I noticed the following on the Aulis Message Centre, in response to a question about the Coke Bottle incident...

= = = =

Doug, thank you for this information. If this effect was, as you state, inherent in the recording of the scene, it would also have been on the footage at any further showing in Western Australia. Una Ronald (in your opinion mistaking it for a Coke bottle) would have seen it again. However, according to her statement, the rolling Coke bottle that she saw was remarkable by its ABSENCE on the second time of showing this Apollo 11 footage. As for the possibility of her making a mistake – her words: "In complete contrast to the fuzz it was as sharp as anything. Everyone knows the distinctive shape of a Coke bottle – the design was COMPLETELY clear." There is absolutely nothing on the footage you refer to that puts in doubt Una Ronald's statement as to what she saw – however briefly.
Concerning the question of the transmission time: according to Parkes Observatory, since no satellite nor broadband link was set up from Sydney, the population of Western Australia had to wait until the Apollo 11 'live' lunar landing material was physically transported to their region. Please see Dark Moon page 320.
Aulis

= = = =

That last piece about the transmission is incorrect. While Perth had no landline connection to the rest of Australia in 1969, Perth people got to see the landing live. They instead took a feed directly from one of NASA's tracking stations in Western Australia. I verified this by reading the "West Australian" newspaper, available on microfilm at the National Library here in Canberra.

This is utterly preposterous.

Mike Dinn (who worked at Honeysuckle Creek) has given a detailed description of the television connection. Dark Moon's description is not accurate.

The time of Una Ronald's alleged sighting is still suspicious. If she watched a live broadcast, it would have been during the day in Australia. If she had watched a tape-delayed broadcast, such a momentous program would not have been presented at an inconveniently late hour, but rather during prime time to attract the most viewers. Ms. Ronald's claim to have "stayed up" to see it is still suspicious. It smacks of having been fabricated by someone not in Australia and unaware of the time difference.

Typically the strength of a whistle-blower's testimony derives from the authority with which he or she speaks. Anonymous whistle-blowers who cannot be questioned or whose authority is thus ambiguous have no evidentiary value. The inconsistencies in the story further erode its value.

The number of Aulis readers who strongly indicate the catadioptric in the mobility test as Una Ronald's "Coke bottle" require Ms. Ronald to specifically repudiate that this is not the "bottle" she observed. I do not trust Bennett and Percy to make that determination themselves.

Further, the claims to corroboration in The Western Australian are repudiated by people who have done the research. Bennett and Percy can produce no copy of The Western Australian that substantiates their claim.

Given the singular and inconsistent nature of Ms. Ronald's claim, and the secrecy of her identity and inaccessibility for questioning, we are quite justified in rejecting the "Una Ronald" story. It remains an implausible and unsubstantiated claim.

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

I still think the most telling evidence that the Una Ronald story was fabricated is her assertion (or alleged assertion) that the design of the Coke bottle was completely clear. In the A 11 video the quality is so poor that it is hard to imagine something as small as a Coke bottle being recognizable as it was being kicked across the lunar surface.
I think "Una Ronald" is actually David Percy's mom who lived in Marlborough, England at the time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Another thing that makes me chuckle is that they make statements like this:

"Our authors do NOT claim that we haven't been to the Moon. It is aspects of the Apollo record that are being questioned."

As well as statements like this:

"...the severe dangers of space radiation, graphically detailing the numerous potential hazards to be overcome during manned exploration of deep space."

This is getting close to the logic of our friend Cosmic Dave: we accept they went to the Moon, but the radiation makes it very dangerous to go to the Moon.

Probably. I think this is their utterly silly theory that unnamed astronauts volunteered for suicide missions around the Moon.

__________________
~AstroMike

(looks at AstroMike)

(blinks)

(in the distance, a cricket chirps)

Oh obviously!

This is getting close to the logic of our friend Cosmic Dave: we accept they went to the Moon, but the radiation makes it very dangerous to go to the Moon.

But that's their theory. The "named" astronauts are merely the celebrities. Other "surrogate" astronauts actually made the trips, and either died on the way back or shortly after their return. So when we ask Aulis why anyone should volunteer for an anonymous, pointless suicide mission, they say, "Buy our book and video: the answers are in there."

(Well, no, these are questions that arose after the book and video.)

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

Is there an source we can quote which would be accepted as proof that the Apollo 11 EVA was shown live on TV in Western Australia (E.g.: paper, date, page)?

Oh this just gets better and better. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

So, following through their argument to its logical conclusion, if astronauts actually went to the Moon, what's to stop those hypothetical suicide astronauts from taking photos or NASA from using them?

Or is the radiation going to render those photos useless?

But then, NASA could say so, and the USSR would be able to back them up on this...

But wait! What about the Surveyor, Ranger and Lunar Orbiter photos? Or are they faked too?

(scratches head)

Okay, I think I've got it.

(drum roll)

1. NASA sends Ranger spacecraft to the Moon. Their photos are affected by radiation.

2. NASA fakes sending Surveyor spacecraft to the Moon, and fakes their photos.

3. NASA realises that sending astronauts to the Moon would be a suicide mission, and also that the surface of the Moon may be very different from their fake Surveyor photos. So they decide to use the same sorts of sets to fake the Apollo photos.

4. NASA launches the anonymous suicide astronauts on their missions, and meanwhile films the fakes on the Area 51 set (or wherever Aulis places the fakery).

5. Someone in the photography department learns about the fakery, and inserts things like the missing fiducials in the photos, deciding this is a better way of bringing the fakery to the world's attention than talking to Woodward and Bernstein.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

The paper was the "West Australian".

The issue was discussed in the paper on a daily basis leading up to the launch of Apollo 11, for at least a week.

It was a front page issue, as I remember.

When I get the time, I'll go back and check.

Incidentally, I've submitted this to Aulis to put on their message board. Let's see whether it appears.

Quote: 5. Someone in the photography department learns about the fakery, and inserts things like the missing fiducials in the photos, deciding this is a better way of bringing the fakery to the world's attention than talking to Woodward and Bernstein.

...and kicks a Coke bottle across the sound stage. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Quote added.]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2003-03-13 01:53 ]</font>

I'm considering another query for Aulis. Would someone please check my figures for accuracy? Comments appreciated. Wouldn't like my arguments to be of the same quality as Aulis's. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

On page 361 of "Dark Moon" it says:
"July 20 'Apollo 11' touched down on the Moon. The Moon's position at 24hrs GMT was 25 degrees Virgo and 9.28 degrees SW of Spica — just below the equator and 10 degrees below the ecliptic."

Checking these three figures in SkyMap Pro version 7, set for 0:00:00hrs GMT on 21 July 1969, I found the following:

"25 degrees Virgo." The Moon's position is always stated in right ascension (hrs:min:sec) and declination (deg:min:sec). However, by measuring from where the ecliptic crosses the border between Leo and Virgo, I found that the Moon was approximately 16.25 degrees "into Virgo" -- less than two-thirds the distance stated.

"9.28 degrees SW of Spica." I make it 14 degrees WEST of Spica -- 50% further away. It was around 9.28 degrees from Spica seven hours later.

"10 degrees below the ecliptic." According to various reference books this is impossible because the Moon never strays more than 5.2 degrees from the ecliptic (5 degrees 8 minutes 43.4 seconds, "Hamlyn Atlas of the Moon", Antonin Rukl, p.19). If it were 10 degrees from the ecliptic it would be in Corvus, not Virgo. Instead, it was a mere 2.5 degrees from the ecliptic -- quarter as far as stated.

How could these figures vary so much?

I submitted a question point blank:

"Can you provide copies of The Western Australian which contain the letters/article that substantiate your claim that others saw 'Una Ronald's' Coke bottle? If so, why is there no citation in Dark Moon? If not, what is your basis for the claim?"

That was yesterday. I don't expect an answer, or to have my question published. There is considerable "bad blood" between me and Aulis over the definitive debunking of the "jump-salute" argument on their own public forum.

The Una Ronald story is simple not credible by any reasonable definition of the word. I'm sure Aulis' response will be, "So maybe the Una Ronald story is not very convincing. There is still other evidence." That's not the point. The point is that Aulis authors apparently deliberately misrepresented the evidence and are trying to conceal that fact.

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

<a name="JD2452711.CMC"> page JD2452711.CMC aka CHECKING MY CLOCK
On 2003-03-13 01:51, Kiwi wrote: To? 11:14 P.M.


On page 361 of "Dark Moon" it says:
"July 20 'Apollo 11' touched down on the Moon. The Moon's position at 24hrs GMT was 25 degrees Virgo and 9.28 degrees SW of Spica just below the equator and 10 degrees below the ecliptic."



"25 degrees Virgo." The Moon's position is always stated in right ascension (hrs:min:sec) and declination (deg:min:sec). However, by measuring from where the ecliptic crosses the border between Leo and Virgo, I found that the Moon was approximately 16.25 degrees "into Virgo"

"9.28 degrees SW of Spica." I make it 14 degrees WEST of Spica

"10 degrees below the ecliptic." According to various reference books this is impossible because the Moon never strays more than 5.2 degrees from the ecliptic (5 degrees 8 minutes 43.4 seconds, "Hamlyn Atlas of the Moon", Antonin Rukl, p.19). If it were 10 degrees from the ecliptic it would be in Corvus, not Virgo. Instead, it was a mere 2.5
11:16 P.M. HUb' i'll attempt to send some RED shift numbers
in a reply to this reply {later from the 486 /RED SHIFT}
and around midnight i'll ask this 386 the same ?

<a name="JD2452711.12h"> page JD2452711.12h aka Spica ? 12hr RA
On 2003-03-13 01:51, Kiwi wrote: To Many Probems


On page 361 of "Dark Moon" it says:
"July 20 'Apollo 11' touched down on the Moon. The Moon's position at 24hrs GMT was 25 degrees Virgo and 9.28 degrees SW of Spica just below the equator and 10 degrees below the ecliptic."
3-3-12 12:33 A.M. ok i look up on this 386/20
and found Jupiter & Uranius "BOTH" near 12 hr R.A.
when Apollo 11 landed at 4:17PM EST. the Moon at the time was moving
away from the J:U Conjunction {Pluto was there also}
twards the Star Spica {nearer 13hr RA}
Kw "9.28 degrees SW of Spica."
So someWhen between 12hrRA {Jupiter:Uranius} and 13hrRA Spica
Kw "10 degrees below the ecliptic."
Jupiter & Uranius were above the eclipitic
& Pluto was way WAY above it {close to 12hrRA}
and the moon was below? Just How "BELOW" I dont know!
but below for sure.. Now back to the Question?/ What was the Question? again? Kw?

these are the "RED SHIFT" numbers from
the 486
for Portland Or where the North flowing
Williamette enters the West flowing
Columbia.. & they together go North
for a while befor turning West once again
1:17PM P = 9:17 Universal ?
for July 20 1969 MOON
12h30m45s
dec -05_19'51"
Azm 122_08'56"
Alt 21_01'52"
distance 386,940.4 Km
age (5) 1st 1/4
Illuminated 34%
Rising 10:58
Setting 22:32
transit 16:51
------------------for som location EST?
Jfd2440423.3868 4:17PMEDT 7/20/69
Spica 13h23m35s Moon 12h28m59s
=====================================
12h RA there was about due South at the time

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2003-03-13 09:48 ]</font>

I submitted a question point blank:

Wonder of wonders, my question was published. But the answer is pure Aulis:

Why doesn't a citation to the evidence appear in Dark Moon? "The answer is in Dark Moon."

Um ... right.

So, Peter: I know you've done a lot of legwork on this in the library. Would you be willing to post to the Aulis forum and tell them that you've looked all over the Western Australian for the letters and/or articles they claim corroborate "Una Ronald's" story, and have found none?

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

I had to see this for myself. Aulis's desire to plug their stuff at every opportunity is astonishing.

I also found there rebuttle to The Sky at Night.
They acknowledge that the C wasn't on the rock in the originals, but say it was added later by whistle-blowers.
"Hmmm. Let's see. How can we blow the whistle on this hoax subtly. I know. Let's draw a C on one of the copies of a photo along with some other letters."
I have another theory. The C doesn't stand for conspiracy, it stands for David Percy's a c.... rappy conspiracy theorist.

They acknowledge that the C wasn't on the rock in the originals, but say it was added later by whistle-blowers.

But when and by whom? The C doesn't show up on either of the available duplication masters, nor any scans made of them. It has been conclusively traced to a single print at LPI. No matter how many times the scan of this print is duplicated across the Internet, there is still no authoritative source that places it close to the original transparencies, or even any dupe masters made of them. This commonly circulated JPEG is not the "official" version of the photograph.

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

The answer is in their book and video. Order now from Aulis.com.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Quite happy.

On a related issue, they posted my question, and even posted a response:

= = = =

My question

Their response:

Carnarvon.

But I'll check the details over the weekend.

It seems that Bennett and Percy have no problem making claims about a newspaper they've apparently never read.

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

I was having a bit of a think about the following statement from Aulis's Message Board:

Can someone who knows something about video answer these questions for me, please?

If the main image is fuzzy, and an object appears in the field of view which is "COMPLETELY clear", is it likely that the object is part of what is being filmed? Or is it likely to be an effect of some sort? (Yes, I know it's covered well on Clavius, but let's discuss this in the context of Aulis's comment.)

If it's an effect of some sort, would it be reasonable to assume that people who present themselves as photographic experts should understand this possibility?

And lastly, is the fact that our mysterious Ms Una Ronald saw the effect "briefly" good enough reason to call into doubt the accuracy of what she saw?

Let me get this straight. Everything in the pictures sent from the Moon was fuzzy, blurry, and grainy except one rolling Coke bottle. Next they're going to claim that it was so clear that you could read the red and white label! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Right. Just spent an hour at the National Library, reading the "West Australian" of July 1969. (Part of the fun of this kind of research is learning about the social history of the time - new cars sold for about $1100, TVs for $165, some letters to the editor opposed the introduction of random breath testing.)

Anyway, the evidence for residents of Perth receiving the broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing and EVA live are clear.

21 July 1969, page 1: An article said that the launch of a communications satellite had been put back three days. This allowed technicians at the Carnarvon tracking station (NW West Australia) to concentrate on Apollo 11, and providing a live broadcast to residents of Perth, rather than on that satellite.

22 July 1969, page 6: An editorial congratulated the employees of OTC (Overseas Telecommunications Corporation) for their ingenuity which allowed the landing and first steps on the Moon to be broadcast live.

22 July 1969, page 7: An article explained the process by which Perth residents got to see the events live.

25 July 1969, page 6: A letter to the editor from the parent of school children thanked the children's teachers for allowing them to watch the events live on TV at school. The letter also criticised the WA State Education Minister for not giving children the day off school.

Incidentally, an article from around this time said that the Jodrell Bank radio telescope in Britain was tracking the Soviet's Luna 15 spacecraft in orbit around the Moon.

If the Brits could track the Russkies, I think it's reasonable to assume the Russkies could track the Yanks.

No, the clear object isn't shot at the same time as the fuzzy background. At that time it could only be a composite of a foreground object (in this case, the alleged Coke bottle) shot against a background of the fuzzy footage -- either by means of rear projection or chroma or luminescence key downstream of the camera's foreground shot. IF there was an "Una" and IF she saw what "she" purports to have seen, it most likely wouldn't have been live.

I think it's reasonable to assume the Russkies could track the Yanks.

Especially since the Yanks were gracious enough to publish the radio frequencies in the press kits.

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

Well done, Peter B.

A Brit come up with an idea and an Australian comes along a beats him at his own game. So what's new?

HUb' -- and anyone else who can help regarding my post of 2003-03-13 01:51 -- I would like some peer review of just the three sets of figures quoted:

At 0:00:00hrs GMT on 21 July 1969

1. "Moon's position… 25 degrees Virgo" Vs approximately 16.25 degrees "into Virgo"

2. "and 9.28 degrees SW of Spica" Vs 14 degrees WEST of Spica

3. "10 degrees below the ecliptic." Vs never strays more than 5.2 degrees from the ecliptic… If it were 10 degrees from the ecliptic it would be in Corvus, not Virgo. Instead, it was a mere 2.5 degrees from the ecliptic…

[Fixed typo.]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2003-03-16 04:12 ]</font>