New Very Laughable Topic

[Tomblvd]

Would you guys PLEASE get off this stupid Area 51 garbage? We are giving cosmicdave a free pass to ignore the main questions of this thread. As I've said before, Dave has made some serious accusations, he has been corrected, and now he must defend these statements or correct them on his website.

In the interest of getting the conversation back on track, I'll reask my last questions:

I would still appreciate an explaination as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-02 19:09, Tomblvd wrote:
Would you guys PLEASE get off this stupid Area 51 garbage? We are giving cosmicdave a free pass to ignore the main questions of this thread. As I've said before, Dave has made some serious accusations, he has been corrected, and now he must defend these statements or correct them on his website.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like cosmicdave has any intention of either defending any of his accusations or changing his webpage, no matter how badly his assertions are discredited here. For my part, though, the topic is done and my apologies to anyone who was annoyed for participating in allowing the discussion to stray this far.

[JayUtah]

For a proper follow-up on my part ...

Thanks for following up.

...considerably modified for the task.

Unfortunately Bennett and Percy won't give any consideration for the modifications. Elsewhere they argue it would have been impossible to operate the camera while wearing space gloves, despite all the modifications intended toward doing just that.

... therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured.

True, but they're being melodramatic. In the Apollo 1 test environment any spark would have been a problem, but in the normal 5 psi environment it wouldn't have been instant death. And a spark confined to the innards of the camera would have limited effect.

But given the fanatical lengths taken to eliminate ignition sources and remove combustible materials, it is quite true that the camera's electronics were scrutinized for ways to improve them.

In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment ...

This is the key concept. It is not necessarily a chemical reaction we are thinking of, but a physical reaction. It is not the "pure oxygen" environment that would cause outgassing, but rather the "low pressure" environment. Big difference.

[Tomblvd]

Sorry pvt., I lost my temper a bit.

I get frustrated seeing people like dave make absolutely ridiculous statements and then dodge the issue.

If he doesn't have the courage or intelligence to defend his allegations, then he should leave.

[JayUtah]

It's all right. Sometimes we all need to take a breather and do something else for a day or so until we get our perspective back (pun intended).

[johnwitts]

I went away for a day and found another four pages of stuff in this thread! It is interesting to watch CosmicDave squirming his way out of corners.

I think the BA must be on holiday, as some os cosmics comments have been close to the 'edit' criteria. I wonder if he's got a (fake?) tan?

[AstroMike]

Here's a photo taken of the Apollo 11 landing site.


AS11-37-5447

Here's another one taken of much higher resolution from Lunar Orbiter 5.

Lunar Orbiter photograph V-76-H3

Here's a map drawn of the landing site.


Apollo 11 site: Traverse map

Exactly how do these look like Area 51?

[James]

On 2002-06-02 20:31, AstroMike wrote:

Exactly how do these look like Area 51?

Don't know. Gotta ask the "expert", Dave. To me, the amateur, looks like a moon landscape. Don't look like anything on the Earth to me. But what do I know?

[Kaptain K]

Prediction:

Large chunks of this thread will be deleted. The BA does not tolerate either ad hominem attacks (name calling) or profanity.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-02 22:37 ]</font>

[Alan G. Archer]

On 2002-06-02 20:04, JayUtah wrote:
For a proper follow-up on my part ...

Thanks for following up.

...considerably modified for the task.

Unfortunately Bennett and Percy won't give any consideration for the modifications. Elsewhere they argue it would have been impossible to operate the camera while wearing space gloves, despite all the modifications intended toward doing just that.

... therefore any electrical spark would be disastrous, the electrical contacts within the camera had to be secured.

True, but they're being melodramatic. In the Apollo 1 test environment any spark would have been a problem, but in the normal 5 psi environment it wouldn't have been instant death. And a spark confined to the innards of the camera would have limited effect.

But given the fanatical lengths taken to eliminate ignition sources and remove combustible materials, it is quite true that the camera's electronics were scrutinized for ways to improve them.

In addition, the leatherette camera finish would 'outgas' in the reduced pressure environment ...

This is the key concept. It is not necessarily a chemical reaction we are thinking of, but a physical reaction. It is not the "pure oxygen" environment that would cause outgassing, but rather the "low pressure" environment. Big difference.

Thanks, JayUtah (and David Hall, Donnie B., and infocusine, too), for following-up on my follow-up.

Apparently, Bennett and Percy relied quite a bit on Kodak man H.J.P. "Douglas" Arnold for their "research." I may be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Arnold is a Hoax Believer.

See: http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm ; http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../a11.5886.html ; http://physics.iop.org/IOP/Press/PR0299.html ; http://www.nikonownersclub.com/benefits/magazine.html

More on Hasselblad leatherette removal: http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HB...584&itemId=530 ; http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HB...584&itemId=534

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 23:00 ]</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

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!

cosmicdave:

You are being rude, and you used a word I am not happy with. Read the FAQ. Consider this your only warning. If you continue in this vein you will be banned.

[cosmicdave]

Ok,
I am going to answer all the questions put to me here and now in this one post.

First to answer pvtpylots question, or should I say accusation:

'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).'

It’s really simple to answer this question. Firstly, I have given you plenty of evidence about Area 51 and have directed you to other sites and I have shown you pictures of satellite images of Area 51 which were taken by a Russian Space Agency and a company employed by the US government, but you still don't believe me. Your accusation that you can only take my word for it or I have only directed you to my own website is completely false.

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.

Of course NASA has released loads of pictures of the Moon because they are the agency which allegedly went there. Also lets remember that they had 25 billion Dollars (http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...lo.Program.pdf ) of US taxpayers money to get the evidence right. Where else do you suggest that I go to see pictures of the Moon landing if NASA are the only agency to possess the photographic evidence?

I find the groups stance against me is rather hypocritical. You challenge me to provide evidence of my claims by giving you evidence from several different sources and yet you yourselves only have NASA’s evidence to go by. I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

You guys are missing one very important point and that is the fact that every single piece of film and stat comes from either NASA or a company within NASA’s employment, no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA and all TV footage was taken by TV cameras filming the main screens at Houston. Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide? Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.

Now onto Tomblvd’s question:

I would still appreciate an explanation as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness? I commented on the blue sky seen in one of the films from Apollo 13, I don’t see how this relates to your question? From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

If the CM was up there how could you tell that it was not just another satellite? I know that satellite tracking can be done easily in this age of the Internet, but lets put ourselves back 30 odd years. Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?

Alan g. Archer:

Can you point me to the evidence that says that NASA removed the leatherette covering from the Hasselblad cameras?

Astro Mike:

Many thanks for posting those pictures. What’s the difference between the Apollo pics and the Lunar Orbiter 5 ones? Couldn’t the Lunar Orbiter 5 or a similar probe be able to take the footage allegedly taken onboard the Apollo missions?

To finish this post, I guess that to see the real truth and confirm your beliefs we will have to wait until China send up their crew to the Moon. But, I will put my neck on the line now and predict that they will not make it. My reasons for this assumption is simple and could result from any of the following.

1. Sabotage
2. The US not allowing them to (remember Dennis Tito)
3. They will die on the way
4. They will realise that it can’t be done and abandon the project
5. Costs become to much and abandon the project


I hope that answers your questions… but somehow I think you’ll still disagree.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-03 08:55, cosmicdave wrote:

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.

The difference is simple. I don't have to believe just NASA to corroborate the Apollo program. Other governments and independent ham radio operators across the globe tracked Apollo. Scientists and engineers having nothing to do with NASA or the government have reviewed the equipment, the transcripts, the photos and NASA's mountains of other data and found no flaws. A purely subjective observation, but it seems to me that the only people who have found flaws in the evidence have either a history of conspiracy-type findings based on little or no evidence, or have a monetary stake in their claims.

Your data does not have the same empirical and independently verified evidence standing behind it.

[SpacedOut]

On 2002-06-03 08:55, cosmicdave wrote:
I find the groups stance against me is rather hypocritical. You challenge me to provide evidence of my claims by giving you evidence from several different sources and yet you yourselves only have NASA’s evidence to go by. I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

You guys are missing one very important point and that is the fact that every single piece of film and stat comes from either NASA or a company within NASA’s employment, no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA and all TV footage was taken by TV cameras filming the main screens at Houston. Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide? Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.

First – Since it is you and the other HB’s that state that the Apollo record is false as presented by NASA it is absolutely up to you to prove the NASA record is false it is not our responsibility to prove the NASA record. We simply state the NASA record stands on its own merit.

I think JayUtah has already answered the TV Coverage issue.

Also – You have not answered one of my questions –

On 2002-05-31 12:06, SpacedOut wrote:

On 2002-05-31 11:45, cosmicdave wrote:
Firstly, I wrote about the light experiments not being valid in Earth conditions because only a few months ago when I was last on this board discussing the Apollo missions, I was told that there was 2 light sources and that is why the shadows created on the moon fell at different angles.

Your profile states that you joined the BABB on 5/28/02 – what was your screen name when you were on this board discussing Apollo a few months ago. I only ask because I wanted to find the thread you were referring to.

[JayUtah]

Firstly, I have given you plenty of evidence about Area 51

Except for the key evidence: the juxtaposition of the Area 51 photos with the Apollo 11 landing sites, which you can't seem to find. At this point we would settle for some handwaving. Failing that, it is time to leave Area 51 behind and return to the subjects at hand.

If you have a hard time believe one Government agencies official photographs of an area on Earth, why would you believe NASA who is another Government agency who has released pictures of the Moon? Tell me the difference.

The moon is not a top secret military installation.

I can only guess that you think that whatever NASA says is the gospel truth and could not possibly be a lie.

No, we do not uncritically accept NASA's statements. I have spent considerable time and money verifying NASA's claims. The U.S. military has admitted it was trying to keep the existence and function of the Groom Lake facility a secret. When there is absolutely no question that the controlling organization is trying to keep a secret, this makes it crucial to verify any third-party information.

NASA, on the other hand, spends considerable effort and money making its Apollo records and findings available to whoever asks for it. The only source of the notion that they're trying to hide a hoax comes from NASA's accusers: a very small minority of conspiracy-obsessed people with no evidence for it. There is simply no credible reason to distrust NASA on the subject of the moon landings, unless you can provide one.

But that's neither here nor there. Nobody wants to talk about Area 51 anymore since you can't prove the point which brought this all up: that an Apollo moon landing site looks very closely like aerial photos of some place on earth.

Further, I have no problem criticizing NASA for Apollo 1, the Challenger, and various aspects of "better, cheaper, faster" it couldn't seem to get right. The notion that we're all NASA cheerleaders is unfounded. We simply lack your a priori distrust.

no third party has ever been sent in to investigate whether all these stats including money spent on the project is legitimate. See my point.

I see your point, but I don't think it's valid. You make the mistake of assuming that NASA could just lie about various aspects of the Apollo project, and no one would be the wiser.

There are literally thousands of people in the world who can inspect NASA's claims and give an expert ruling on whether they make sense. Apollo hardware is used to teach up and coming engineers. Apollo documentation is used as handouts in class. Apollo techniques and methods are still being used in aerospace today.

My private library contains some 85,000 pages of documentation on the various aspects of the Apollo mission, and I've just barely scratched the surface of what's available. Now you may not understand any of it, but I do. It was, at one point, my job to know how build machines that can do things in space.

Of course the cardinal rule of deception is to keep the story simple. If that's the case, then why has NASA scrupulously documented every single aspect of its endeavor? This seems much more consistent with a group that's trying to document a historical occurence, not falsify one.

Finally, NASA is audited reguarly. Most government agencies are audited by private CPAs -- chartered accountants, in your vernacular. And the Apollo expenditures were very closely scrutinized by Congress.

All of the live transmissions were carefully released by NASA ...

... to live worldwide television, making it the most watched event.

Why didn’t NASA allow a direct feed to TV stations unless they had something to hide?

They did. Bart Sibrel's contention that this was not provided is false. I have confirmed this with the people who actually operated the equipment.

At the ground stations during Apollo 11, a camera focused at a CRT was used as a simple scan rate converter. Since this procedure was to be used only for Apollo 11, more elaborate equipment was not contemplated. This is the source of the rumor that TV stations had to aim their cameras at the screens in Houston. In fact, when the signal arrived at Houston it was split and amplified to the news networks in the customary electronic fashion.

The camera-CRT arrangement was never used again. The ground stations had scan converters used for the subsequent missions. But because of Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics they could not be used for that mission.

Name one other live event where this type of TV coverage has been used… you wont be able to.

Name one other live event that required this level of technical sophistication You won't be able to. If you read my other posts on this forum, you'll understand that today's "live" television is actually considerably less live that Apollo's downlink. Yet no one argues that it's routinely faked.

But you conveniently forget that this camera-CRT method was used only once, for Apollo 11, and that broadcast quality television was provided for Apollos 13 through 17. If NASA had something to hide, why would they provide progressively better quality and progressively more coverage?

You are really quite something. You are stuck on the idea that NASA was trying to hide something and you completely ignore or sidestep every other possible explanation. Yet you sit there and tell us you'd really like to believe in Apollo? Please!

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness?

Each low earth orbit, regardless of inclination, spends about 45 minutes in sunlight and 45 minutes in darkness. On the dark side you can see the stars if you turn out your spacecraft's cabin lights. You cannot see the "blue" earth because you're looking at the dark side. If you strain, you can see city lights. But there will be no sunlight through your window, now glow from earth, no strong external light source of any kind, unless the moon is in the right place.

From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

That's the problem. You claim the spacecraft was in low earth orbit. Yet you cannot explain why the glow seen through the command module windows does not switch between blue (dayside part of the orbit) and black (nightside part of the orbit) in the television coverage or between photos. Nor do you explain why NASA didn't arrange for all the telecasts and photography to be done on the nightside, where the expectation of a black view through the windows could have been met.

The fact that you always see some blue in the window is actually evidence that the scatter theory is more likely. Some side of the spacecraft would always have been in direct sunlight during the translunar coast. There is no nightside to a lunar transfer orbit, therefore the effects of sun are expected to always be visible.

The observed phenomena agree fully with our hypothesis that the blue is reflection and scatter. They are inconsistent with your hypothesis of a low earth orbit. You have spent so much time backpedalling and spinning additional conjecture on this point that the time has now come for you to admit that we have indeed satisfied your request for a suitable alternative explanation. You simply don't know how it works and don't want to hear it.

Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?

Yes, you would. You've obviously never tracked a satellite before, otherwise you wouldn't even ask that question. Many amateur trackers in the early days of space travel were just as good as professional rocket scientists at computing and predicting orbital ephemerides. And many of the trackers were not amateurs; they were college professors and students who were following Apollo's progress using their facilities.

Can you point me to the evidence that says that NASA removed the leatherette covering from the Hasselblad cameras?

He has quoted Dark Moon which lists the covering as one of the items covered under the modification plan. He has provided links to NASA web sites and Hasselblad web sites. How much more evidence do you need?

Can you provide any evidence that it was left on? Can you provide any evidence that it would have "melted" in the pure oxygen environment as you state? The only expert you've cited believes the problem is outgassing in a low-pressure environment, not some sort of spontaneous bursting into flame.

Further, in your 32 questions you imply that the environment, which would supposedly cause the leatherette cover to melt, would have been dangerous to the astronauts. Can you explain why?

Couldn’t the Lunar Orbiter 5 or a similar probe be able to take the footage allegedly taken onboard the Apollo missions?

According to your hypothesis, none of this photography is possible due to the extreme radiation environment in space which you argue on the authority of David Groves would have fogged the film. This has been brought to your attention numerous times and you haven't addressed it.

I hope that answers your questions… but somehow I think you’ll still disagree.

I'm offended. You took me to task for not providing the demonstration photos about shadow length that you asked for. When the weather cleared I constructed a suitable apparatus and photographed it. I posted them to a separate thread on this board that included your name in the title, and notified you here of its presence. All other participants in this thread managed to notice it.

Typically when you ask for evidence that disputes your findings, and it's provided, it's customary to at least acknowledge that it was provided even if you don't address its content.

Further, as I proposed, I have fully answered your 32 questions. The answers can be found at http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html I also posted that link here, and you have completely ignored it.

You have been asked persistently and politely for evidence that backs up your arguments on your web page. You have provided only Dark Moon, which we do not accept as authoritative for reasons clearly spelled out in detail here, and largely irrelevant conjecture on Area 51, which was only tangential to the point you wish to make.

It is becoming quite clear that you have no intention of engaging in any substantive degree of debate regarding your statements. Do you, in fact, have any plans whatsoever to take meaningful responsibility for your accusations?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-03 12:21 ]</font>

[Tomblvd]

Now onto Tomblvd?s question:

I would still appreciate an explanation as to how the astronauts, in the movies and videos they supposedly made, handled moving from bright sun to darkness as they orbited the earth. You might also want to answer why nobody on earth ever saw the Command Module in orbit while they were supposedly on their way to the moon. Just the other night I watched the Space Station go by, and it's just as easy to see much smaller satellites.

What do you mean by how the astronauts handled moving from sun to darkness? I commented on the blue sky seen in one of the films from Apollo 13, I don?t see how this relates to your question? From the footage of the incident I have seen the sky outside is blue all the time, no black sky whatsoever.

If the CM was up there how could you tell that it was not just another satellite? I know that satellite tracking can be done easily in this age of the Internet, but lets put ourselves back 30 odd years. Would you know that the small light you see crossing the sky is a satellite or a CM?

Your "answers" prove to me that you are completely out of your element here. If you didn't realize that an orbiting spacecraft only spends a limited amount of time in sunlight, or you really think the orbiting CM wouldn't be noticed by anybody, including astronomers from other countries, you don't understand the absolute BASICS of spacetravel that would be covered in a basic science course.

I'm in the process right now of reading Andrew Chaikin's A Man on the Moon, which covers the entire Apollo program. Honsetly, you should read it sometime. But the point I wanted to make is that the technicians at Mission Control could track the Apollo spacecraft so accurately that their plots would show a wiggle whenever the CM/LM would vent waste. How do you fake that, and all the telemetry and voice transmissions that go along with it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 13:01 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

One of Dave's 32 questions is a verbatim lift from Bart Sibrel's open letter, wherein he invokes TETR-A to cover the transmission. Of course neither Bart nor Dave appears to understand the first thing about orbital mechanics. It makes it so much easier to come up with theories when you don't have to pay attention to any of those inconvenient facts.

[cosmicdave]

You state 'Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics'. and what would those be? How uniquely different were they to the other missions?

Yes, I just read and saw your other posts on other groups here about 30 minutes ago, which I have, or am in the process of answering. Boy you all seem to be so impatient on here, I haven't got all day to debate this you know and do other things than talk about space all day.

I cannot see what your problem is about the Area 51 photo, I have said that I will look for it and you should be satisfied with that answer. I haven't said no I'm not going to bother looking or can't be bothered to show you,so keep your hair on!

You say 'There are literally thousands of people in the world who can inspect NASA's claims and give an expert ruling on whether they make sense. Apollo hardware is used to teach up and coming engineers. Apollo documentation is used as handouts in class. Apollo techniques and methods are still being used in aerospace today.'

I agree there are many people who have seen the evidence, but for all you know NASA could have employed scientists to make sure that all the evidence checked out before releasing it - simple really when you think about it.

Yes, please remind me, Apollo and the Saturn V rocket was so successful that they scrapped it and decided to use a much more expensive Shuttle which could carry considerably less cargo. Is that advancement?

You say: ' If that's the case, then why has NASA scrupulously documented every single aspect of its endeavor?'

Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to. After all NASA are wasting billions of dollars going into space when it could be spent on the health service or other good causes, so they have to account for what they are wasting the money on, oh and theres the taxman of course, they have to make sure that they get so much money back from the £1b they spend on toilet rolls every year (you may not get that joke). NASA have to cover their butts some how don't they?

'Name one other live event that required this level of technical sophistication You won't be able to.'

What about LiveAid or the World Cup finals which is happening right now?

The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.

I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch! I don't know how many more times I have to say that all the Apollo 13 footage that I have with blue sky is just before the explosion and takes place over a few minutes.

If the casing of the camera were to 'offgas' the fumes would affect the astronauts.

On the film fogging issue, considering that you believe that my fogging theory is wrong, lets take your point of view that the film would be ok. Could the Lunar Orbiter have taken the pictures or not?

I'm not the only one dodging question here either - you havent answered my reply about the same 'stars' appearing in the sky in the same formation even though the camera is taking pictures at different angles. And you havent answered my question about whether it was possible for the Orbiter to take the photos. Now who's changing the subject to steer clear of an answer?

To answer the other guys question, I guess the other debate took place around Christmas time (Dunno whether old posts are scrubbed off here after a while) I could have been called littlegreys then?

[Karl]

On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:

The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.

Are you really trying to propose that the directional properties of an 27MHz HF antenna compare to a 12ft dish used at S-band?

[Tomblvd]

The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space.

You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. This is from the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station website:

The station had several purposes - to send commands and receive telemtry from the spacecraft, and to 'track' its position. The position tracking was achieved using range and the doppler derived from the radio signal. The transmitter frequency was very precise (1 x 10 -12 error). This frequency was shifted by a precise ratio at the spacecraft, so that the received frequency is still directly related to the transmit frequency at the tracking station. The difference was used to determine the doppler shift, which in turn was related to the angular velocity of the spacecraft. This doppler shift was corrected for earth rotation to become part of the position determination. The other part is the range, determined by how long the signal took to return. A pseudo random code mixed with the modulation helped determine the timing, considering the Round Trip Light Time (RTLT) can be many hours. Easy to see why computers were so useful!

I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch! I don't know how many more times I have to say that all the Apollo 13 footage that I have with blue sky is just before the explosion and takes place over a few minutes.

What about the hours and hours of footage from 13 and all the other missions? And you still have yet to adequately explain why the "blue color" is so homogenous when it should be changing due to passing over ocean, land and clouds.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 14:02 ]</font>

[AstroMike]

On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:
And you havent answered my question about whether it was possible for the Orbiter to take the photos.

Well, I will. And the problem is simply the quality of the Lunar Orbiter photos.

Here's a Lunar Orbiter 5 photo taken of the Hadley Rille region.


Lunar Orbiter 5, frame M-105

Compared to this one taken from Apollo 15.


AS15-1135

You can note that not only the Lunar Orbiter 5 photo has a fuzzier quality but has some dark vertical lines extending down probably because of the poor quality.

[Karl]

On 2002-06-03 14:01, Tomblvd wrote:

You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. This is from the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station website:

The station had several purposes - to send commands and receive telemtry from the spacecraft, and to 'track' its position. The position tracking was achieved using range and the doppler derived from the radio signal. The transmitter frequency was very precise (1 x 10 -12 error). This frequency was shifted by a precise ratio at the spacecraft, so that the received frequency is still directly related to the transmit frequency at the tracking station. The difference was used to determine the doppler shift, which in turn was related to the angular velocity of the spacecraft. This doppler shift was corrected for earth rotation to become part of the position determination. The other part is the range, determined by how long the signal took to return. A pseudo random code mixed with the modulation helped determine the timing, considering the Round Trip Light Time (RTLT) can be many hours. Easy to see why computers were so useful!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-03 14:02 ]</font>

Although the amateurs couldn't use two way ranging, K2RIW was able to monitor the doppler from the LM and observe it go to zero when the LM landed.

He used a 12ft dish which had a beamwidth of about 1 degree, or about twice the diameter of the moon.

[CJSF]

On 2002-06-03 13:37, cosmicdave wrote:
Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to. After all NASA are wasting billions of dollars going into space when it could be spent on the health service or other good causes, so they have to account for what they are wasting the money on,

PLEASE! I've heard this argument so often it makes me sick!

FEDERAL BUDGET FOR FY2002:
Health and Human Services: $460 Billion
NASA: $14.5 Billion

Out of a budget of nearly 2 TRILLION.

H & HS gets nearly 23%
NASA gets about 0.7%

Social Security alones gets about 20% and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid get about 20% as well.

And remember, sizeable portions of EVERY department, agency, etc. goes to providing "human services", such as clothing, food, housing and medical care.

CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-03 14:43 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

You state 'Apollo 11's unique signal characteristics'. and what would those be? How uniquely different were they to the other missions?

See http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html

No other mission used this method of television transmission.

I haven't got all day to debate this you know and do other things than talk about space all day.

Then you shouldn't make such statements in public. It's monumentally rude to make a whole series of unfounded accusations and then try to excuse yourself from responsibility for them by saying you don't have time to back them up.

I have said that I will look for it and you should be satisfied with that answer.

And until then there is no use belaboring Area 51. When you find the proof photo in question, post it for discussion. Until then, Area 51 is a dead subject.

I agree there are many people who have seen the evidence, but for all you know NASA could have employed scientists to make sure that all the evidence checked out before releasing it - simple really when you think about it.

If all the evidence "checks out", then Apollo could have succeeded as advertised. Simple, really, when you think about it.

You seem to persist in this odd notion that physical law amounts to a matter of opinion. Either the Apollo data, hardware, and so forth correspond to what's required for an actual mission, or it does not. I, and several other qualified people have found that it does indeed correspond. So far the only people who argue that it doesn't are those with no experience or qualifications in the necessary field, and whose theories are so much pseudoscientific gibberish.

You're simply piling on more conjecture to attempt to correct the problems with your original conjecture. That's not evidence. If you believe the Apollo data has been falsified or "groomed", then provide evidence for that. Don't just idly suggest the possibility.

Is that advancement?

What does this have to do with anything? Please try to stay on one subject long enough to find some closure.

Perhaps its because they have the American public to answer to.

Then you concede that NASA has not doled out minute tidbits of Apollo information, as you argued, but has in fact provided a monumental amount of evidence in support of Apollo since the early 1960s.

That doesn't answer why NASA breaks the cardinal rule of deception. The more falsified detail they provide, the more likely that detail will clash with something else that's already out there. Yet the Apollo program remains one of the most thoroughly and consistently documented historical endeavors of the 20th century.

The point is that NASA's behavior is fully consistent with someone trying to legitimately document their work, and largely inconsistent with someone trying to hide a large-scale falsification.

You originally tried to argue that NASA was hiding something because they allegedly doled out Apollo information in small quantities. Now you've all but agreed that they have handed it out in huge quantities. I'll consider that point conceded.

What about LiveAid or the World Cup finals which is happening right now?

Those are not equivalent to sending a television signal from the moon. Comparing modern television uplinks to S-band signals from the moon thirty years ago is decidedly apples and oranges.

If you believe they are equivalent, then please describe in detail what is required for a typical satellite uplink today, and what was required for the S-band television transmissions from the lunar surface.

Or you can simply admit that you have no appreciable expertise in either modern or historical television technology, and therefore that your assessment of Apollo 11's television quality is uninformed.

I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction.

What bands have you worked in? Have you worked in the C-band? The S-band? The Ku-band? Until a few months ago my job included maintaining an antenna farm for deep space and geosynchronous high-bandwidth digital communications. I can speak at great length if necessary about alighment tolerances and signal formats.

Further, even with a mast antenna you would be able to tell the difference between a spacecraft in low earth orbit and spacecraft on a translunar trajectory. It's a simple matter of ephemerides.

I can explain why no black sky is seen in the Apollo 13 footage that I have on my site, its because there is not 45 minutes of footage to watch!

Fine, that explains your selective evidence, but not all the evidence. You claimed all the footage showed blue. You claimed the photographs showed blue. Have I misunderstood?

If you wish to restrict the scope of the explanation to Apollo 13, then I will add in the effect of condensed breathing moisture on the windows.

You still have not offered any substantive response to the notion that scatter and reflection due to window contaminants is a viable alternative to your low-earth-orbit theory. You wanted an answer; you got it. Do you now plan just to ignore it?

If the casing of the camera were to 'offgas' the fumes would affect the astronauts.

Ah, your statement was unclear. You don't specify what, specifically, you believe would have affected the astronauts. My mistake.

However, the other part of my question still stands. You claim, in your Question #2,

"The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases."

This is different from Bennett and Percy's argument. They say the low pressure of the environment, not its composition, would have caused outgassing. They do not mention melting at all.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that a 5 psia pure oxygen atmosphere would cause leatherette to melt. If you cannot, please retract it.

Could the Lunar Orbiter have taken the pictures or not?

No. I believe the Lunar Orbiter photos were in black and white, while a great many Apollo photos are in color. Further, we do not have the transparencies from the Lunar Orbiter. We have them for the Apollo photos.

you havent answered my reply about the same 'stars' appearing in the sky in the same formation even though the camera is taking pictures at different angles.

Easy: same specks on the scanner glass. You haven't proved they're stars. You just assume they are. I don't share that assumption.

Now who's changing the subject to steer clear of an answer?

Clearly you. I have answered far more questions than you, and provided far more theoretical and empirical evidence. All you've done is to supply idle speculation to pile on top of you previous idle speculation.

You're doing very little in the way of presenting evidence for your claims.

[cosmicdave]

It seems that you have a knack of twisting what I have said to fit your own agenda. I suggest you go back and read what I said about the Apollo footage which I have with blue sky showing through the windows.

I agree to not talk about Area 51 until I dig up the photos.

As I contended earlier, but it seems you have a hard time working out my point, you may well have checked out the data and proved it to be correct, but if someone more qualified than you had made sure that all those stats and figures were correct before they were committed to paper, would you be any the wiser?

When did I say that NASA has hardly released anything?

With all these jobs you reckon you've done, you must be ancient!

The lunar orbiter in your estimation could not take as clear pictures as the Apollo and yet pictures were posted here that showed the opposite. The lines on the orbiter frame by the way is due to scanning techniques as is shown on the Malin site. thought you would know that?

Your 'white specks' are not on the camera lens because the same formation appears in different areas of the lens on the pictures. If they were an artifact of the lens they would all be in the same position, which is not the case.

Finally, find below my reply to your post about the 32 questions on my site.

[cosmicdave]

Here is my reply to JayUtahs questions about the 32 questions on my site:

‘Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon’.

What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.

‘The "official photos" Dave reproduces showing alleged stars are the low-quality JSC scans that have white specks everywhere as a result of the hurried scanning process.’

And on several of the examples I have on my site the ‘white specks’ as you call them are in exactly the same configuration in the sky, even though the camera is panning across the horizon. This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film as the 'white specks' are in different parts of the sky and do not stay in one place on the frame.

‘ The astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre-breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstreams prior to doffing their helmets inside the spacecraft.’

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.

'Photos taken of the lunar surface directly beneath the descent engine show it to have been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. Recall that the foot of the ladder is some fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.'

So the dust didn’t blow very far away, but it also didn’t land inside the landing pads either… interesting!

'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'

Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

'In fact, this is quite good evidence of the progressive nature of Apollo technology. Television coverage was not strictly required in order to accomplish the landing on time, and so high-quality television for lunar EVA was deferred in its development until later in the program.'

In fact during the early minutes of the first Apollo 11 EVA the picture quality changes dramatically. Why?

'This is a natural feature of contour on the lunar surface. It is not always possible to distinguish by color or shading the crests of intervening hills.'

This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen. Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.

'Skeptics say no such thing. In fact, shadows in sunlight should be expected to appear parallel in photography only under very special circumstances. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.'

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?

'It wasn't extended until after splashdown. It was in its retracted position during re-entry'

So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?

'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'

You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’ The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth, jeez, even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.

‘None of these extremely powerful solar events occurred during any of the missions. The events experienced by Apollo’s 14 and 16 were quite mild.’

More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt. In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.

‘Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.’

And they didn’t go either!

‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’
So where did all that used up oxygen go?

In your Technology communications page you claim:
'The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.'

And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?

‘One man's opinion of the timetable shouldn't necessarily take precedence over those who had more information available.’

Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?

‘Command Module 012 has been in the custody of the United States government since early 1967. If they had really wanted to destroy it, it wouldn't have been too difficult.’

But how many people have seen it? You say that it’s in the custody of the United States Government… in a locked vault or on general display? Why destroy it? If the Government doesn’t want anyone to see something in their possession then they will find ways to make sure that the evidence stays covered up. Have you seen it?

‘Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.’

If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ‘hazardous to health if swallowed’ do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

To my question 30 on my site which states ‘ In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.’

You answer: ‘This does not prove it did not have the technology to do it in 1969. These are not skills and equipment on the same level as riding a bike or building a birdhouse. These are design and construction techniques which are highly specialized, and if not needed are not undertaken.’

But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions – What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints? Oh yes of course I forgot, they destroyed most of them… doh! How stupid. Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan – can’t they? And surely things can be learned from the Apollo missions that would help with flights to Mars and other space related missions. On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves… odd?

‘NASA's mission has changed. It has also been drastically scaled back. If there were a mandate to maintain and use such technology, there is plenty of design and manufacturing capability to undertake it. Space exploration simply requires different skills and materials, and must operate on a different set of resources.’

The budget Congress agreed to, part of a larger budget bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development as well as various independent agencies, gives NASA $14.8 billion for fiscal year 2002, which started October 1. This is about $300 million more than what the Senate, closely following the budget proposal by President Bush, approved, but is about $150 million less than what the House approved. NASA received $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?

‘The footage as shown in Bart Sibrel's video is cut up and rendered incoherent, and the voiceover makes it difficult to hear what the astronauts are saying.’

That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover. I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage. What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?

‘Congress provided no funding for the storage and archive of the detailed design documentation. The private companies who had custody of it did not have the funds nor the desire to archive materials that required an inconveniently large building in which to house it. They are for-profit companies, not museums. Thus the detailed documentation was regretfully discarded while the basic documentation was preserved.’

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

THAT’S YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND HERES A FEW MORE THAT’S ON YOUR SITE WHICH I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO:

'As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.'

This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators

‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

Thanks,

CosmicDave

[informant]

I think I have more than responded to my critics with a very valid response.

LOL! What a gem... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[CJSF]

On 2002-05-30 12:57, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

On 2002-05-30 10:58, cosmicdave wrote:
Light runs in parallels and so therefore could not possibly have the ability to make shadows fall in different directions.

"Could not possibly"? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then how do you explain this picture? It was taken in a park next to my house, and the only source of illumination is the setting Sun.

Is anyone else having trouble with the above image? I can't seem to get it to load. If I put the URL in my browser address area I get a message from Yahoo! that I am not authorized to view the file.

CJSF

[SeanF]

Weird - that picture came up just fine when TBA originally posted it, but now it doesn't.

As I recall, it was a picture of a softball field's outfield fence with the poles casting diverging shadows.

[Andrew]

"The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made."

David, Neil Armstrong ejected from the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle when he ran out of manoeuvring propellant and could no longer control the LLTV's attitude. It was not an Apollo LM. It was not an Apollo LM prototype. It was the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle.
The LM weighed more than 30,000lbs on earth (not sure about dry-weight). How was it's 10,000lbf descent engine going to lift it's weight?
It was regarded as the only manned spacecraft designed to operate solely in space.
It was tested on 3 Apollo missions prior to Apollo 11.