g.davie@btinternet.com> :
> I have a copy of this video right here on my shelf. It's a three-volume set
> (3 x 1hr) which came out in 1987 from a company called LaMancha Productions.
> Don't know if it was available in the US.
>
> I've checked the sequence in question, which is near the start of Volume 2.
> It only lasts a few seconds and they don't refer to its origin at all but
> it's clearly footage of a model - as the camera passes Surveyor it's about
> level with the top of the solar panels!
> --
> Gordon Davie
> Edinburgh, Scotland

JimO: On page 160 of "Dark Moon" Bennett and Percy credit NASA for the three still photos from the film, so perhaps it was made for training purposes.

Good to see you got plenty of help on the sci.space.history newsgroup, though it's amusing to see the claims that it's a computer animation rather than a piece of good old-fashioned film. In "What Happened on the Moon?" they show it slowed down to half speed and it looks like a model filmed in direct sunlight.

UPDATE

Cosmic Conspiracies were recently approached by Jim Oberg, NASA consultant, who was interested in a piece of footage that appeared on this page which showed the Surveyor III probe on the Moons surface, filmed by the astronauts aboard Apollo 12 as it descended onto the lunar surface. Mr. Oberg is writing a book (originally funded by NASA) about the whole 'Moon Hoax' subject, in a bid to put a lot of the speculation to rest. Mr. Oberg believed that the film we had (taken from 'What Happened On The Moon') was bogus and not original NASA footage, however David Percy and Mary Bennett believe otherwise !!! Click Here to read more





The Surveyor-3 ‘Hoax’ Footage

Our small UFO research team here in Gloucester goes by the name ‘Cosmic Conspiracies’. Our main contribution to the UFO genre has been a large web-site about UFOs and aliens, and related material, as well as our own brand of freelance investigative journalism. One of the team, Dave Cosnette, has a keen interest in the questions that hang over the Apollo Moon landings record. He has collated what he considers to be the best evidence available and presented it as a web-page on ‘Cosmic Conspiracies’ called “The ‘Faked’ Apollo Landings!”

It has proven to be a popular resource, allowing Internet surfers from around the world to look at the contested imagery and decide for themselves whether there may be grounds to be suspicious about the historical record of the Moon landings. Dave Cosnette was not, of course, one of the original authors and researchers who looked into this question. Instead, he has highlighted the work of Mary Bennett, David S. Percy and Marcus Allen. Recently, the web-page was scrutinised by James Oberg, who is currently researching the Apollo ‘Moon hoax’ claims for a forthcoming book. Oberg has since drawn us into an investigation that has culminated in a possibly surprising result.

In its January 2003 issue UFO Magazine drew attention to the controversy surrounding James Oberg’s book, that was commissioned, then ‘decommissioned’ within days, by NASA. Regular readers of the magazine will recognise Jim as being an ardent sceptic and debunker whose opinions have often been interlaced with some quite colourful language. He naturally prefers to describe himself as ‘Space Historian/Author’. Whether NASA are financially supporting his new book or not, he is clearly throwing himself into research that he hopes will put the ‘Moon Hoax’ theory to rest once and for all. Jim Oberg’s aim is clear: to rigorously test the evidence that has been amassed suggesting the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA, a conspiracy theory gaining ground year by year.

On 13th January Jim Oberg wrote to Cosmic Conspiracies’ enquiring about a particular piece of footage featuring on Dave’s Apollo web-page. This is what he had to say:

“Your video of Surveyor-3 from Apollo-12 shown at http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/surv3.rm is extremely interesting, since NASA appears to deny all responsibility. Does ANYBODY know who may have created this sequence, when, and why?”

The sequence Jim is interested in was sourced from the video ‘What Happened on the Moon?’ published by Aulis. This video presents material from the book ‘Dark Moon’, written by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy (1999). The footage shows images of the Surveyor-3 spacecraft taken from the Apollo 12 lunar module as it descends towards the lunar surface. It is controversial because the motion of the camera used to make the film is not compatible with filming conditions astronauts would have experienced from within the lunar module. Instead, the footage appears to have been taken from a helicopter or control rig with a mobile mounted camera, allowing the cameraman to ‘pan’ the shot as he or she swept past the static Surveyor-3 lander. This ‘NASA’ film footage is described as ‘absolute Whistle-Blowing’ by Bennett and Percy in ‘Dark Moon’ (p160), and comprises one part of a large corpus of evidence that suggests fakery.

Now, we happen to know Mary Bennett, one of the authors of ‘Dark Moon’. Back in March 2002 Dave Cosnette’s web-page had been checked over by Mary, who suggested a number of technical changes, which were duly made. So we knew how to contact Mary, and she was aware of the general contents of the web-page. It thus seemed appropriate to take up Jim Oberg’s challenge and look into the matter.

We contacted Mary, asking for further information about the footage, and she came back to us with some factual information and a short
statement. This read:
“The sequence in question occurs about six minutes into a program called “CONQUEST, A history of space achievements from
the V1 to the Shuttle *Part Two: Apollo 12 to NASA's Viking flight to Mars and beyond. Including original NASA film".
(Distributed by GMH Entertainments). There is nothing in the program to suggest that this Apollo 12 landing footage is a
simulation. The sequence is sandwiched between other shots of Apollo 12 landing film and therefore it is entirely reasonable
for the viewer to conclude that it is 'original NASA film'.


The voiceover commentary for the scene is: "The landing module was to prove it could make a pin-point touch down by flying past
Surveyor III, a robot fired to the Moon three and a half years before."
And from the LM itself we hear: " . . .Got plenty of gas, plenty of gas." Houston: "30 seconds.

That’s why we have credited the sequence to NASA. In the video ‘What happened on the Moon?’ the cover of this video (from which
this sequence was taken) is shown to the viewer.”
Jim Oberg seemed to be right. This film clip made up part of a sequence of film images in a video that was interlaced with official footage.
Yet the Surveyor-3 flyby sequence was not from the NASA archive, and therefore, we now believe, could not be used as evidence of NASA
faking the Apollo record. Mary Bennett made a couple of further points in response to our subsequent questions:

"At the time of writing their book and making their video - it had not occurred to the authors that anyone - other than NASA -
would have supplied the material. Now, NASA records may well show this footage isn't theirs, but from the public’s point of view,
they are looking at an apparently official 1987 documentary covering the Space Program and are being led to assume that this
is all genuine footage. Since, if this Surveyor 3 flyby material is a simulation, this fact is not pointed out as such: it is not made
clear either on screen or on the soundtrack before, during or after this scene. Indeed, the astronaut’s live commentary plays over
this scene. * So the viewer is led to assume that, as printed on the case of their video, the documentary makers are using NASA
supplied material.”

Mary Bennett seemed to be conceding that, in hindsight, the Surveyor-3 flyby footage should not have been attributed to NASA, although she later denied this. Indeed, ‘Cosmic Conspiracies’ were directly and indirectly criticised for the way that we had followed their lead in attributing the footage and screen shots to NASA. Which made us chuckle. This prompted us to ask Mary what groundwork they had done at the time of writing ‘Dark Moon’ regarding this footage. Had they checked the NASA archive to validate the contested material? Had they asked the makers of the 1987 ‘Conquest’ video where they had obtained the footage, or asked their permission to feature it on ‘What Happened on the Moon’? Mary gave us this reply:

“We had no reason to doubt that this particular footage was anything other than NASA material and therefore in the public
domain. In any event this sequence was used under the accepted publishing term 'Fair Use', and in the video 'What Happened on
the Moon?' the source was made clear.

“The production company for 'What Happened on the Moon?' received dubs on NTSC Beta SP of a large quantity of Apollo
material, including all the lunar surface footage that was transferred from the original 16mm Kinescope B&W and color film.
Additionally, they received the 16mm camera on-boards and 16mm film from the lunar surface film cameras. All of which was
supplied through NASA.”

It is our opinion that this particular piece of footage seems to have slipped through Bennett and Percy’s net during their initial investigation, and that they simply assumed it was from NASA without looking into it. We agree with James Oberg here: this is not NASA footage from the actual Apollo 12 landing at all. Where it actually came from remains a mystery, one that Bennett and Percy continue to insist points the finger at a culpable NASA.

In the April 2003 issue of UFO Magazine (pp58-9), Graham Birdsall took up this research and gained a further statement from David Percy. The following extract highlights the reason why, in Percy’s mind, the footage remains controversial, despite NASA’s express denials of ownership:

“According to those who were involved in the making of this film, all the material covering Apollo and Gemini etc., was sent to the production company from NASA – footage that was in the public domain and resulting in a film far less expensive to make than would otherwise be the case. Note that this Surveyor 3 ‘fly-by’ scene would have been a very expensive exercise for just a few seconds of film. Specially recreating such a sequence would negate the criteria of keeping production costs as low as possible.

“When completed, this film was subsequently transferred to video-tape duplication masters and licensed by Lamancha Productions Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland who added their logo to the start of the video (Andy: Jim Oberg warns that there is a similarly-named company in the US that specialises in Hispanic Gay Porn movies!). A former director of this company has also stated that, to his knowledge, all this material concerning Apollo was sent directly from NASA.”

So David Percy and Mary Bennett are insistent that their inclusion of this footage within the corpus of evidence they have collated should be allowed to stand. They argue that although NASA deny any knowledge of this footage, which is clearly faked, the film must have originally been sourced from NASA by the documentary-makers, whose word on the matter seems to be taken on face value.

From our point of view, however, we think that insufficient ground-work was carried out on the footage, and conclusions were attached to its importance that no longer stand up to scrutiny. In effect, this can no longer be considered to be part of the official ‘Apollo record’, so should not be used to argue for NASA fakery. Jim Oberg agrees with us on this, which is a rather odd situation for both parties to be in, but there we go.

On the other hand, Graham Birdsall argues that NASA, and more importantly JPL, still have some answering to do about this, and that they are set for a showdown with Oberg if they fail to produce a further statement on the matter:

“Although a staunch NASA supporter, James Oberg has also been highly critical of the space agency for its past failings. By flatly denying all knowledge of the Surveyor 3 fly-by footage, and with JPL officials refusing to comment, Oberg’s relationship with NASA could be sorely tested if they fail to provide him with definitive answers to specific issues raised by Apollo conspiracy theorists.”

Birdsall is throwing down the gauntlet to JPL here, which could produce results. But the reason why JPL aren’t talking to Percy and Bennett, we suspect, is not because JPL have anything to hide but because, well, it’s Percy and Bennett! JPL won’t want to give them any shred of credibility, by being seen to cooperate with conspiracy theorists who have such a poor general regard for the space agency. We suspect that JPL’s answer to Oberg will be just as unequivocal as NASA’s: ‘This is not our footage’.

Finally, we would like to say that James Oberg appears to be making real progress with his research and we are looking forward to the eventual release of his book. Going on the strength of this finding it should make for some very interesting reading indeed.

© Andy Lloyd, Dave Cosnette & Martin Cosnette - 28th March 2003

It's a model. It looks like a model. The gound looks like a model. It may be NASA footage...of a model! There's loads of mockup footage from NASA.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

This represents as close to a concession as I've ever seen from Cosmic Conspiracies. Those who remember "Cosmic" Dave will recall that his dodges and denials would probably make the former Iraqi information minister blush.

Now you may be censured for this: it's against board rules to post copyrighted material.

He [Dave Cosnette] has collated what he considers to be the best evidence available and presented it as a web-page on ‘Cosmic Conspiracies’ called “The ‘Faked’ Apollo Landings!”

We covered this page in depth. It's tripe from beginning to end, and Dave Cosnette makes an art form out of ignorance.

He [James Oberg] naturally prefers to describe himself as ‘Space Historian/Author’.

What he calls himself is largely irrelevant. He has a distinguished career in actual space operations and degrees and credentials in engineering. This is a far cry from any of the so-called researchers who have looked into the Apollo question.

The footage shows images of the Surveyor-3 spacecraft taken from the Apollo 12 lunar module as it descends towards the lunar surface.

Objection. The origin and intent of the clip are what we're trying to determine.

It is controversial because the motion of the camera used to make the film is not compatible with filming conditions astronauts would have experienced from within the lunar module.

Correct. That's why a reasonable researcher would reject it as actual flight footage. This is parsimony at its best.

... and comprises one part of a large corpus of evidence that suggests fakery.

It is more accurate to say that fakery is one possible explanation. Another possible explanation -- and one much more easily demonstrated -- is that the "corpus of evidence" is the product of misinformed conjecture and blatantly poor reasoning. A good example of this is video which is simply presumed to be genuine, noted to be anomalous, and then touted as evidence of fakery. If the presumption is relaxed, the problem simply disappears.

Back in March 2002 Dave Cosnette’s web-page had been checked over by Mary, who suggested a number of technical changes, which were duly made.

I can't imagine that she checked it over very carefully. The very first claim on the page was that Bill Kaysing, among other things, was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne. I asked "Cosmic" Dave where he got that claim, and he said he got it from Dark Moon. Here is the relevant passage of Dark Moon.

It does not substantiate, as Dave Cosnette claims, that Kaysing was "head of advanced research," which is altogether a different line of work than technical writing. Further, we have Bill Kaysing's official work record from Rocketdyne, and it does not list "head of technical publications". It lists him, among other things, as a technical writer and as a publications analyst. As there were only four technical writers at that Rocketdyne facility, it is quite possible that Kaysing was their leader. But the fact remains that Bennett and Percy have misrepresented Kaysing's work record, and that Dave Cosnette has misrepresented Bennett and Percy. This does not give us great confidence that Mary Bennett's review of the Cosmic Conspiracies page on Apollo was thorough.

Mary Bennett: “There is nothing in the program to suggest that this Apollo 12 landing footage is a simulation. ..."

Whether the clip is or isn't self-evidently a simulation is irrelevant. The sine qua non of the authors' proof is the source and original intent of the footage. It's preposterous simply to assume it's genuine, and then to base a proof upon that assumption. Those of us who have seen the clip

http://www.clavius.org/img/surv3.rm

immediately see reasons to believe it's not real. The angle is impossible, the terrain is wrong, and the quality is very good.

"The sequence is sandwiched between other shots of Apollo 12 landing film and therefore it is entirely reasonable for the viewer to conclude that it is 'original NASA film'."

"Entirely reasonable" is not proof. Remember, the authors' conclusion depends on this being represented by NASA as actual flight footage. Here the authors have drawn a conclusion which they defend as rational, but in their book and video they state it as if it were fact: "TV frames from the 'Apollo 12' LM which allegedly filmed Suveyor 3 during the LM's descent to the surface.'" (op. cit., p. 160 inset). Further, the itty-bitty photo credit for the still frames is "NASA".

That's simply not true, and it has no bearing on where the original documentary producers obtained their footage. Aulis' source for this footage was not NASA, it was a secondary documentary source. This, not "NASA" should have been the attribution. The authors did not bother to verify its origin beyond one secondary source. Yet they represented to their readers that NASA was the source, and then went on to build a case on that assumed fact.

The inability to separate conclusion from fact is inexcusable in a book leveling the kind of accusations we read in Dark Moon. And this is not merely a case of botched attribution. In this case the attribution itself is -- or would have been -- the smoking gun. The point stands or falls on where that clip came from and whether it was intended to be a simulation or actual flight footage.

"At the time of writing their book and making their video - it had not occurred to the authors that anyone - other than NASA -
would have supplied the material."

Anyone who uses secondary sources must deal with this. And Bennett and Percy use secondary sources almost exclusively. This is why conscientious researchers shy away from secondary sources. Secondary sources are, in many ways, a convenient shortcut to scholarship. But one's information is only as good as the skill of the author of that source. In order to rely on it, one must check the validity of the secondary source. This complicates reliable research, not facilitates it.

Just as Bennett and Percy failed to check "Una Ronald" to see if her story held up, they have failed to check their other secondary sources. This is becoming a litany of failure on the part of the Aulis authors.

Further, it's not sufficient to discover the origin. The intent of its producers must also be ascertained.

"Now, NASA records may well show this footage isn't theirs, but from the public’s point of view, they are looking at an apparently official 1987 documentary covering the Space Program and are being led to assume that this is all genuine footage."

Fact is not established as a matter of the "public's point of view." It remains that the authors made an assumption, treated it as fact, and hid the mechanism by which that assumption was made.

"Since, if this Surveyor 3 flyby material is a simulation, this fact is not pointed out as such: it is not made clear either on screen or on the soundtrack before, during or after this scene."

Television documentaries are not, nor should we assume they are, rigorously documented historical dissertations. Most of what we see on television is not intended to be a scholarly work. To that end documentary filmmakers make extensive use of archival footage which approximates the material they describe, reconstructions, and other modes of simulation. Anyone relying on such material for information -- especially documentary producer David Percy -- should know this.

Dark Moon, however, is intended to be a scholarly work. And in this work we find that the real source of the film clip has been hidden. Bennett and Percy give "NASA" as the source for this material, hiding completely the identity of the documentary which serves as the real source. Then they shift blame away from themselves onto a television documentary which has no such expectation of rigor. They go on to assume the footage is intended to depict actual flight photography, when in fact there is nothing to substantiate that. Yet upon this point their case rests.

Let's be clear: the fault belongs to Mary Bennett and David Percy, and not to anyone else.

“We had no reason to doubt that this particular footage was anything other than NASA material and therefore in the public domain. ..."

The legal right to quote this material is irrelevant. This is a typical Aulis dodging of the question. The question is what lengths had the authors gone to verify the origin and intent of that particular clip -- upon whose origin their argument rested. It doesn't matter if they verified the source of every minute of their secondary source. It's just a matter of scholarly common sense to verify the origin and intent of material from secondary sources when the origin and intent themselves are the key to the argument.

It is our opinion that this particular piece of footage seems to have slipped through Bennett and Percy’s net

I could fly a 747 through Bennett and Percy's net. Have we forgotten the claims that all the Apollo photos were of studio quality? Have we forgotten the claims that the EVA footage shows no low-gravity gymnastics? Let's face it -- the Aulis authors didn't check their sources, and they know it. Even worse, they represent to us that they have.

David Percy: "Note that this Surveyor 3 ‘fly-by’ scene would have been a very expensive exercise for just a few seconds of film. Specially recreating such a sequence would negate the criteria of keeping production costs as low as possible. ..."

First, simulations like this were created in dozens by television networks all around the world.

Second, Percy seems to assume that the secondary source documentary producer could be the only other source of the clip. What leads him to say that? Keeping production costs low would indeed suggest using stock footage whenever possible. And I agree that getting a lot of stock footage from NASA is the way to go. But what about stock footage from some third party source, like NBC-TV?

Third, NASA itself made simulations for educational purposes. It may, in fact, be a NASA clip. But it's not sufficient to show that NASA was the author of this clip. It must be shown that NASA made the clip and that NASA intended it to be accepted as actual flight footage.

From our point of view, however, we think that insufficient ground-work was carried out on the footage

That's an understatement. When Bennett and Percy's point stands upon nothing but the authenticity of this clip, it is fully and squarely their responsibility to prove its origin and intent. They cannot base their case on someone else's inability to prove it didn't come from NASA, nor upon recollections or assumptions made by others, or upon speculations of why it was made. Bennett and Percy must prove the film was intended by NASA to represent actual flight footage, or they have no case.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Jay, the link's not working.

Updated.

http://www.clavius.org/aulis030318.html

__________________
~AstroMike

Fixed; thanks.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

http://www.clavius.org/aulis030318.html

Oops, that's a page in progress. It accidentally got pushed to the server when I was trying to fix the video link. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Man behind the curtain?? Please enlighten me, Jay, as to what that means!

I assume you understand the Wizard of Oz reference. You're looking at a draft of a page which I had not intended to publish yet. So you're seeing the creative process at work including all the statements I might decide not to eventually say. It's like discovering that the Clavius webmaster is not the great and powerful Oz but rather some guy hacking out essays the same way everyone does.

If you know the URLs you can read many such pages. They're on the server so that I can run them by people fior comment. But they aren't linked to anything so you can't get to them without knowing the URL and typing it in.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's one of the reasons that technical papers are subject to peer review.

I was watching a history programme on the BBC a couple of weeks ago about both the Wright Brothers first powered flight and Apollo 11. During one part, I believe it was about the rendezvous and docking after ascent, they spliced in some footage from TD&E. I'm not sure, but I think the ascent footage used in The Dish was actually taken from Apollo 14, but I could be wrong about that. Mismatched film occurs all the time in these sorts of programmes. Does the phrase, "Grabbing at straws" mean anything to anyone.

I'm a voracious viewer of documentaries. I've helped, tangentially, make some, including Stephen Hawking's Fate of the Universe. I pay close attention to what looks real and what doesn't.

It's clear in this case that Bennett and Percy are doing "damage control". Mary Bennett's defense is just lame. She's trying to excuse not having done a very important piece of research, but in this case there just isn't any excuse. If your argument rests on a clip having been made by NASA and purporting to be actual flight footage, then it is absolutely essential to consider other possibilities. To simply assume that what you need to be true, is true, is to completely short-circuit the intellectual process.

Keep in mind that these are the authors who claimed their case was "irrefutable" and their evidence "incontrovertible." You can't legitimately make that claim if your research technique is, "We had no reason to think otherwise."

David Percy's defense is marginally more acceptable. At least he went back to the original producers and asked where they thought the clip came from. But that's still only half the question. To claim the clip came from NASA because it appeared in a documentary alongside other material which unquestionably came from NASA is still sloppy research, but a common enough mistake. But it's absolutely essential to the authors' case that the clip be substantiated as intended flight footage. If it's something that the PAO put together as a visual aid, that would completely defeat Aulis' case.

All of this rhetoric from Bennett and Percy is handwaving. They didn't do their research, they got caught, and now they're trying to convince us all that it's really okay; that they didn't do anything improper. I happen to disagree strongly.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The filming of the descent and landings was done using the 16mm DAC. It may be a nitpick, but is important to note that these people who claim to have reviewed the entire Apollo archive cannot tell the difference between television footage and sequence footage.

Yes, I noticed that too but I was going for the "big fish" on that argument. If you want to get nitpicky you can fill a warehouse with similar Aulis mistakes. There's way too many of those for anyone to believe that Bennett and Percy have been as thorough as they claim. Nearly all the mistakes we've published can be traced back to their not having done sufficient research. Or worse, having done the research and deciding simply to say something else.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base