New Very Laughable Topic

[jrkeller]

I just went to,

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

to read up on the third Van Allen Belt (another posting) adn I found this gem.

"Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth."

So now that people have shown that when a spacecraft is in low Earth orbit, the view of the through a spacecraft's window of Earth changes rapidly, but when one's on the way to the moon the view changes slowly, we've got a transparency on the window.

Boy things just get worse.

This site has got to be one of the worst yet.

[JayUtah]

That's Bennett's and Percy's revision of Bart Sibrel's original argument from the supposedly top secret footage. Sibrel uses that version now. They completely ignore the part where the border of the window intrudes upon the "transparency" supposedly taped to it. The site you reference is essentially just a redux of Bennett and Percy.

[johnwitts]

...and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window 1. Not only is this piece of 'evidence' wishful thinking, it can also be proved to be wrong, by anyones interpretation.

[JayUtah]

Some of the more idiotic arguments from that page:

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963...

Kaysing received his bachelor of arts degree in English in 1949. Seven years later he's magically at a senior V.P. level position in a major technology corporation.

1. In a major engineering corporation no one would simultaneously hold the positions of director of technical publications and director of advanced research.

2. No one can hold the position of director of advanced research in a large, major technology corporation without a Master's degree in a technical field. To head up advanced research in a company whose major product is rocket engines, an advanced degree in mechanical engineering would be a must.

3. No one rises to that position without having published significant original research in the applicable field. Kaysing has no such publications.

4. Persons who have directed advanced research can typically discuss technical subjects without making the glaring errors that Kaysing has made.

He [David Percy] has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done.

First, the downlinks are originally on videotape, not originally on film. Only the 16mm DAC footage was originally on film and has been transferred to videotape.

Second, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that Percy hasn't examined much, if any, of the vast high-quality video footage he claims to possess. The things he says are suspiciously absent from the footage are suspiciously easy for others to find.

On the still photo ... we see a flap of triangular fabric

The flap is most certainly visible in the video footage. Aulis is looking in the wrong place.

...it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that?

Anyone who's ever seen a command module knows why. In order to film through the hatch window up close you would have to scrunch in between the floor and the control panel. This is uncomfortable, especially in zero gravity. Your body doesn't stay scrunched the way it would if you hunker on earth. You have to use your muscles to hold the hunker.

Better instead to "stand" in the docking tunnel where you can stretch out naturally, and the hatch is in front of you, albeit four or five feet away.

...but from the view of Earth in the right hand window ...

They assume the blue glow is the earth as seen from orbit. The lighting doesn't work out -- what's illuminating the transparency then? Further, the "clouds" in the view of earth in the right window bear a striking resemblance in shape and motion to the sunlit portions of the astronaut's flight suit, which is obviously being reflected in the window.

The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine.

That was the temperature of the lunar surface in those circumstances. Since the film wasn't touching the lunar surface, those measurements are irrelevant.

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with.

Patently false. Percy shows us only the missing fiducials that look like they've been the victim of cut and paste. He "neglects" to show the hundreds of other missing fiducials which are obviously obliterated by optical factors.

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him? Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both.

Unfortunately the picture given as an example shows exactly the opposite scenario: the astronaut with the longest shadow is closest to the postulated light source. The picture given in evidence of the hypothesis clearly rejects it.

Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt).

It's difficult to know where to begin.

First, albedo has nothing to do with atmospheric conditions.

Second, the albedo of aged asphalt is 12-17%, not 7%.

Third, the albedo of the moon's surface is variously measured (different techniques, different places on the moon) as 12-30%.

Fourth, the albedo does not necessarily account for the peculiar effect of lunar surface material at phase angles of zero, a phenomenon which can even be observed from earth.

As you can see from the sequence here, although the viewing public were told at the time that the camera had burnt out, the lens is still working? the camera didn't actually burn out at all.

The center portion of the field of view in Apollo 12's camera was permanently damaged. The entire vidicon wasn't damaged, just the portion of it upon which the sun's image was focused. This comprised most of it, rendering it fairly useless for documentary television coverage. "Burned out" is a simplification which suffices for the public.

Hoax believers do this a lot. They point out that the simplified explanations aren't entirely accurate. But that's why they're simplifications.

Apollo 15 astronauts weren't told to point their camera at the sun, but rather to point it up-sun, which is an entirely different thing altogehter. The LRV's camera had a lens hood to prevent the sun from shining directly into the lens.

...the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject.

No. While the camera was fairly firmly mounted to the RCU, the RCU was not fairly firmly attached to the space suit. "Strapped to their chest" is a gross overstatement.

A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing.

The "gauntlets" weren't pressurized. The heavy-looking gloves with the silicone rubber tips were protective gloves that slid over the slim, black gloves with the knobby knuckles that facilitated movement.

I can change my Canon lenses in work gloves just fine.

The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to...

No such precaution was mandated. The film was meant to be changed wherever and whenever it was needed.

How do you explain why the 'Sun' having a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?

Optics. There is no such thing as a perfect lens.

As stated earlier, two light sources would combine together and the shadows would still fall in the same direction

The assembled panorama has a horizontal field of view of about 150°. Maybe this has something to do with why the shadows appear to converge.

Contrary to the author's assertions, light sources that combine will cast two shadows, not single divergent or convergent shadows.

Dr. David Groves who works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used.

No, Dr. Groves has produced computations which are carried out to an unbelievable asserted degree of precision. His angles are measured in ten-thousandths of a degree, which would be sufficient to locate the hotspot on the boot to about 0.002 inch. The spot itself is much larger than that.

In fact Groves' analysis is based on a number of questionable assumptions which he buries in the back of Percy's book.

he has calculated that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.

Groves' purported accuracy is pure fantasy. He says 30 cm +/- 6 cm. In fact, 6 cm is far too small an error for his assumptions. In fact the light source could coincide with the photographer, and the EVA video confirms that Armstrong was standing in full sun when he took these photos. The most reflective thing on the lunar surface is an astronaut's space suit, so that's obviously what's making the hot spot.

The print was pushed in development too, so it appears brighter in the photo than it would have in real life.

If Groves' hypothesis were true, this would set up a near-phase point light scenario. Every amateur photographer is familiar with that if he uses a flash attached to his camera. His subject will be "framed" on one side by a hard-edged shadow that would closely follow the subject's contours.

None of those effects can be seen in the photos.

Further, the fill light for these photos clearly comes from below, i.e., the lunar surface.

Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.

Jan Lundberg is a mechanical engineer. He cannot be presumed to be an expert on lighting. Percy and Bennett use Lundberg as an "expert" in a number of things which don't relate to his expertise.

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia ...

Uncritical analysis at its best. The hoax believers cannot produce the newspaper articles they say were written about this. Nor can they explain the discrepancy between the "wee hours of the morning" in their story, and the fact that the live moonwalk was at noon in Australia.

He worked at Goldstone as a Comms Engineer during the Apollo missions ...

... and has completely dismissed David Percy's work as having any merit.

Air inside the module was pressurized to 1/3 sea level atmosphere, so why no sound and vibration?

Because the air inside the spacecraft is irrelevant to the production of sound. The air outside (or lack thereof) is what produces the roar associated with a rocket engine (or lack thereof).

The "bang" heard by shuttle astronauts is the ignition transient of the RCS thrusters. Apollo rocket engines have those same transients at ignition, but they do not persist in steady-state operation.

Further, the LM astronauts had their helmets on, isolating the microphones from ambient cockpit noise. And those mikes are designed to filter out ambient noise anyway. You have to be right up close to them in order to record sound through them.

The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas

Only when fired in an atmosphere. The reddish cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with ambient air. No ambient air, no reaction. Further, even on earth you don't get a sustained red cloud. That's only at ignition when you preinject N2O4 in order to smoothe out the ignition. After the propellant mix reaches normal proportions there is no smoke and very little visible flame.

The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today.

No.

The 5000 Fahrenheit of heat produced from the 10,000 lb thrust engine should have produced at least some volcanic rock.

5,800 F in the center of the combustion chamber, 2,800 F at the exit plane, and perhaps 800 F at the impingement.

10,000 lbf at full thrust, 2,600 lbf at hover thrust.

If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that was boiled at only 1000 Celsius.

... continuously for years and years and years, compared to a few seconds from the engine plume of the lunar module.

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.

They didn't. David Percy can't tell the difference between a simulation done for the news reporters, and actual footage. What a brilliant photo analyst he is.

Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government?

The nadir of public excitement occurred at Apollo 15, not Apollo 12. So why wasn't Apollo 16 similarly sabotaged for public relations purposes?

If we look out of the window we see blue? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?

Scattering. What a concept.

the picture on the left shows the Odyssey after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.... ..do they look similar to you?

Not in the least. Those who actually know what they're looking at can tell which sector of the SM is involved. These pictures show diametrically opposite views of a service module.

In fact, if you look closely, you will see the light reflecting off the wires above the astronaut.

Funny how that reflection is exactly the same length and orientation as the VHF antenna, and doesn't point upwards as would have to be the case if it were taught and pulling the astronaut, nor catenary as would have to be the case if it were slack.

when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did Nasa only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly?

Perhaps because NASA knows more about radiation than the author or his mentors?

The doctors and dentists have to worry about occupational exposure, which is about 0.14% that of a lethal (LD 50/30). There is a very large difference between legal limits of exposure and biological factors of exposure.

Also, NASA knows the difference between particle radiation and EM radiation.

Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep.

The latter opinion, of course, having come from a vast amount of subsequent research in which Dr. Van Allen participated.

Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation.

Accepted by whom? And whatever happened to the six feet of lead we were told was required?

The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing...

Lead is the worst substance you can use to shield against the particle radiation discussed in this paragraph. By comparison the ISS uses polyethylene slabs two or three inches thick to protect from this same type of radiation.

Clearly this analysis was written by someone who has almost no clue about what kinds of radiation are in the Van Allen belts, how strong it is, what its effect on biological organisms is, and how best to shield against it.

The second piece of footage to the right was taken the next day...

Or so claims the narrator. The narrator is wrong. If the author had consulted the original downlinks, he would have seen his error. Unfortunately the hoax believers prefer to try to poke holes in secondary and tertiary sources rather than see if the primary sources support their contentions.

I would like to know how the TV signal from the Lunar Rover was relayed to Houston when the satellite dish it was sending the signal through was moving all over the place when the Rover was on the move?

The footage given as evidence is 16mm DAC footage, not downlink footage. There are only a few seconds of bona fide video footage of the rover in motion, and it's of poor quality as would be expected from a rover in motion.

It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface and what do we see... a flame... Therefore this piece of footage alone proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!

Tautological argumentation at its best:

no visible flame = hoax
visible flame = hoax

If these two observations are to be taken at face value, the only logical conclusion is that the presence or absence of a flame has no bearing on whether it was hoaxed; there is no discernible correlation.

It's difficult to tell whether we are seen a reflection or flame. In any case it would be quite within the behavior of an Aerozine engine of that size to flare for half a second during its ignition transient. If you see my web site

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

you can follow a link to a video from which I have extracted still frames that show the ignition of a Delta II second stage rocket -- almost identical in all respects to the LM ascent motor. You can see it ignite in a vacuum, sans red smoke. You can see it flare of a second and then settle into steady state.

In most LM liftoff footage the transient would be lost in the flurry of interstage materials.

It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow.

Most certainly it is due to the aperture being opened. It has all the hallmarks of a decrease in f-stop. Apparently the author believes a dark shadow should somehow have gotten lighter. That's not necessarily the case. One can open the lens by one or two stops without a dark shadow necessarily going from black to dark gray. Nevertheless Armstrong gets brighter, and the exterior bezel of the window gets lighter.

Clearly this person has no experience with photographic exposure.

[Andrew]

Jay, I think you should post that over at their webforum:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/bcosmicconspiracies

[JayUtah]

Just direct them here. I don't want to have to participate in Yet Another web forum.

[David Hall]

Oh joy. They also have a copy of that hammer and feather dropping video someone made up. You know, the one with the fake (rubber?) feather that supposedly shows how they could have faked it.

Personally, I thought it failed to prove their point anyway. The fake feather obviously skews sideways as it drops, showing the presence of atmospheric resistance.

[David Hall]

Ok, and some more. Down the page in the section called "The Hills are Alive" they show two photos with the same hills. Now they don't specify which missions the photos are from, but claim they are from two seperate missions. Without that info, I have to guess that either they are mistaken and the photos are actually from the same mission, or that the same hills (mountains actually) were visible from two different missions with only a little perspective distance. So which is right?

Then they go on to show that stupid Apollo 16 documentary gaffe where they mistakenly showed the same location but claimed it was on two different days. Just an editing goof there, but the HB's use it as if it were canon.

Oh, and hey! there's a section directly referring to us! I've gotta read part carefully. Back later.

[JayUtah]

Now they don't specify which missions the photos are from, but claim they are from two seperate missions.

They have provided no proof that the photos were taken on two separate missions. Therefore their conclusion is summarily rejected. Photo ID numbers would be proof.

[JayUtah]

Personally, I thought it failed to prove their point anyway.

Even if you take their demonstration at face value, showing that it's not impossible to fake the demonstration is not the same as showing that the demonstration was, in fact, faked.

That's like saying, "Your Honor, the witness could be lying." His Honor would expect you to show that the witness was lying, not merely suggest the possibility.

[David Hall]

Ok. I read the Bad Astronomy "debunking" section. Pretty sad.

1: The photos of stars.

Didn't we discuss these before? I don't remember what we finally decided, but I seem to recall that it was some kind of film contamination. Probably cosmic ray hits or something, because the spots have been demonstrated to also be in areas of film that were not exposed to light.

Besides, they got the challenge wrong also. Nobody claims that stars couldn't be imaged, just that with the settings on the film and the conditions involved, the stars were not bright enough to show up on film. Under certain circumstances, it's possible to get an image or two of the brightest stars and planets out there.

2: Video footage from a moving rover.

Jay covered this one quite well. The footage shown as proof was actually film footage that wasn't developed until after the mission returned to Earth. Besides, video camera is visible in the footage claimed to be by the video camera. Neat trick there.

3: Flames visible from the rocket.

Once again, Jay explained it well above. There was probably a slight flash as combustibles ignited as the engine started up. But it sure wasn't anything like what would be seen in an atmosphere.

Well, that's that.


Ok, one final section to go. 32 "unanswered" questions. How much do you want to bet that every single one of these questions can be answered without blinking. Especially by someone really knowledgeable like Jay.

[Peter B]

I emailed answers to most of the 32 points (or however many there are) about two months ago, and he hasn't seen fit to change anything. And yes, my answers are pretty much what Jay and others have said.

In fact, this was the site that prompted me to do the research into the supposed "West Australian" articles.

[David Hall]

I went through those questions, and all but one of them I've seen answered here before. Heck, #24-31 aren't even questions. They are just some of the standard claims made by hoax believers, some of them ridiculous and others downright insulting. If you want more questions to ask, move on down into the conclusion.

As for the one that stumped me, it stumped me more for the blatant nonsense it expresses than anything else. I also haven't ever heard of it before now (and small wonder). Here's the 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?

Where did this idiocy come from? No supporting evidence, no explanation. Just a wild claim thrown out without backing or logic. Why would anyone make a casing out of a substance that reacts poisonously in an oxygen atmosphere? And even if they did, why would they carry one on a mission with just that kind of environment? I can hardly even believe that anyone would try such a flimsy story.

This has got to go into the funniest hoax claims thread. I'm headed over there to post it now.

[johnwitts]

It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow.

Most certainly it is due to the aperture being opened. It has all the hallmarks of a decrease in f-stop. Apparently the author believes a dark shadow should somehow have gotten lighter. That's not necessarily the case. One can open the lens by one or two stops without a dark shadow necessarily going from black to dark gray. Nevertheless Armstrong gets brighter, and the exterior bezel of the window gets lighter.

Clearly this person has no experience with photographic exposure.

I'm assuming this is refering to the brightening of the film when Armstrong is going down the ladder. This is covered in the transcripts and the audio from the first EVA. From the Apollo 11 ALSJ...

109:23:25 McCandless: Buzz, this is Houston. F/2 (and)...

109:23:28 Armstrong: Okay, I'm at the...(Listens)

109:23:29 McCandless: ...1/160th second for shadow photography on the sequence camera.

109:23:35 Aldrin: Okay.

This coincides with the sudden brightening of the image.

Note: There is also evidence of radio delay, causeing Armstrong to stop what he is saying in the middle of his sentence. Of course, the delay effects would be reversed from the astronauts point of view, but we're hearing and reading the timings as heard from the ground.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-05-27 17:48 ]</font>

[AstroMike]

From http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html, he also ask these stupid questions:

If NASA was formed as a 'civilian space agency', why were so many NASA programs funded by the US Defence Department?

Why were all astronauts subjected to US military security regulations?

Why were all video and photographic evidence screened by the National Security Agency?

Why were all the radio communications screened by the National Security Agency?

After spending millions of taxpayers' dollars planning a 'Moon City', why has the Moon not been visited by NASA since 1973?

Why are some of NASA's top photographic technicians employed to 'airbrush out' anomalies caught on film?

Why are astronauts and other NASA employees threatened with long jail sentences if they 'speak out' about what was really discovered out there in space?

Do you realise that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?.

[JayUtah]

These are all just "complex questions". A complex question is any of the form, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You can't consider the question without accepting the embedded allegation. I don't accept the allegations without evidence, so the questions are meaningless to me.

[Andrew]

Do you realise that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?.

If this is true, how did the supposed photographic anomolies get through then? And why does that web page contentd that their are anomolies if they say this?

[JayUtah]

Well, Andrew, that's a very good point. The whole whistle-blower notion is based on two premises:

(1) that the alleged whistle-blows (hundreds of them) were too subtle to be noticed by NASA inspectors and/or the U.S. intelligence community; and

(2) that the whistle-blowers had to resort to this method of communication because directly blowing the whistle would have gotten them killed.

If you're willing to kill someone in order to keep your secret, that's evidence of a strong motivation to protect the secret in other ways too, including looking for sabotage. Now if even one whistle-blow had been discovered by NASA, this would tip them off that their hoax workers were not especially loyal. It would also motivate them to very carefully check all the work to date, and exercise much more care while inspecting future work.

Now Mary Bennett and David Percy tell us that a great number -- perhaps a majority -- of Apollo photos contain anomalies they say could have been left by whistle-blowers. This amounts to thousands of "anomalous" photos!

Yet we're supposed to believe that all of this supposed intense scrutiny -- hell-bent on murder if the secret got out -- missed not just one or two anomalies, but missed thousands of anomalies.

Anyone who believes this can contact me for a bridge I have for sale in New York.

[Peter B]

Interestingly, if you go to their Mars Anomalies site, you find this quote: "why does our generation find it so difficult to put a couple of probes into action around Mars, despite all the advantages of computers and 30 years of space technology advancement, when our predecessors successfully landed men on the Moon in a tin can?"

I wish they'd make up their minds.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-05-27 23:16, JayUtah wrote:
Yet we're supposed to believe that all of this supposed intense scrutiny -- hell-bent on murder if the secret got out -- missed not just one or two anomalies, but missed thousands of anomalies.

Or, that these same government agencies have allowed Sibrel and Kaysing to function, posing the greatest threat of all to the integrity of the Apollo "hoax" so far, without so much as even an malicious audit by the IRS. What's the good of sinister government spooks if you can't count on them to take out those getting too close to the "truth"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Seriously, how do the HB's explain NASA and the government's apparent lack of interest in silencing the HB's themselves?

[JayUtah]

According to my conversations with acquaintances of Bart Sibrel, he does in claim (in private) to have been kidnapped and drugged by the CIA. But since he doesn't make this claim publicly we're left with rebutting what amounts to hearsay. However, I corresponded briefly with Sibrel through an intermediary, and he confirmed that claim during the correspondence. But of course I can't prove that because Sibrel is not likely to grant me permission to publish his correspondence. Therefore I'm in the uncomfortable position of knowing myself, with some degree of assurance, that Sibrel claims to have suffered reprisals at the hands of the U.S. government, but being unable to prove it to anyone else's satisfaction.

In any case, I doubt Sibrel could substantiate his claim, so it makes no difference whether his claim is public or private.

As for Kaysing, I don't know whether he has ever claimed to suffer reprisals for his findings. I know of no claims of reprisals from Mary Bennett or David Percy.

Ralph Rene indirectly claims reprisals. On a radio appearance he blamed the U.S. government for his inability to acquire legitimate credentials in engineering or physics. He wasn't specific about what those impediments were.

Ironically Jack White claims that Clavius is a government attempt to smear his character. He has simply decided that our site is a government-funded attempt to silence him and salvage Apollo's reputation. His evidence, suggested by his friend Rich DellaRosa, is simply that Clavius is too "slick" to be a private site. That and the fact that his personal delusion is that anyone who opposes him must, ex hoc facto, therefore be a government disinformationist.

But the point remains. If the hoax believers are serious about their claims that such notable persons as astronauts and key officials have been murdered in order to keep them silent, then they must directly address the glaring discrepancy of their own continued state of non-death.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-05-28 01:16, JayUtah wrote:
Ralph Rene indirectly claims reprisals. On a radio appearance he blamed the U.S. government for his inability to acquire legitimate credentials in engineering or physics. He wasn't specific about what those impediments were.

Ironically Jack White claims that Clavius is a government attempt to smear his character. He has simply decided that our site is a government-funded attempt to silence him and salvage Apollo's reputation. His evidence, suggested by his friend Rich DellaRosa, is simply that Clavius is too "slick" to be a private site. That and the fact that his personal delusion is that anyone who opposes him must, ex hoc facto, therefore be a government disinformationist.

Of course, Rene's problems wouldn't have anything to do with his own inability to acquire legitimate qualifications in engineering and physics before asking for credentials, right?

Yeah, "slickness" is often a telltale attribute used to identify government websites.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[cosmicdave]

Hi guys,
Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window... qoute: 'and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window'. I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory??? Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency? or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth. Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello, after you posted this link on my message board.

Keep up the backslapping lads in your jolly little group!

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

Ta Ta For Now,
Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk

[Andrew]

"Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

And yet, you were encouraging debate on this very topic as late as the 14th of April this year:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/fcosmiccons...opicID=1.topic

"Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window "

It's light scattering off of the window.

[Andrew]

"Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?"

Various hoax proponents allege that the fact that there is no flame visible under the LM during ascent from the lunar surface is suspicious and suggests a hoax.

It is pointed out that the fact that their is no flame visible under the LM is not suspicious because the propellants used create little or no visible flame in a vacuum.

Hoax proponent then thinks by showing evidence of a flame proves debunkers wrong there-by proving the whole thing was a hoax?

Er, okay.

Anyway, it looks to me like sparks from the pyrotechnic bolts blowing and debris being blown around by the ascent engine, not a flame from the engine. WHere about in the video is the flame supposed to be visible?

[pvtpylot]

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

Airbrush??? A forty billion dollar conspiracy and NASA can't even spring for a copy of Photoshop?

[jrkeller]

CosmicDave,

I just joined this BB about two months ago, so I have no idea of who you are.

BTW, what is your background? Are you an engineer, physicists, geologist, journalist or something else?

I do have a suggestion for you. Instead of using some unnamed air brusher, why don't you use Dick Underwood? If you don't know who he is, then you have no business evaluating any NASA photographs.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-05-28 11:17, jrkeller wrote:
CosmicDave,

I just joined this BB about two months ago, so I have no idea of who you are.

Pretty sure that was David Percy. Seemed the style; ignore or fail to comprehend 99% of what's been written in this thread, drop a hint about a major revelation to come, etc.

[infocusinc]

I was doing some thinking (thats a scary thought!) about the blue tint of the LM windows and remembered an image that shows the blur tint of the window while the LM is on the moon. The image is AS12-46-6726. The window has the surface of the moon reflected in it and it is a very blue tint. The best image to view this is at GRIN. I think there is just a blue tint to the window. Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

Craig

[Andrew]

How about this image? Taken en route to the moon during the LM inspection.

AS11-36-5389
ALSJ caption reads:This photo, taken during the initial LM inspection, on the day before lunar orbit insertion, shows the 16-mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) mounted in the LMP's window."

See the "blue sky"? You should epect to see this effect in any photo where the focal point is within the spacecraft's interior and there's a window in the background.
I think the consensus is that the windows scatter blue light much like our nitrogen atmosphere.

Also AS11-36-5390 is famous picture of Buzz Aldrin and is the next frame of the same magazine. There is the LMP's window in the background of that one too.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-05-28 13:25 ]</font>