New Very Laughable Topic

[JayUtah]

Elimination of flammable materials. I assume that "leatherette" is a man-made material that feels like leather, but isn't. Such a material could very well be flammable.

Good point. Typically someone who pays that amount of money for a camera (they're selling used for about $1,300 on E-bay) could demand real leather. But if the material supplied by Hasselblad were polyurethane or any similar substance, it would most certainly be removed from the camera for reasons of combustion, not so much for its potential role as fuel, but because of the toxic fumes those substances give off.

The post Apollo 1 materials audit concentrated just as heavily on the toxicity of combustion products as on the propensity of materials to ignite or fuel a fire.

[SpacedOut]

On 2002-06-02 11:02, Donnie B. wrote:
Aside from the possibilities already mentioned, I can think of two possible reasons that the Apollo version of the Hasselblad camera had no leatherette cover. One of them even matches up with cosmicdave's claim, though in a rather distorted way.

1) Weight savings. Apollo designers shaved every ounce of unnecessary weight. Why include a camera part that was nonfunctional in its intended use?

Another good point – many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight. I don’t know if this process was used on the CM or SM but I would not be surprised if it was.

[spelling [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-02 12:31 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

If I remember correctly did'nt they take a gold Hasselblad to the moon on Apollo 11?

No, you're probably thinking of the Gold camera, named after astronomer Tommy Gold. Its official name was the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC) This is the camera used to take extreme stereo close-ups of the lunar surface. It's the thing that looks like a very large walkie-talkie in some of the Apollo 11 photos, and the object sometimes used by David Percy to show allegedly occluded reseau fiducials.

The Apollo 11 crew took the Gold camera, a lunar surface (silver) Hasselblad, a black Hasselblad which stayed in the LM cabin and with which Roll 37 was shot, the 16mm DAC, and the custom television camera.

[JayUtah]

many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight.

And other materials too. Chem-milling was extensively used on the LM, and less so on the CSM, but North American had it in their toolbox.

Very often the exact shape of a part depends on the limitations of the process likely used to produce it. In consumer mass production you can use die casting and other such processes to produce metal parts quickly and cheaply. These processes are typically not appropriate for aerospace because they introduce stress microfractures that weak the part and provide paths for tearing, corrosion, and exfoliation. Thus mechanical machining from a billet of precise composition and treatment is one of the preferred means for producing parts for critical applications. This limits the designer to the geometries than can be produced by this process.

The mechanical designer is usually aware of the precise load paths that exist in any part he is designing, but he cannot design the optimal part because there would often be no way to manufacture it given the required milling process. Therefore the part ends up being more massive than required because the designer has to leave extra material around the load paths to compensate for the inability to remove it without intruding upon the load path.

Chem-milling provides a method for removing excess material non-mechanically. It cannot be used where precise surface finishes are required (e.g., bearings, bushings, slide paths), but because it can be precisely applied and precisely controlled, it can suffice to remove material from elsewhere on the part.

Advanced manufacturing techniques are the hallmark of aerospace, and got a big boost during Apollo. About ten years ago I used a wire EDM machine to cut the passage in a feedhorn that proved to be about 15% more efficient than the one it replaced.

Imagine a solid billet of aluminum. Draw a square on one face and a circle on the opposite face. Now cut a hole through the billet which blends smoothly between the square and the circle. The normal way to manufacture one of these is to make it two halves where normal milling equipment can cut matching channels in two billets, and then the parts are fastened together to form the whole (and the hole). Unfortunately the least error disrupts the flow and diminishes the efficiency of the feedhorn. And over time the parts slip and fall out of tolerance.

A wire EDM is a device which uses a very thin wire and huge amounts of electricity to burn away the metal surrounding the wire. Or as I explained it to mechanical engineering students: it's a cheese-cutter for metal. You drill a hole through your billet with a regular tool, then you thread the EDM wire through it and connect it to the take-up spool. Then you connect the electrode to the billet, start the spools up and turn on the current, and the arms holding the spools move according to program you have loaded. The material a couple thousandths of an inch around the wire is vaporized. It's really cool.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-02 13:25 ]</font>

[cosmicdave]

JayUtah,
There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

'My point is simply that I don't believe it's the fabled "Area 51" because I don't believe any such place ever existed in the context described by UFO and Apollo conspiricists.'

or


'Area 51 is a designation that was invented by UFO believers. No Air Force facility was ever known by that name. Try some supporting evidence, cosmicdave. It works better. Give me a Lat./Lon. location for these photos and I'll look them up on '.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence. What other evidence other than photos or map references could I tell you about?

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?


Heres some more info for you:

On 17 April 2000 Aerial Images posted on its Web site 2-meter imagery of Area 51 acquired by Russia's Space Information KVR-1000 satellite system. The Area 51 images were acquired as part of the company's deal with Sovinformsputnik, a commercial arm of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency.

FAS (Federation of American Scientists)ordered an IKONOS 1-meter resolution image of Area-51 in mid-February 2000. As of early April 2000 SpaceImaging stated that the request remained "in collection" and had offered a variety of explanations as to why it has taken over two months not to collect imagery. On 18 April 2000, SpaceImaging released the requested image, which had been acquired on 02 April 2000.

This article also appeared in The New York Times on April 18th, 2ooo.

Satellite Images of Area 51 Are Being Put on the Web
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALEIGH, N.C. -- The first detailed satellite images of Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base in Nevada, known to U.F.O. buffs as Area 51, were released on the Web yesterday by Aerial Images Inc. of Raleigh, N.C.

The company's president, John Hoffman, said the photographs, at http://www.terraserver.com, revealed runways and buildings "but there aren't any little green men or super-secret aircraft to be seen."

Aerial Images Inc. -- in collaboration with Microsoft, Kodak, Digital Equipment Corp., Autometric Inc. and the Russian agency Sovinformsputnik -- posted five images of the location on Monday.

The partners launched a Russian satellite from Kazakstan in 1998 to map Earth's surface. An open-skies agreement signed in 1992 by 24 nations, including the United States and Russia, made the effort possible.

"The site is being hammered," said Mr. Hoffman. "This is the first glimpse into the most secret training and testing facility for the Air Force."

The Air Force only recently acknowledged that Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base even exists. The 8,000-square-mile base is 75 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in the arid, rugged Nellis Range.

Beginning with the U-2 spy plane in the 1950s, the base has been the testing ground for a host of top-secret aircraft, including the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117A stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber.

The base's airspace is restricted; aircraft aren't allowed to fly over it. But satellite overflights are allowed as part of an agreement to verify arms-control compliance.

Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps. They believe unidentified flying objects are hidden at the base, where their parts are copied for U.S. prototypes.

The images, with resolution good enough to distinguish a car from a truck, are better than earlier telephoto shots from nearby mountains. The only other known image purportedly was shot by a satellite in the 1960s.

Several government agencies are aware of the images and haven't responded, said Hoffman, 52. "I've had no feedback from anybody that indicates anybody gives a hoot," he said.

"We acknowledge having an operating site there, and the work is classified," Air Force spokeswoman Gloria Cales said. The work involves "operations critical to the U.S. military and the country's security."

From Aerial Images surfers can click on the Area 51 pages. Viewing the images is free; downloading them costs $8.95 and up. Kodak will print photographs for $20 to $30.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground. There are hundreds of buildings, living quarters, tennis courts, a baseball field, a track and a swimming pool.

There are no paved roads and no parking lots; buses are the only visible vehicles, raising the question of how employees get to and from work. Unpaved roads disappear into cliffsides, suggesting a possible underground network.

Even Chris Carter, creator of "The X-Files," apparently was skeptical when Hoffman told him of the site. Some of the show's favorite themes are UFOs and secret government activities.

"He clearly didn't believe me," Hoffman said. "From his tone, you could tell he didn't believe me that we had Area 51 and we had the whole area covered."

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

[cosmicdave]

Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

[Tomblvd]

Dave, since you seem to have ample time to discuss the ins and outs of the Groom Lake Test Facility, could you also start defending some of the fallacious statements you made about the Apollo missions on your web site?

You seem very adept at changing the subject, but I'm going to keep reminding you. You have made some serious accusations, some of which have been thoroughly rebutted here, and it is incumbent upon you to either defend them or remove them from your website.

[pvtpylot]

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

Not even close. I repeat my point that "Area 51" is a term invented by UFO conspricists that pop culture has since associated with an actual location. No Air Force post ever carried any such designation. I would also point out that over the last several decades UFO consiricists have claimed that several sites were the mythical "Area 51". Groom Lake is simply the "Area 51" en vogue until enough evidence forces them to find another site to host their conspiracy theories.

In any case, we're losing focus. What happened to your evidence that portions of the Apollo 11 landing were filmed in the Nevada desert?

[JayUtah]

There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

If you actually read his comments, he's saying that what's there is not necessarily what you say is there. That is, the photos taken on the ground from some distance away, and the photos allegedly of the facility taken from orbit, do not show anything like UFOs or storage facilities that must be for UFOs, or any indication that anything having to do with UFOs or the falsification of moon landings has occurred or continues to occur.

There is an incredible amount of mythology that has been built up around the Groom Lake site, and this provides conspiracy theorists with a myriad of "facts" which they use to support their theories.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence.

I will stipulate that the map references are of the Groom Lake facility, but that does not prove that your photo is of that map reference, nor that the identification of features in the photographs are necessarily correct.

And none of this demonstrates that the site is anything other than a flight test facility for earth aircraft.

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?

You aren't paying attention. The signs prove nothing except the disallowance of entry. I can photograph any number of identical signs at many locations in Nevada and in my state. For example, there is also the White Sands Missile Range Utah Launch Site. (Yes, Utah has space-launch capability.) There is an unlimited-ceiling no-fly zone around it, and similarly ominous signs at its perimeter.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground.

Do you know what a bombing range looks like from orbit?

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

If I read his remarks correctly, he agrees that some facility exists there. He is quibbling with your characterization of that facility.

For my part, I will stipulate that a facility exists at Groom Lake, and that the most likely purpose for such a facility is flight test. I will also stipulate that satellite photos allegedly of this site may possibly be of that site. But I will draw my own conclusions about what is apparent in those photographs.

Now you claimed that you have evidence that aerial and/or orbital photographs allegedly of this site (accepted for the sake of argument to be of some area of earth) "exactly matched" photographs of an Apollo landing site, by which I understand that a very high percentage of visible features can be spatially correlated in the photos. The time is fast drawing nigh where you must either produce these photos and their supporting documentation or concede that you cannot.

[JayUtah]

Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

False. But by mentioning it in their screenplay, they lost the cooperation of the U.S. military in the making of their film. My source for this is none other than a personal conversation with Dean Devlin, who stayed at the (then) Red Lion hotel in Salt Lake City, less than two miles from my house, during the filming of Independence Day. I was very nearly an extra in that film.

By the way, the location used for Area 51 in the film is the old Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, about an hour's flight in a Cessna from Salt Lake International. It's quite a pleasure to land on those luxurious runways originally built for B-29s. I've been there several times. It now serves as the community airport for the town of Wendover, and is also very near the Bonneville salt flats, across which Will Smith dragged the downed alien.

The U.S. government does not attempt control what can or cannot be said in the media about "Area 51" or the Groom Lake facility. But at the time, if you made reference to the facility, the U.S. military would not provide its assistance to your endeavor.

[JayUtah]

Groom Lake is simply the "Area 51" en vogue until enough evidence forces them to find another site to host their conspiracy theories.

The aforementioned WS Utah launch facility is thought to have taken over some of Groom Lake's flight test duties, and I have already heard from some UFO enthusiasts that the little green carcasses and their spaceship "have already been moved" to Utah.

Ironically you cannot get satellite photos of the Utah site, even from the Russians.

In any case, we're losing focus.

I agree. Let's stipulate that by "Area 51" Dave means the Groom Lake site or its environs. I have several different photos purporting to be taken of the Groom Lake site from orbit, and they purport to be taken of the same map coordinates, and they agree visually. In any case it is safe to say that they were likely taken of the same spot on earth, whatever and wherever it is. Therefore if Dave can manage to show feature coherence between these and allegedly lunar photographs, we can consider it at face value.

If you think about it, whether the terrestrial photos are of Groom Lake, the Sahara, or my back yard is largely irrelevant. So long as they can be authenticated as photos of actual terrestrial landscape.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 14:22, JayUtah wrote:
I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

If I read his remarks correctly, he agrees that some facility exists there. He is quibbling with your characterization of that facility.

As usual, you read correctly, sir.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 14:31, JayUtah wrote:

By the way, the location used for Area 51 in the film is the old Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, about an hour's flight in a Cessna from Salt Lake International. It's quite a pleasure to land on those luxurious runways originally built for B-29s. I've been there several times. It now serves as the community airport for the town of Wendover, and is also very near the Bonneville salt flats, across which Will Smith dragged the downed alien.

Yeah, 8000X150 ft runways in a 172 sure can take the challenge out of crosswinds, can't they? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I was in a club based at Detroit Metropolitan for awhile and I was always startled at how lazy I'd gotten when I had to land at a "real" 2500x50 GA airport.

Jeez, landing fee, parking fee, tie-down fee. I'm surprised they didn't charge me a fee to read the airport listing! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 14:39, JayUtah wrote:
Let's stipulate that by "Area 51" Dave means the Groom Lake site or its environs. I have several different photos purporting to be taken of the Groom Lake site from orbit, and they purport to be taken of the same map coordinates, and they agree visually. In any case it is safe to say that they were likely taken of the same spot on earth, whatever and wherever it is. Therefore if Dave can manage to show feature coherence between these and allegedly lunar photographs, we can consider it at face value.

Sounds fair. Now if only we had some lunar photos...

[JayUtah]

My source for this is none other than a personal conversation with Dean Devlin ...

By the way, it's also mentioned in the producers' commentary on the special edition DVD. Director Roland Emmerich speaks at length about the "mythology" around Area 51 and its role in the film. Then,

Devlin: "And in fact the United States military was going to support the film and supply us with a lot of costumes and airplanes and stuff. But their one demand was that we remove Area 51 from the film, and we didn't want to do that. So they withdrew their support."

My conversation with Devlin, after being introduced, went something like this:

Jay: "So what brings you to Utah?"
Devlin: "I'm working on a film, and we're using the Wendover airport for Area 51."
Jay: (sarcastically) "I guess they won't let you film at the real one."
Devlin: "No, and just for mentioning it we lose the support of the military."
Jay: "Just for mentioning it?"
Devlin: "Well, we do more than just mention it. But that's their standard procedure. If you talk about it at all they won't have anything to do with you. Officially the base doesn't exist."

He actually never came right out and said that the government had told him what he could and could not say about it, but so far the only fact is that the military's cooperation in the film was contingent upon not mentioning Area 51. Devlin and Emmerich did not back down, and their consequence was the loss of military support.

Apparently the Air Force doesn't really mind a whole lot if people speculate about what goes on at Groom Lake, just so long as they don't try to find out. Apparently they're rather amused that everyone seems to think they're reverse-engineering alien spacecraft there, and they think it's fine that this draws attention away from what they're likely really doing.

But at the time Independence Day was in production, Groom Lake officially didn't exist, and so any mention of it meant the military wasn't going to be party to it.

Consider all the television programs that have been produced and aired about the Groom Lake facility, the many books, web sites, magazine articles, and so forth. These all purport to be fact, or at least as close to the facts as their authors believe they can get. Yet they are widely published without interference or intimidation from the U.S. government. If this is the case, why would one publication known to be fictional come under such unprecedented censorship for creating a fantasy version of Area 51?

No, there is nothing to support your allegation, Dave. Is there, in fact, any part of your case which is not based on hearsay, gossip, and rumor?

[cosmicdave]

pvtpylot,
Once again your not reading the data that I am posting. If you bothered to read it you would find why the area is called Area 51...

Quote: 'Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps.'

Is that simple enough for you?

If you dont want to believe the IKONOS image then perhaps you could search out the satellite picture taken in 1991 by the United States Geological Survey of Area 51.
Also a lot of the facility is based within the mountain range, hence why you can only see a few hangers and runways. There are plenty of ex workers who verify this and who's stories are on the web. Also many relatives of workers who died there due to toxic contamination took the US Government to court a few years ago to get compensation.

THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL WROTE:
The Department of Energy made it official Wednesday Dec 15th, 1999 that the Nevada Test Site has grown by nearly 200 square miles thanks to some surface contamination
from a 1968 nuclear test and President Clinton's signature on a law this
year.

The new law, according to an Energy Department statement, also serves to
"correct several land use and jurisdiction misalignments throughout the
complex." That means the Air Force takes control over DOE's rectangle
around Groom Lake, along the northeastern corner of the test site, which
had been controlled by the Air Force under a secret agreement.

The location, also known as Area 51 - the site of at least one classified
airstrip - has been shown on government maps as a 38,400-acre rectangle
primarily in Lincoln County that belonged to the Department of Energy but
was controlled by the Air Force and had not been shown by DOE as part of
the Nevada Test Site.

The "misalignments," according to the Energy Department's statement, "had
become outdated and inefficient because of evolving mission needs among the
Department of Energy and Department of Defense.

____________________________________

Perhaps you guys should stick to space and rockets and leave us UFO folk to fill you in on our vast knowledge of the base...lol

As soon as I find the site that has the pics I will post the URL.

I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes.

[cosmicdave]

JayUtah,
You proved my comments correct. I think we are talking the same talk but in different terms. Also I'm working from memory on this stuff and not watching DVDs to get my point across word for word.

The US Government or Military were helping the makers of Independence Day and told them what they could add. Obviously they didn't want Area 51 mentioning at all because a huge Hollywood blockbuster film would bring everyones attention to it. Is it any coincidence that as you say, most of the stuff has allegedly been moved to another base?

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 15:48, cosmicdave wrote:
pvtpylot,
Once again your not reading the data that I am posting. If you bothered to read it you would find why the area is called Area 51...

Quote: 'Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps.'

And, if you had bothered to read anything I had posted before you'd have seen that this simply bolsters my point that "Area 51" is a UFO groupies name, not an Air Force designation.

You're beating a point now that only you yourself is interested in making. Your original claim, if you need reminding, was that "Area 51", in addition to it's myriad functions as a morgue for aliens, also played host to exterior shots from Apollo 11. Remember that?

If you have anything other than unverifiable quotes and your own innuendo to present on your claims concerning Area 51 or Apollo, or anything else for that matter, I, for one, would sure appreciate your getting around to posting it.

How's that for simple?

(added content)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-02 16:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-02 16:31 ]</font>

[Kaptain K]

If you dont want to believe the IKONOS image then perhaps you could search out the satellite picture taken in 1991 by the United States Geological Survey of Area 51.

Let me get this straight. You go to a website and specify a location (in this case, Area 51). They show you a picture, which you can look at for free or download for $$$. Either way, you take their word that it is the location you specified. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]
This from a member of a group that would have us believe that the gov't will do anything to keep us from knowing the truth.

[JayUtah]

I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes.

Did you read any of the page, or did you just skim over it? Did you read the part where it shows fairly conclusively that it's impossible for Percy's theory to be correct?

And if you recall, I told you I don't have the means right now to produce that in full scale. I asked you if it would be all right to reproduce it in miniature. You never answered, so I haven't done it. As today is fairly overcast, I'm not sure I can take the pictures today. But I'm not going to do anything until you confirm that you would accept photos using miniature models.

[JayUtah]

You proved my comments correct.

No, I didn't. At least not the implication of your comments.

I think we are talking the same talk but in different terms.

No. We're talking about a completely different scope of involvement. You're backpedalling now.

I'm working from memory on this stuff ...

I'm not. I have a recording of Dean Devlin's voice saying exactly what I told you he said.

The US Government or Military were helping the makers of Independence Day and told them what they could add.

This is what you said:

"Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film."

Nowhere do you mention that this was merely a condition of the military's cooperation.

Further, when you say "could and could not add" you imply that the government (i.e., the military) would have condoned some type and/or extent of reference to the facility, when in fact the policy is to condone no reference whatosever. And the limit of the objection is the withdrawal of support.

You imply that the government had the final say over what Devlin and Emmerich could say -- in any circumstance -- about Area 51, when in fact Devlin could (and did) say whatever he wanted. This is a materially different understanding from what you conveyed.

Obviously they didn't want Area 51 mentioning at all because a huge Hollywood blockbuster film would bring everyones attention to it.

No. The blockbuster Hollywood film capitalizes on the already famous reputation of Area 51 in conspiracy theories. This was the reason for writing it into the movie, as described by Roland Emmerich in the commentary just before the excerpted quote.

It's more plausible to believe that the military withdrew its support rather than convey the notion that their support might acknowledge the existence of Groom Lake or any of its activities.

Is it any coincidence that as you say, most of the stuff has allegedly been moved to another base?

The existence of "the stuff" has not been substantiated. I merely report that some UFO enthusiasts claim that what they believed was kept at Groom Lake may now have been moved to the Utah space launch facility. In fact, they have no evidence that any of this material exists at either or any site.

I'm simply pointing out that the UFO community seems to regard gossip, rumor, and speculation as if it were the same as iron-clad documentary evidence.

You seem to have great difficulty understanding how what you read may undermine your preconceptions. Do you, in fact, make any effort at all to apply what you read to what you believe? Or do you simply read with the preconception that what you read will somehow support your existing beliefs regardless?

[cosmicdave]

JayUtah,
Now your the one who's twisting things. I agree I said "Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film."

Notice the words 'advised'. That does not mean 'ordered'. If you had a financial advisor and he advised you to give all your money to him, would you?

Advice is not an order.

pvtpylot,
Area 51, groom lake, call it what you will, your just nit picking now... we know were all talking about the same place and your really starting to (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) me off. If you really are a pilot I suggest that your vehicle is a paper one, because god help us if idiots like you are flying above us!

I tell you all of another photo of the area taken by the United States Geological Survey in 1991 and then an (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) comes back and says 'but it could be fake'. Lets apply the boards logic here... how do you know its fake, all the shadows fall in the right direction, its in the right state and is from an official agency under the employment of the US Government.

I think you guys would argue that black is white. If your stupid remarks are a way of making me leave, then so be it, but remember that it was one of your members who posted this topic on my messageboard, so you really sent me an invitation to comment.

If your comments and replies are genuine questions, then all I can say is that all this science and space stuff has frazzled your brains.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:03 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

Okay, Dave, if you're going to break this down into a quibble over the meaning of a single word, I can see that debating with you is nigh unto useless. I will stipulate that the U.S. government "advised" Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich not to mention Area 51 in their screenplay, if you will stipulate that they did it anyway and did it the way they wanted to.

Now you have dodged for long enough. Do you, or do you not have photographic evidence linking the so-called Area 51 site with an Apollo lunar landing? We have been more than patient.

As for arguing that "black is white", it is you who are engaged in wishful thinking. You have been pointed to dozens upon dozens of references, been given lessons in physics, engineering, and optics by professional practitioners of those fields, and yet you have generally refused to supply any objective supporting evidence of any kind for any of your assertions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-02 17:11 ]</font>

[cosmicdave]

And as I have replied, it may take a time for me to retrack down the website where the pictures were posted. Surely you know that UFOs is the second most popular catagory on the web after sex?

[JayUtah]

And as I have replied, it may take a time for me to retrack down the website where the pictures were posted.

Then your answer is, "No, I don't have them but I may be able to find them." So it does little good to continue to debate this particular point. You are not equipped yet to discuss it.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 17:05, cosmicdave wrote:

pvtpylot,
Area 51, groom lake, call it what you will, your just nit picking now... we know were all talking about the same place and your really starting to (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) me off. If you really are a pilot I suggest that your vehicle is a paper one, because god help us if idiots like you are flying above us!

What's up, Dave? Annoyed because I require real evidence to back up ludicrous claims? If you want to end this debate then present the evidence you claimed you had at the start of this: Photos proving parts of Apollo 11 were filmed at your mystical Nevada UFO site.

I pi***d off an HB who thinks I'm an idiot. Now there's a compliment if ever I heard one...
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:06 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

Dave, there is a new top-level thread with the proof photos you requested

[Alan G. Archer]

Dave Cosnette (cosmicdave) at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html :

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?

For a proper follow-up on my part, I paid a vist to a local bookstore and copied a portion of page 9 from the 2001 edition of "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers." This is what I believe is the source of Dave's confusion:

The still camera selected for use on Apollo was a Hasselblad -- considerably modified for the task. This converted Hasselblad was a medium format reflex, using 70mm sprocketed film stock -- we should remember that this photographic kit was going to be taken to an environment totally different from Earth. The Apollo Command & Service Module (CSM) operated with pure oxygen for breathing and therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured. In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment, giving off really offensive and potentially poisonous odours.

The leatherette coverings were indeed removed from the Apollo cameras.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 18:50 ]</font>

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 17:05, cosmicdave wrote:

I tell you all of another photo of the area taken by the United States Geological Survey in 1991 and then an (word deleted by the Bad Astronomer) comes back and says 'but it could be fake'. Lets apply the boards logic here... how do you know its fake, all the shadows fall in the right direction, its in the right state and is from an official agency under the employment of the US Government.

The difference being NASA has endless evidence to back up their claims of what their pictures show. You've presented nothing but your word, either here or on your website. That's why I asked you to provide proof that your pictures are what you claim they are (which it seems you not only can't provide, but you're annoyed that I've even asked) To me, that shows the fundemental flaw in Hoax believer thinking: You find what you think may be a flaw in a photo, and without checking your physics or any other facts you trumpet "Hoax!" to the world, conveniently ignoring all the other evidence in favor of Apollo.

cosmicdave, when you can provide the same quality and quantity of evidence that NASA does to back their claims I'll give your photos the same consideration. Until then you can just keep ranting and raving with the amusing personal attacks when you run out of flimsy explanations.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-06-03 01:02 ]</font>

[David Hall]

Alan Archer, thanks a lot for tracking down that camera covering info. It does look like that's the most likely source. I wonder what Dave has to say about that?