Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 96

Thread: The artful dodges of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Since cancer research and ornamental fish have little to do with the topic of this forum, I will summarize the assertions made by Mr. Dave Cosnette which have been challenged or refuted on this site and to which Mr. Cosnette has declined to offer any defense of himself:

    1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne. I have yet to see where Kaysing himself makes this claim. It has been shown that Kaysing was unqualified for that position. Mr. Cosnetted has not provided any authority for his claim.

    2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo. He has demonstrated in subsequent conversation that he has not. For example, he categorically denies that feats of low-gravity gymnastics appear anywhere in the record, when in fact several such examples were easily found by real historians.

    3. A lot of the footage was prerecorded and not live at all. The evidence cited for this is insufficient to support the scope of the conclusion. The evidence deals with the natural latency of the video signal, not the alleged prefabrication of the video footage. While it is true that the 16 mm DAC footage was prerecorded, that is common knowledge and no deception occurred.

    4. The "jump salute" occurrence is an example of mismatched film and video. I have thoroughly refuted this charge at http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html and Mr. Cosnette has not responded to that refutation.

    5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth. Mr. Cosnette categorically rejects scatter is a potential source for his observations, yet the phenomenon is well known.

    6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F. Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.

    7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings. Not what Mr. Lundberg actually said. In the Aulis video Mr. Lundberg says that stereo pairs are required to measure objects in the photo, which is a different photogrammetric problem. Further, Mr. Lundberg is an industrial engineer, not a photogrammetrist. His opinion on what can or cannot be done photogrammetrically is not considered expert testimony. Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled cirumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

    8. Reseau fiducials are occasionally missing. This indicates doctoring the film. These occasionally obliterated fiducials are no mystery to other photographers, only to Mr. Percy. Mr. Cosnette has not considered the counterarguments as summarized in http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html .

    9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood. Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown. Properties are never marked conspicuously, and usually not at all. Mr. Cosnette has not substantiated or defended his allegation.

    10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source. Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point. He simply asserts it and sidesteps any evidence to the contrary.

    11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows. This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows. Mr. Cosnette has not accounted for this fact in his argument.

    12. Down-sun surfaces should not be illuminated as seen in Apollo lunar surface photography. An enormous amount of theoretical and empirical evidence has been provided to demonstrate the effect of backscatter. Mr. Cosnette chooses not to address any of it.

    13. Shadow angles are wrong in Apollo 12 photographs. Mr. Cosnette has been shown the effects of perspective and surface terrain on the apparent direction of shadows. He chooses not to account for these in his argument.

    14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow. Armstrong then switched lenses to the standard and put the camera in its second location. The Maurer 16 mm DAC cameras were not equipped with low-light lenses.

    15. The moon's albedo is 7%. No source for this figure was provided, and it conflicts with published figures ranging from 12% to 30% depending on location and method of measurement.

    16. An albedo of 7% corresponds to asphalt. To fresh asphalt, yes, but not to aged asphalt which has an albedo of about 12% according to standard civil engineering texts. Mr. Cosnette has not justified his use of misleading and "worst-case" figures.

    17. Photos show pitch-black shade and shadow. This invalidates the claim that reflected light from the lunar surface is a source of fill. Because cameras can be adjusted to provide a wide range of photographic exposures, photographs are not suitable evidence of the presence or absence of light unless the specific exposure parameters are given. Mr. Cosnette has not accounted for this in his argument.

    18. The lack of an atmosphere would cause shadows to be intensely black. Shadow fill is caused by indirect light. While atmospheric scatter is a source of indirect light, it is not the only source of it. Discounting one source does not discount all sources.

    19. Dr. Groves has determined that the "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot is caused by a small artificial light. Dr. Groves' analysis is predicated on assumptions which border on fantasy. He grossly overstates the precision possible in this kind of analysis. Further, no secondary signs of such illumination can be detected, e.g., near-phase shadows. Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss Dr. Groves' findings with any degree of comprehension.

    20. The central fiducial in AS11-40-5903 is not at the center of the photograph. The camera was tilted downward, and the photograph version chosen by Mr. Cosnette has been cropped and reframed to provide a better presentation, as Mr. Cosnette speculates. The fiducial is centered in the duplication master. Mr. Cosnette has accused NASA of fraud without first checking the primary source.

    21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests? The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso. The natural attitude of the camera was to droop slightly downward, which is why the horizon appears above the optical axis in several Apollo photos. Mr. Cosnette has not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of Apollo equipment.

    22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions. Mr. Cosnette habitually misstates his opponents' arguments. Retouching is a process of altering by artistic means the information on the negative, such as to remove unwanted details.

    23. The postulated process is impossible because the film is on one long continuous roll. Professional photographers have pointed out here that nothing about the film's format prevents either "pushing" or retouching. Mr. Cosnette has not clarified how exactly he believes the film's format precludes the kind of darkroom techniques being contemplated.

    24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft. Mr. Cosnette has not addressed any of the suggested sources of this illumination.

    25. Dr. David Groves has computed that the photographer is some two feet higher than the subject in AS11-40-5903. Dr. Groves' analysis here too is based on completely indefensible assumptions regarding the planarity of the ground. Additional photos show the topology of the terrain. Further, a simple examination of the reflection of the horizon, which droops downward at the edges, demonstrates that the line of sight originates from below the level of Aldrin's head. Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss this evidence with any degree of comprehension.

    26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera. The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

    27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed. See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing. Further, the cameras were provided with sighting rings that the astronauts could have used had they wished, and which were actually used during the J-mission when the 500 mm lens was attached. Mr. Cosnette refuses to defend his opinion.

    28. The astronauts wore heavy, pressurized gauntlets. The outer gauntlets were not pressurized, only the inner, slim gloves which had provisions for flexibility under pressure. Mr. Cosnette cannot demonstrate sufficient understanding of space glove design and use principles. He is ill equipped to render an opinion on it.

    29. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to change lenses and film magazines and operate the camera while wearing these heavy gloves. Mr. Cosnette can neither demonstrate understanding of space glove operation, nor claim experience performing these tasks himself under similar conditions. He refuses to support his opinion or retract it.

    30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper. Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

    31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston. Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor). Mr. Cosnette has not researched this claim.

    32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston. Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

    33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage. Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation. Mr. Cosnette does not seem to understand the principles of sample rates.

    34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface. Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong. Mr. Cosnette's argument is a straw man, and his assertions of suspicion are merely his opinion. He has not elected to defend that opinion.

    35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack. Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets. Mr. Cosnette does not account for any of these factors in his argument.

    36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time. The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed. Mr. Cosnette's understanding of rocket propulsion is naive.

    37. Hypergolic propellants should have produced an enormous red cloud. Mr. Cosnette has been given a lengthy and detailed treatise on the operation of Aerozine-fueled engines, which he does not appear to understand and has elected to largely ignore.

    38. The fuel used in the LM is exactly the same fuel used in the space shuttle today. Factually false. The space shuttle does not use Aerozine, it uses monomethyl hydrazine, which has different combustion characteristics. Mr. Cosnette has not researched his argument.

    39. There should have been some sort of crater under the LM. Mr. Cosnette has provided no quantitative argument to support this, nor can he discuss it intelligently.

    40. The LM engine produced 10,000 lbf of thrust. At maximum throttle, yes, but not at the hover thrust level which is clearly documented as 25% or about 2,600 lbf. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any further argument on this point.

    41. The exhaust plume would have been about 5,000 F. That is the chamber temperature. The exit plane temperature is documented as 2,800 F and the principles of gas kinetics apply from then on. Mr. Cosnette has provided no credible quantitative argument to support a surface impingement temperature of 5,000 F, nor does he seem to understand how one would be computed.

    42. The plume should have melted some of the rock. Evidence of thermal stress on the lunar surface has been presented to Mr. Cosnette, but he refuses to accept it. Further, he has refused to support the premise of the degree of heating.

    43. If Mt. Etna can melt rock at only 1,000 C, why can't the exhaust plume? Mr. Cosnette has not recognized the difference in thermal environment between the perpetually hot interior of a volcano and the transitory impingement of a gas whose temperature cannot exceed 2,800 F and is likely to be much lower.

    44. There should have been dust on the landing pads. Not if the dust settled before the landing pads reached the surface. Further, the landing pads are designed to disperse dust outward. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any substantive argument for his expectation of seeing dust in the footpads.

    45. Evidence of blowing dust is visible in the landing footage. How could any dust remain? There is no evidence that all the dust was blown away. The fact that dust continues to blow as long as the engine is firing indicates that dust remained after the engine shut down. Otherwise the dust would have been exhausted prior to shutdown.

    46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint? The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

    47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission. It is "conceptual" footage supplied by NASA to demonstrate what such a landing might look like. NASA does not claim it represents actual mission documentation. Mr. Cosnette cannot authenticate his primary source on this argument.

    48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth. On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

    49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module. Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

    50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

    51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion. That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

    52. The astronauts were suspended by wires to simulate low gravity. This does not explain all visible low-gravity effects such as dust arcs. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to address this deficiency.

    53. Evidence of the wires can be seen in video footage. Mr. Cosnette has provided no evidence or argument to show that these are wires and not the sun reflecting off the VHF antennas.

    54. The Van Allen belts contain radiation too lethal for the astronauts to safely endure. Despite repeated requests for substantiation, Mr. Cosnette can provide absolutely no quantitative description of the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

    55. NASA provided only a sheet of aluminum to shield the astronauts from this radiation, while doctors must take precautions for common x-rays. Mr. Cosnette is unable to discuss the difference between legal allowed exposure and biologically significant exposure, either in terms of quantity or of qualitative policy. He is further unable to discuss the shielding requirements quantitatively for any type or degree of radiation.

    56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation. Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument.

    57. Dr. David Groves has shown that the radiation would have ruined the photographic film. It has been exhaustively shown that Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual radiation types and levels experienced during an Apollo mission.

    58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion. We suspect this has to do with parallax, but we cannot offer a rebuttal until actually presented with the case.

    59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location. The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden. The PR production is simply edited incorrectly. Mr. Cosnette cannot show that this descrepancy exists in the primary source material.

    60. There are photographs and film taken on the lunar surface that show stars. Mr. Cosnette's film was not taken on the lunar surface, but instead is an artist's conception. Mr. Cosnette's still photographs alleging stars are from scans known to be of low quality, and there is ample evidence that the "stars" are contaminants. Further, Mr. Cosnette is unable to describe any photochemical process by which stars and sunlit terrain can be simultaneously exposed on Ektachrome stock.

    61. There is television footage of the rover in motion. It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera. Mr. Cosnette refuses to account for the inexplicable presence of the television camera itself in the frame he says was taken with that camera.

    62. Visible flame from the LM ascent engine proves that Apollo defenders are wrong. As stated above, Mr. Cosnette has received a lengthy treatise on the operation of rocket engines, which he does not understand. He is further oblivious to the inherent contradictions in his arguments.

    63. The film footage of Armstrong's descent suddenly becomes brighter, although no camera adjustment could produce that effect. Mr. Cosnette cannot adequately explain in terms of photographic exposure why the camera adjustment which is clearly indicated on the associated soundtrack would not produce the observed effect.

    64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer. I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.

    65. NASA faked Michael Collins' Gemini space walk photos. Mr. Cosnette has not provided the source identification for those photos so that it can be authenticated that the photo alleged to be fake is in fact one that NASA alleges to be of Collins' actual mission. Since NASA often releases training photos to help illustrate space flight concepts, it is not sufficient simply to show that NASA edited or released a particular image. It must be demonstrate that the photo was released with the intent to have it believed to be a real documentary photo.

    66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture. This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

    67. Some of the 11 Apollo astronauts had fatal accidents within a 22-month period. Mr. Cosnette refuses to name either the astronauts or give the dates and circumstances of their deaths.

    68. The odds of this happening by chance are 1 in 10,000. Mr. Cosnette has not provided the computations which support this estimate. Further, he has indicated a relative ignorance of statistical probability which makes it likely he has performed no such computation.

    69. Official NASA records show that only a couple of pounds of moon rocks were collected by Apollo astronauts. I have official NASA records which put the total at over 800 pounds. Mr. Cosnette has provided no citation for the documents he says support his claim.

    70. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results as lunar material. Mr. Cosnette has not reconciled this proposal with what geologists have identified as the signature characteristics of lunar material.

    71. Bill Kaysing says geologists in Washington knew of the cover-up. Mr. Kaysing's argument is carefully constructed so as to be impossible to verify or refute. Evidence in that circumstance must be discarded. If we cannot interview the geologist in question, we cannot confirm Kaysing's claim. Mr. Cosnette repeats the claim without verifying it.

    72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so. Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems. Mr. Cosnette simply repeats Kaysing's claims without verifying them.

    Well, Mr. Cosnette, there you have it. 72 issues you have repeatedly and stubbornly dodged here at this forum. Are you willing to stand up for your claims, or will this be another instance where you say you don't have time to spend discussing all of this? Can you really put your money where you mouth is, or are you just going to sell fish?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,160
    Whew,

    Jay (and I guess CD too),

    I believe and am closing in the documentation of the thermal analysis for the Hasselblad camera. I recently found the thermal analysis for the Apollo space suits and one of the surface experiments. I hope this leads to further documentation. At that point we'll all know what the Hasselblad were designed for and tested to.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    No source for this figure [moon's albedo 7%] was provided

    Jay, so that somebody doesn't throw this back at you, I am going to repeat a post I made on the Apollo Hoax Forum. Are the figures I quote here obsolete?

    What is the accepted albedo of the Moon?

    The Lunar Sourcebook says it ranges from about 7% to 24%, with maria around 7% to 10% and most highlands around 11% to 18%. Presumably, these are near-zero phase measurements from Earth during a full moon.

    In a later chapter some zero-phase measurements are described from photos taken from the CM. The albedos ranged from 7% at the Apollo 11 site to 19% at a highland site.

    Another study of normal albedo for 67 sites ranged from 5.7% to 18.4%.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    613
    What is the accepted albedo of the Moon?
    The accepted value is published each year in the Astronomical Almanac, a product of the US Naval Observatory. I'd quote the figure right now, but I don't have a copy with me at the moment. I'll do that when I get into work on Monday.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Thanks. Here is an interesting online article I ran across, in case nobody has seen it:

    http://www.roboticobservatory.com/je...ech/albedo.htm

  6. #6
    On 2002-06-28 22:48, Joe Durnavich wrote:
    Thanks. Here is an interesting online article I ran across, in case nobody has seen it:

    http://www.roboticobservatory.com/je...ech/albedo.htm
    Thanks Joe,
    That's a great summation of a very complex question that everyone thinks has a simple answer. When observing the moon with my telescopes, it's easy to see such amazing differences in brightness.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    As has been noted, I'm trying to bring out the issues of complexity surrounding the notion of albedo and the measurement of the moon's albedo. Whether the minimum is 8% or 12% or some other number is of little real importance to me so long as it's clearly understood that no one single number applies to all lunar photographs, and the reader understands that albedo is not the single quantitative embodiment of illuminational capability.

  8. #8
    Boy Jay, you must be on my site more than I am. Thanks for the hits though. All these accusations and not one single reference to back up your many claims. I’m not answering all the questions you pose because we have debated them to death. From what you’ve written, nobody is qualified to comment because they are not an expert in the subject – Lundberg about sources of light, Percy about astrophysics, etc, etc. Then you go on to defend every single aspect of the Apollo missions. You, who claims to be a rocket engineer and Hollywood extra. You’re also not qualified to have a view on photography or lighting or astrophysics anymore than the others you accuse, but it seems ok in your eyes to do so. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as they say.


    1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne.
    Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).

    2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo.
    A quote from the man himself – ask him, I’m not Percy.

    3. A lot of the footage was pre-recorded and not live at all.
    No need to answer this as you have confirmed it is true –why did you bother bringing this question up?

    4. The "jump salute" occurrence is an example of mismatched film and video.
    I have presented the still picture and movie footage of this event on my site. Not once do we see this flap appear on the movie footage taken from behind the astronaut. Whether the flap was in front of, or behind the PLSS it would still be viewable from behind because it appears several inches above the PLSS in the still picture taken from in front of the astronaut. If the flap is in front of the PLSS it would be visible as the astronaut hit the ground. Refute that!

    5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth.
    I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.

    6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F.
    Jay: ‘Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.’

    My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say. Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).

    7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings.
    Jay: ‘Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled circumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

    My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect. If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements, or did they take a tape measure?

    9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood.
    Jay: ‘Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown.’

    My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began? So how much do they actually pay for sweeping the stage? You haven’t seen it, so it cannot be true – wrong.

    10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source.
    Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point.

    My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?

    11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows.
    Jay: This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows.

    My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place. Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface, several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration, the light angles still do not add up.

    12. and 13. See above

    14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow.

    My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.

    15. The moon's albedo is 7%.
    Jay: No source for this figure was provided, and it conflicts with published figures ranging from 12% to 30% depending on location and method of measurement.


    My Response: A quote from Joe Durnavich, one of your groups members ‘The Lunar Sourcebook says it ranges from about 7% to 24%, with maria around 7% to 10% and most highlands around 11% to 18%. Presumably, these are near-zero phase measurements from Earth during a full moon. In a later chapter some zero-phase measurements are described from photos taken from the CM. The albedos ranged from 7% at the Apollo 11 site to 19% at a highland site.’

    My Response: Who am I to believe? Does that mean that you’re wrong then? I think you should start reading the huge amounts of NASA data you allege to have, before slagging me off!

    19. Dr. Groves has determined that the "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot is caused by a small artificial light.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette cannot discuss Dr. Groves' findings with any degree of comprehension.

    My Response: Neither can you. How can you generalise on Dr. Groves’ conclusions when you are not in the position of being a photographic expert? Thought I’d throw that one in as that’s the type of thing you accuse me of!

    21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests?
    Jay: The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso.

    My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket… straps, straps, straps… Read what you’re writing sometimes – puhhlease

    22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts.
    Jay: Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions.

    My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.

    23. The postulated process is impossible because the film is on one long continuous roll.
    Jay: Professional photographers have pointed out here that nothing about the film's format prevents either "pushing" or retouching. Mr. Cosnette has not clarified how exactly he believes the film's format precludes the kind of darkroom techniques being contemplated.

    My Response: You cannot retouch negatives on a continuous roll of film, as is the case with the duplicate role of film from Apollo 11 – direct from NASA themselves, in the possession of HJP Arnold.

    24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
    Jay: Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft.

    My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a spotlight illuminating the spot. Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots (unless there is cloud cover of course) and the LEM must have some pretty unique properties if it can reflect a light spot into a crater or depressed area as is the case in the mentioned photo. Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes, we don’t need any scientist to tell us that it isn’t there!


    25. Dr. David Groves has computed that the photographer is some two feet higher than the subject in AS11-40-5903.
    Jay: Dr. Groves' analysis here too is based on completely indefensible assumptions regarding the planarity of the ground. Additional photos show the topology of the terrain.

    My Response: Actually Dr. Groves, Percy and Bennett have successfully provided enough data about the lay of the lunar surface in their book to satisfy anyone who is inquisitive enough to dig deeper (pun intended).

    26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera.
    Jay: The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

    My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.

    27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed.
    Jay: See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing.

    My Response: Yes, it is possible to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing – if the camera is placed before ones face and looking through a viewfinder. Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?

    28. The astronauts wore heavy, pressurized gauntlets.
    Jay: The outer gauntlets were not pressurized, only the inner, slim gloves which had provisions for flexibility under pressure. Mr. Cosnette cannot demonstrate sufficient understanding of space glove design and use principles. He is ill equipped to render an opinion on it.

    29. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to change lenses and film magazines and operate the camera while wearing these heavy gloves.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette can neither demonstrate understanding of space glove operation, nor claim experience performing these tasks himself under similar conditions. He refuses to support his opinion or retract it.

    My Response to 28 and 29: Whether the pressurised part of the gloves were actually within or under the glove does not change the fact that the astronauts would have found it difficult to change lenses, film and especially filters when they had pressure around their fingers. Also the gloves were not of surgical glove thickness for greater sensitivity, but rather the size of a fireman’s glove. To prove your conviction perhaps you could try changing the film in your camera with heavy gloves on, and then you will see how difficult it is, whether pressure inside the glove is involved or not.

    30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

    My Response: I have done nothing of the sort. I have told you that both myself and Mary Bennett have written to the newspaper without reply – how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?

    31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston.
    Jay: Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor).

    My Response: Try and put whatever spin on it that you want. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Worlds media had to film the Lunar event off of a monitor.

    32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

    My Response: Same answer as above.

    33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation.

    My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed? Faithful to the time domain of recording, but not of the actual live event!

    34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong.

    My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies. Again your falling over yourself to prove your point without taking in what I’m writing, what should I write so that you understand me? Opinion defended as you put it!

    35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack.
    Jay: Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets.

    My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers. Their mics are also inside the helmet, yet we hear noise. Granted, they are not in a vacuum, but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!

    36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time.
    Jay: The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed.

    My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.

    37. Hypergolic propellants should have produced an enormous red cloud.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has been given a lengthy and detailed treatise on the operation of Aerozine-fueled engines, which he does not appear to understand and has elected to largely ignore.

    My Response: In the book ‘Dark Moon’, Percy and Bennett ask George Pinter – previously of Grumman Aerospace and actively involved at top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module – why no clouds of red smoke were visible on the Lunar landings or ascents. Pinter replied ‘In a vacuum the gases must disperse very widely and these gases must have become so thin that they were invisible’. So, what Pinter was actually admitting here was that there IS visible exhausts from a hypergolic engine when operating – even in a vacuum.

    Pinter told Percy and Bennett to write to the American Consulate in London for a more detailed answer, of which they did. However, they were told that they didn’t have the answer and to write to NASA. They wrote that letter way back in 1996 and are still waiting for NASA’s response today!

    39. There should have been some sort of crater under the LM.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has provided no quantitative argument to support this, nor can he discuss it intelligently.

    40. The LM engine produced 10,000 lbf of thrust.
    Jay: At maximum throttle, yes, but not at the hover thrust level which is clearly documented as 25% or about 2,600 lbf. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any further argument on this point.

    My Response to 39 and 43: Any type of engine that is capable of lifting the LEM of of the lunar surface and can produce thrust on a sandy surface such as the Moon’s will at least leave scorch marks or heat up the ground. No evidence of this is seen. Even if the engine was throttled down it would have produced enough power to effect the ground underneath the engines exhaust pipe.

    44. There should have been dust on the landing pads. Not if the dust settled before the landing pads reached the surface. Further, the landing pads are designed to disperse dust outward. Mr. Cosnette has not provided any substantive argument for his expectation of seeing dust in the footpads.

    45. Evidence of blowing dust is visible in the landing footage. How could any dust remain? There is no evidence that all the dust was blown away. The fact that dust continues to blow as long as the engine is firing indicates that dust remained after the engine shut down. Otherwise the dust would have been exhausted prior to shutdown.

    My Response to 44 and 45: To coin your phrase ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’. One the one hand your saying that the dust landed pretty quickly, and on the other your saying that it was actually airborne after the engines had been switched off? If as you say, dust was billowing about underneath the LEM after the engines had stopped, then that same dust would have fallen into the circular landing pads. Evidence taken from pictures issued by NASA fail to show this – enforcing my beliefs in a moon hoax.

    46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint?
    Jay: The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

    My Response: I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I? Perhaps if you read what was written instead of answering what you think was written we would get somewhere. The challenge remains, if the dust was blown away due to the thrust of the engine, how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?

    47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission.

    My Response: Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway… and what a great picture opportunity was to be had when filming the Surveyor with the LEM nestling nicely in the background on the horizon on the top of a nearby ridge… almost picture perfect one might say!

    48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth.
    Jay: On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

    My Response: And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon – and no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!

    49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module.
    Jay: Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

    My Response: This does not rule out the possibility that another panel could be removed

    50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

    My Response: Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!

    51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion.
    Jay: That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

    My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar

    52. The astronauts were suspended by wires to simulate low gravity.
    Jay: This does not explain all visible low-gravity effects such as dust arcs. Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to address this deficiency.

    53. Evidence of the wires can be seen in video footage.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has provided no evidence or argument to show that these are wires and not the sun reflecting off the VHF antennas.

    My Response to 52 and 53: The film evidence of wires being used is on my site. Perhaps you could watch them? And unless the UHF aerial extends to 20+ feet, your theory does not explain ‘pings’ of light in the top of the picture above the astronauts. I think you have a case of not seeing the trees for the woods. By turning a blind eye on things doesn’t make them go away.

    54. The Van Allen belts contain radiation too lethal for the astronauts to safely endure.
    Jay: Despite repeated requests for substantiation, Mr. Cosnette can provide absolutely no quantitative description of the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

    My Response: Actually I have given a very plausible explanation in another post about the effects of radiation.

    55. NASA provided only a sheet of aluminum to shield the astronauts from this radiation, while doctors must take precautions for common x-rays.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unable to discuss the difference between legal allowed exposure and biologically significant exposure, either in terms of quantity or of qualitative policy. He is further unable to discuss the shielding requirements quantitatively for any type or degree of radiation.

    56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument. My Response: The required amount of shielding from radiation and excepted levels that a human can withstand here on Earth is on my site – perhaps you missed it?

    My Response: Here’s your reference – and this is in relation to CCD cameras – Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

    By C.J. McFee –‘An initial baseline figure of 3mm shielding was initially established for EIS, yielding an ionising radiation dose of around 7krad for a five year mission and a trapped proton dose of 6.2x109 protons/cm2. These values were considered to be too high and so after some study, a higher shielding value of 15mm Aluminium was adopted which gave an ionising dose of around 1.5krad for the mission, with an overall proton dose of3x109 protons/cm2.’

    Source: http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_detect...Shielding.html

    57. Dr. David Groves has shown that the radiation would have ruined the photographic film.
    Jay: It has been exhaustively shown that Dr. Groves' experiment has almost nothing to do with the actual radiation types and levels experienced during an Apollo mission.

    My Response: See above.

    58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Jay: Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion.

    My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?

    59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location.
    Jay: The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden.

    My Response: Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors? Closing the door after the horse has bolted is not a good enough answer. I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake? By the way, any footage of the Apollo on the Moon is ‘official NASA footage’ unless of course you are suggesting that someone else took it?
    60. There are photographs and film taken on the lunar surface that show stars. Jay: Mr. Cosnette's film was not taken on the lunar surface, but instead is an artist's conception. Mr. Cosnette's still photographs alleging stars are from scans known to be of low quality, and there is ample evidence that the "stars" are contaminants.

    60. False – What film are you talking about being an artists concept? I don’t know what site you’ve seen this one – but it certainly isn’t mine. The group has not been able to prove that the photos on my site don’t show stars. You are guessing and cannot prove that this is a fault with the processing, and as I have pointed out in the past, this cannot be the case with the movie footage that also shows stars as the camera pans from left to right – did you forget about that one?

    61. There is television footage of the rover in motion.
    Jay: It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera.61.

    My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?

    62. Visible flame from the LM ascent engine proves that Apollo defenders are wrong.
    Jay: As stated above, Mr. Cosnette has received a lengthy treatise on the operation of rocket engines, which he does not understand.

    My Response: Read my answer several paragraphs above. On the contrary, I understand fully. As a scientist, surely you would know that for the scientific community to accept something it has to be reproduced and reproduced again. Considering that on some ascents the flame is visible and on others it is not – does this prove that the LEM is doing something out of scientist’s knowledge? The flame should either be visible or not visible on ALL ascents, there is no middle ground here.

    64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer.
    Jay: I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.


    My response: In your opinion – you don’t agree with them so say that I have ‘brushed them aside’. That’s two different things.

    65. NASA faked Michael Collins' Gemini space walk photos.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has not provided the source identification for those photos so that it can be authenticated that the photo alleged to be fake is in fact one that NASA alleges to be of Collins' actual mission.

    My Response: Enquiries are being made at this very moment to put this one to rest.

    66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture.
    Jay: This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

    My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?

    67. Some of the 11 Apollo astronauts had fatal accidents within a 22-month period.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette refuses to name either the astronauts or give the dates and circumstances of their deaths.

    My Response: But being the expert that you claim to be, you would already know right?

    72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so.
    Jay: Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems.

    My Response: Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?

    So there we go, I have answered almost all of the questions asked. I really can’t believe that you had the time to write such a long letter with your busy schedule as a Hollywood actor, Rocket Engineer, Satellite Expert, etc, etc. What is it they say ‘A Jack of all trades and master of none!’ When are you going to tell me that you were actually one of the Apollo astronauts or that you built the LEM?

    Oh yes, to leave you with a gem – Was your involvement with Hollywood anything to do with the Apollo Hoax? LOL

  9. #9
    Argggh... headache... banging my head against the table... trying to imagine how comicdave succeeds in being so dense... but can not.

    Well, at least I got some good laughts from comicdave's "answers", even though most were just painfull to read...

    Looking forward to JayUtah's response... I'm sure this one will be good! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    albedo is not the single quantitative embodiment of illuminational capability.

    That is certainly turning out to be the case. I was hoping that if albedo was constant enough at a given landing sight, we might be able to roughly calculate the amount of illumination from the ground. For example, is there enough illumination from the ground to expose Aldrin's shadow side to the extent we see in the famous photo? Some of the illuminated ground in the Aldrin photo looks fully exposed. 7% albedo is about 4 stops under 100%. That's well up on the characteristic curve for (at least modern) Ektachrome film, so we should expect to see Aldrin's shadow side exposed as well as it is. (The exposure of the top of his helmet and backpack is much less though, as would be expected.)

    Of course, I am beginning to realize that lunar albedo is too complicated an issue to nail down analytically. But I wondered if rough calculations might help convince people that the exposure levels are not anomalous.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    200
    On 2002-06-29 09:33, Joe Durnavich wrote:
    albedo is not the single quantitative embodiment of illuminational capability.

    That is certainly turning out to be the case. I was hoping that if albedo was constant enough at a given landing sight, we might be able to roughly calculate the amount of illumination from the ground. For example, is there enough illumination from the ground to expose Aldrin's shadow side to the extent we see in the famous photo? Some of the illuminated ground in the Aldrin photo looks fully exposed. 7% albedo is about 4 stops under 100%. That's well up on the characteristic curve for (at least modern) Ektachrome film, so we should expect to see Aldrin's shadow side exposed as well as it is. (The exposure of the top of his helmet and backpack is much less though, as would be expected.)

    Of course, I am beginning to realize that lunar albedo is too complicated an issue to nail down analytically. But I wondered if rough calculations might help convince people that the exposure levels are not anomalous.
    Joe, If we could reach some agreement on the albedo perhaps we could do some real life testing.

    Craig

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Cosmicdave wrote regarding using fiducials to measure: If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements, or did they take a tape measure?

    The region was mapped out beforehand, often from Lunar Orbiter photos. The stations were preplanned. Thus, one generally can determine how far the camera was from a given feature.

    The Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report shows some of the measurements the fiducial marks were used for. Some captions for photos of the far wall and floor of Hadley Rille:

    "Large layered block is 30 m long..."

    "Outcrop near center with a dark layer at top is 18 m long..."

    "Width of area is approximately 150 m..."

    "The largest block is 15 m across..."

    The mission video shows where the Scott or Irwin generally were when taking photos. The maps indicate how far the camera was from the rille wall. The focal length of the camera is known. Camera rotation can be estimated. The fiducials help accurately measure the sizes of the objects on the film. From all this one can calculate the sizes of objects on the rille wall.

    (If one knows the size of the object, such as the LM, one could calculate the camera's distance from the LM.)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,160
    CD,

    Since you don't think Jay is an expert in thermodynamics, I'll join in here. I've posted my qualifications here before. As I've said before, it is clear to me that you and other HBs have no understanding of heat transfer, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics.

    First of all, I have never worked in a department store or a factory (as a worker), but I have however worked for a large manufacturing company (General Motors) and to me your statements indicate that you never have worked on a large scale engineering project. You state that

    Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture.

    If this statement is true, then how does someone like myself design the thermal control (cooling) system? I need the big picture so that I can design a system that meets everyone's needs. Just telling someone go ahead and design a cooling system that can reject X amount of heat would never happen. If that approach is taken, where would the cooling lines go? This applies to a car, house, rocket, or whatever needs heating or cooling.

    If you knew heat transfer, you would know that heat transfer is extremely geometry dependent and the heat transfer people do need to know the big picture.

    Next, your claim that the LM exhaust should have left scorch marks again indicates that no analysis was done to prove this statement. The time that the exhaust from the LM was in contact with the lunar surface is short less than 15 seconds, unlike the thousands of years for Mt Etna lava. The medium for heat transfer on the lunar surface is a gas, not the solid and liquids that create lava. How many times have you opened an oven with 150-300 C air inside and it doesn't scorch your face. Now would you put you hand in boiling 100C water. I doubt it. In other words, temperature is not the only factor in determining how an object responds to an applied heat load.

    Finally, as has been pointed out to you many times, you are using the extreme surface temperatures to perform your film analysis. Since the moon has no atmosphere the use of these temperatures is inappropriate. The temperature of each object must be determined by a thermal analysis. This analysis is a fuction of the amount of solar energy an object recieves (and absorbs) from all sources, the amount of infrared energy it receives (and absorbs) from all sources, the amount of energy it rejects to deep space and the amount of heat removed by conduction. I've asked you before to provide a reference for the thermal analysis of the Hasselblad, but you haven't. Please do.

    Thanks.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-29 11:02 ]</font>

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    187
    On 2002-06-29 08:29, cosmicdave wrote:
    Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).
    What other temperature would you like, the air temperature?!? Think before you click "Submit", cd.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,994
    Cosmicdave...as usual your posted arguments are totally unconvincing, but they are a giggle to read.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Well, some of these are so easy even I can't resist.

    1. Bill Kaysing was head of advanced research at Rocketdyne.
    Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).

    Bingo! You do understand that these two job titles are not equivalent, don't you? Your claim on the site is that Kaysing was some sort of "head scientist". The actual title is more like "head librarian". Now, please remove the claim from your site, or at least modify it to state the correct title.

    2. David Percy has studied the entire film and video record of Apollo.
    A quote from the man himself – ask him, I’m not Percy.
    Fine. Then modify your site to state that Percy claims to have studied the entire film and video record, not that he has done so.

    5. The Apollo 11 en route footage was a transparency, and subsequent footage shows two incompatible views of the earth.
    I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.
    You refute it? Based on what? You can't just say "I don't believe it so therefore it's not true." Provide some reasons why it can't be true.

    6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F.
    Jay: ‘Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.’

    My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say. Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).
    I think Jay's skills in thermo are obvious to everyone but you. To answer the question, it's meaningless to talk about the temperature of an object on the airless Moon unless you know its absorptive/reflective/radiative characteristics, as well as how it's being illuminated. It could range from nearly absolute zero to hundreds of degrees C. One thing you can't do is assert that you know what its temperature will be unless you have considered these factors and made some calculations. These are things you have not done. So, remove this claim from your site.

    9. The use of annotation letters on film props (a la the C-rock) is well known by the people in Hollywood.
    Jay: ‘Unlike Mr. Cosnette, I have worked in Hollywood on film and video soundstages and I disagree that this procedure is "well known". In fact, it is entirely unknown.’

    My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began? So how much do they actually pay for sweeping the stage? You haven’t seen it, so it cannot be true – wrong.
    Pathetic attempts at ridicule will not make your assertions of fact any more or less true. Grow up, ya weenie.

    14. The movie cameras were equipped with night lenses to compensate for the lack of light.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. The special lens was provided for Apollo 11's [itelevision camera, and only for Armstrong's descent which took place entirely in shadow.

    My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.
    You don't even know the difference between a movie camera and a video camera. Sheesh.

    21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests?
    Jay: The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso.

    My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket… straps, straps, straps… Read what you’re writing sometimes – puhhlease
    More obtuseness. Your claim implies that the camera is attached firmly to the space suit, so it can't be aimed other than by turning or leaning the body. Jay is pointing out that the camera was loosely attached -- so that the astronaut could aim it. It's like the difference between a pair of glasses on someone's nose, vs a pair of glasses hanging from a croakie around their neck.

    22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts.
    Jay: Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions.

    My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.
    "Pushing" is not "retouching". Even the most casual amateur photographer knows this. Go ahead, look up the words in the dictionary.

    24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
    Jay: Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft.

    My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a spotlight illuminating the spot. Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots (unless there is cloud cover of course) and the LEM must have some pretty unique properties if it can reflect a light spot into a crater or depressed area as is the case in the mentioned photo. Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes, we don’t need any scientist to tell us that it isn’t there!
    No, you don't. But you might need a scientist to tell you what the source of that spot of light is. There is no picture that shows the source, so how can you claim that it must be a spotlight? Your reply above demonstrates that you are aware of at least one other possibility -- reflection from the polished surfaces of the LM. Now retract your claim of a spotlight until you can prove it.

    26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera.
    Jay: The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

    My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.
    You're confusing the events of Apollos 12 and 15. But in any case, your claim is that the astronauts were told to point the camera at the sun. They were not. Now correct your web site.

    34. There is only one picture of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface. This is strange, considering that he was the first to step on the surface.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. While there is only one Hasselblad photo of Armstrong, there are more than two hours' worth of video and several minutes worth of compressed 16 mm DAC footage of Armstrong.

    My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies. Again your falling over yourself to prove your point without taking in what I’m writing, what should I write so that you understand me? Opinion defended as you put it!
    So just what is this supposed to prove? Why is it suspicious that Armstrong appears in only one still photo? He's on camera almost continually for over two hours!

    35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack.
    Jay: Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets.

    My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers. Their mics are also inside the helmet, yet we hear noise. Granted, they are not in a vacuum, but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!
    Thank you for granting the fact that the descent engine was operating in vacuum. You seem to dismiss this as barely relevant, but it makes all the difference in the world -- along with the fact that a rocket engine with virtually no moving parts is totally different from an internal combustion race car engine.

    36. The LM's engines use hyperbolic [sic] propellants, which are propellants that ignite at the same time.
    Jay: The proper term is "hypergolic" and Mr. Cosnette has not properly defined it. Hypergolic fuels are multi-component fuels that spontaneously ignite when mixed.

    My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.
    Oh, this is rich. Got a dictionary handy? If not, there are some good ones on line. OK, look up "spontaneous". Now look up "simultaneous". Do you detect a subtle difference?

    46. How was Armstrong able to create that famous footprint?
    Jay: The allusion to the close ups of Aldrin's footprint are improper. There is no photograph of Armstrong's first footprint.

    My Response: I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I? Perhaps if you read what was written instead of answering what you think was written we would get somewhere. The challenge remains, if the dust was blown away due to the thrust of the engine, how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?
    Well, it was Aldrin, but as you say, "Armstrong, Aldrin -- whatever." The footprint shot was taken a good 10-15 feet away from the lander, where there was little disturbance of the surface material. This was done quite deliberately, because Aldrin was trying to document the surface properties, not take an historic photograph.

    47. The Apollo 12 crew captured pictures of the Surveyor spacecraft as they landed. The footage David Percy claims is onboard footage is not actual footage taken on an Apollo mission.

    My Response: Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway… and what a great picture opportunity was to be had when filming the Surveyor with the LEM nestling nicely in the background on the horizon on the top of a nearby ridge… almost picture perfect one might say!
    It wasn't luck - one of the main objectives of Apollo 12 was to make a pinpoint landing. Some very clever navigational tricks (Doppler tracking and creative use of the LM computer guidance system) were used to make it possible. So, you think it's suspicious that the mission succeeded as planned? But if it had failed and the landing had been kilometers away from Surveyor, no doubt you'd argue that this was proof that the mission was faked, since NASA wouldn't have dared try to show pictures of something that had been on the Moon for years.

    56. It is accepted that 10 cm of aluminum is required to keep out radiation.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide a reference or analytical discussion for this argument. My Response: The required amount of shielding from radiation and excepted levels that a human can withstand here on Earth is on my site – perhaps you missed it?

    My Response: Here’s your reference – and this is in relation to CCD cameras – Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

    By C.J. McFee –‘An initial baseline figure of 3mm shielding was initially established for EIS, yielding an ionising radiation dose of around 7krad for a five year mission and a trapped proton dose of 6.2x109 protons/cm2. These values were considered to be too high and so after some study, a higher shielding value of 15mm Aluminium was adopted which gave an ionising dose of around 1.5krad for the mission, with an overall proton dose of3x109 protons/cm2.’
    Notice the phrase "five year mission". Doesn't that suggest anything to you? Furthermore, 15mm is 1.5cm, not 10cm.

    58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Jay: Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion.

    My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?
    Once again, you substitute taunting for rational argument.

    61. There is television footage of the rover in motion.
    Jay: It has been conclusively shown that Mr. Cosnette's footage was taken from the 16 mm DAC, not from the television camera.61.

    My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?
    My heart! [clutches chest] I never thought I'd live to see the... aaack... [plop]

    66. Apollo work was compartmentalized so that no one person would have the whole picture.
    Jay: This is completely antithetical to how engineers must work. It's simply wishful thinking. Mr. Cosnette has provided no authority for this claim, and has admitted to not being an engineer.

    My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?
    This is irrelevant. Retail sales and manufacturing jobs are not comparable to Engineering practices.

    72. Bill Kaysing says Jim Irwin was about to reveal the hoax, but died before doing so.
    Jay: Again, the only source for this is the unverifiable assertion of Bill Kaysing made after Irwin's death. Besides, Irwin had a documented history of heart problems.

    My Response: Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?
    Duh... maybe because his heart problems began after he left NASA?

    Oh yes, to leave you with a gem – Was your involvement with Hollywood anything to do with the Apollo Hoax? LOL
    It's wonderful that you're so good at amusing yourself. If you spent as much time educating yourself... nah, too much to hope for.

    [Editied to correct spelling and bolding errors]


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-29 11:58 ]</font>

  17. #17
    I'll just answer the ones I think I can answer without stuffing up....

    [i]6. The film for the Hasselblad cameras would have had to endure temperature extremes of -180 F to 200 F.
    Jay: ‘Qualified thermodynamics experts have presented a counter argument, which Mr. Cosnette has ignored. Mr. Percy, Mr. Cosnette's source for this claim, is not qualified in thermodynamics.’

    My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say. Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).[i]
    Jay may not be, but many people here are thermodynamics experts.

    7. According to Jan Lundberg, stereo pairs are required to compute distance using reseau markings.
    Jay: ‘Further, it is quite possible to measure distances in single reseau-annotated photos under certain controlled circumstances. "Locators" to the lunar module or other known objects are quite valid without a stereo companion.

    My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect. If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements, or did they take a tape measure?

    By 'certain controlled circumstances' i think he is refering to the nature of the particular image, rather than the environment in which the images where captured. I'm sure that if the photographs contained no fiducials you would ask why there wheren't any.

    10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious and are consistent with illumination by a nearby light source.
    Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim, yet Mr. Cosnette has not provided one experiment, photo, or theoretical discussion to support his point.

    My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?

    Your NASA examples are not evidence, as every single 'suspicious' artifact has been shown to be completely non-suspicious...read on....

    11. The Apollo 12 shadows should have been shorter than the Apollo 11 shadows.
    Jay: This assumes perfectly flat and level terrain in both cases. It has been demonstrated that terrain angle and evenness has a drastic effect on the apparent length of shadows.

    My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place. Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface, several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration, the light angles still do not add up.

    What is your problem with perspective? Please, you just have to accept you are wrong here. Perspective, combined with the distortions of wide angle lenses and panoramas, explains all of the 'suspicious' shadows.

    21. How can an off-center fiducial occur when the Hasselblad cameras were strapped to the astronauts' chests?
    Jay: The cameras were not "strapped" to the astronauts' chests. They were attached via a bayonet mount to the RCU which in turn simply hangs from two straps and is able to be pointed in several directions without requiring the astronaut to pivot his torso.

    My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket… straps, straps, straps… Read what you’re writing sometimes – puhhlease

    Sorry, you are making a desperate point here. If you can't refute or agree with his argument , don't reply at all, ok?

    22. It is claimed that photos have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts.
    Jay: Inaccurate. It is claimed that the photos may have been "pushed" during duplication to extract more detail from underexposed emulsions.

    My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.

    No he is not. 'Pushing' and 'retouching' are NOT the same thing. Your claim is that details have been SYNTHESISED or REMOVED from the pictures, via airbrushes or whatever. Jay accepts that the contrast of the photographs has been artificaially altered during the development process, but try to understand that this has not added or removed information. It's no differnt from turning up the brightness/contrast on your monitor.

    24. Jan Lundberg says it appears Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
    Jay: Factually incorrect; the photo is of Aldrin, not of Armstrong. Further, Mr. Lundberg is not an expert in lighting nor in the optical aspects of the nearby Apollo spacecraft.

    My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a spotlight illuminating the spot. Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots (unless there is cloud cover of course) and the LEM must have some pretty unique properties if it can reflect a light spot into a crater or depressed area as is the case in the mentioned photo. Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes, we don’t need any scientist to tell us that it isn’t there!

    No one refutes that there is a hotspot. It's just that some people realise that it is Heiligenshcien (sp?), an effect documented on many websites, linked to many times before. You will notice that these hotspots only occur when the sun is directly behind the photographer.

    [i]26. An Apollo 15 astronaut is told to point the camera at the sun, which is foolish considering what happened to Apollo 12's camera.
    Jay: The astronauts were told to point the camera "up sun", which is very different from "at the sun". Mr. Cosnette declines to correct his argument.

    27. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders, yet the photos are appropriately framed.
    Jay: See item 20 above. Mr. Cosnette wants to have his cake and eat it too. He complains that the framing is perfect, and then when shown an example of improper framing he considers that too as evidence of fraud. In fact it is quite possible, with practice, to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing.

    My Response: Yes, it is possible to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing – if the camera is placed before ones face and looking through a viewfinder. Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?

    You contradicted yourself. How hard is this for you to understand? As mentioned before, very few shots would have been perfectly framed, they have just been cropped to appear this way.
    I will pre-empt you here Dave; they where not cropped to remove the work-experience student who accidentally wandered into shot

    30. Residents of Australia saw a Coke bottle in their television coverage. It was reported in the paper.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette has acknowledged the internal inconsistencies in this story. He has not responded to the observation that the newspaper in question contains no such story. Yet the story still appears on Mr. Cosnette's web site.

    My Response: I have done nothing of the sort. I have told you that both myself and Mary Bennett have written to the newspaper without reply – how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?

    Someone else here, I forget who, visited the town in Australia, in direct response to a claim you made distrubingly similar to the one above, and looked through records. I was not shocked in the least when he reported that no reference to this story, no matter how indirect, could be found.

    31. The news media had to film the Apollo 11 footage off of a television screen in Houston.
    Jay: Factually incorrect; the media were given electronic feeds. This argument derives from the use, at field stations, of the "poor-man's scan coverter" (a television camera aimed at a television monitor).

    My Response: Try and put whatever spin on it that you want. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Worlds media had to film the Lunar event off of a monitor.

    So what? How else could they have done it? What does this prove?

    32. Bill Wood's description of the video downlink proves it wasn't live. The film was recorded at the downlink station and then sent to Houston.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect. The "film" was not sent to Houston, but rather the demodulated and scan-converted signal was forwarded to Houston over the Manned Space Flight Network.

    My Response: Same answer as above.

    Me too.

    33. The film was actually 50% slower than the original footage.
    Jay: Factually incorrect. It was perfectly faithful to the time domain in which it was recorded, although the frame rate was altered by frame duplication. It is physically impossible to convert from a slow sampling rate to a high sampling rate without duplication or interpolation.

    My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed? Faithful to the time domain of recording, but not of the actual live event!

    Oh my god. Listen: Jay is talking about the sampling rate of the MEDIA (ie the film) not the sampling rate of the READER (ie your DVD player). Apollo footage would have been slowed down to produce the low gravity effect. To slow it down, frames would have to be either interpolated or duplicated. What on earth has SPEEDING UP a DVD got to do with it? Go home, and play your DVD in SLOW MOTION. You will notice that the frame rate will have dropped. If it hasnt, then the company who manufactured your DVD player have broken a fundamental law of the universe, and I would love to buy one.
    I will pre-empt you again; the camera could well have been recording at a higher frame rate. But this does not explain the other physical effects (dust arcs, high-jumps etc) and the fact that it doesn't really work anyway.

    35. We should hear the sound of the engines in the LM descent soundtrack.
    Jay: Rocket engines produce only flow noise in a vacuum, and that is not very loud. Further, the microphones through which the sound was recorded were sealed inside the astronauts' helmets.

    My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers. Their mics are also inside the helmet, yet we hear noise. Granted, they are not in a vacuum, but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!

    Forumla One car engines are very different beasts from rocket engines. The noise from a rocket engine would come from the squirting of fuel (pretty damn quiet I would imagine) and the combustion of said fuels. Because the combustion is happening in a (partial, due to the fuel I suppose) vacuum, the sound waves will have no medium to transmit the sound to the ship. This is an utterly absurd comparison. A better example is a plane: how loud is a jumbo jet when you are inside it? Pretty damn quite, as far as I can remember. I expect they produce a little more than 10000lbs of thrust.

    48. Apollo defenders cannot explain the blue glow seen outside Apollo 13's windows when they were supposedly far from earth.
    Jay: On the contrary, the explanations are clear. Mr. Cosnette is simply unable to understand and unwilling to investigate them.

    My Response: And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon – and no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!

    What would a satellite expert know about scattering, a photographic phenomenon? People have explained scatter in very basic terms, and have also told you where you can go to see it for yourself.

    [i]49. The SIM bay in the J-mission service module closely resembles the damage to the Apollo 13 service module.
    Jay: Except that the photos in question are taken of opposite sides of the respective service module. Mr. Cosnette is unfamiliar with Apollo hardware.

    50. Fred Haise claims to have seen Fra Mauro.
    Jay: Mr. Cosnette is unwilling to provide a reference for this claim. Further, computations show that the Fra Mauro crater might well have been sufficiently lit during Apollo 13's overflight.

    My Response: Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!

    The fact they have written a book means nothing. I suspect that Jay and the others here who work for the space program have done quite a bit more research than the authors of the above mentioned books.

    51. Doubling the film speed produces earth-like motion.
    Jay: That's a matter of subjective opinion. It is not proof.

    My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar

    Sorry, similar isn't good enough. As I said before, slow motion doesn't produce *all* of the effects seen.

    58. Photos taken from different parts of the moon show the same background. Jay: Despite my repeated requests, Mr. Cosnette has refused to provide an example of this phenomenon for discussion.

    My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?

    Perspective. Once again. You move to the left, things close to you move to the right. The mountains in the distance, they stay the same. Again: Perspective. Your optic system has endured millions of years of evoution to take advantage of this phenomenon, so don't waste it.

    59. Official NASA film footage shows the astronauts at the same location on two different days, although it is supposed to be a different location.
    Jay: The film in question is not "official NASA footage" but rather from the public relations documentary Nothing So Hidden.

    My Response: Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors? Closing the door after the horse has bolted is not a good enough answer. I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake?

    No, they probablt used the same sources.

    64. There are 32 questions that Apollo defenders cannot answer.
    Jay: I have answered them at length. Mr. Cosnette has brushed the answers aside.


    My response: In your opinion – you don’t agree with them so say that I have ‘brushed them aside’. That’s two different things.

    No. Jay has answered them, and you have not responded to those answers. That is all.


    I have largely fouond that learning is a process of oscillation. The Apollo Hoax is a good example. At first, I was, 'wow, man went to the moon!' Then I found a HB site, learnt a little more, and thought 'maybe we didnt go to the moon, these HB's might be onto something!'. So later I found the BABB, and learnt a little more. I realised the HB's where probably misguided. Then I went back to a HB site and found another piece of damning evidence. The cycle continued. After having swapped sides numerous times, I have reached a point where HB claims no longer produce a moment of side-swapping inspiration. HB claims, in this sense, are one step, one switch, behind the truth.
    To learn, Dave, you often have to swap sides every now and then. Because you are refusing to swap, even just for a little while, you are stuck on a plateau that is well below what you are capable of.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: widoxm on 2002-06-29 12:24 ]</font>

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,160
    4. The "jump salute" occurrence is an example of mismatched film and video. I have presented the still picture and movie footage of this event on my site. Not once do we see this flap appear on the movie footage taken from behind the astronaut. Whether the flap was in front of, or behind the PLSS it would still be viewable from behind because it appears several inches above the PLSS in the still picture taken from in front of the astronaut. If the flap is in front of the PLSS it would be visible as the astronaut hit the ground. Refute that!

    Very easy. Just watch the entire video footage of the jump salute. When Young turns around the little triangle flap is clearly visable. What you have here is problem with perspective. The LRV video camera is at about three feet high, the top of the PLSS is at 5 1/2 feet about 10 inches across. It should be quite obvious that it can't be seen from the rear. Do the experiment at home.

    BTW the flap appears anytime Young faces the camera.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-29 14:17 ]</font>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    All these accusations and not one single reference to back up your many claims.

    No, you're the one making the claims. And many of us have problems with those claims and have brought them to your attention.

    I’m not answering all the questions you pose because we have debated them to death.

    That's the point. You are unresponsive to the debate. You appear to participate in it, but after all the discussion -- many cases of which prove you don't know what you're talking about -- you simply reassert your original argument.

    From what you’ve written, nobody is qualified to comment because they are not an expert in the subject

    No, that is not the argument. If someone is not an expert in the subject, his opinion on that subject is not to be considered authoritative per se. Nothing prevents Jan Lundberg from commenting on, say, lighting or ichthyology. But the question is how correct and authoritative that comment is. He is not known to be an expert in lighting, and those who are experts in lighting disagree with his opinion. Yet you cite it as if it's God's own truth about the subject.

    There is a great difference between commenting on a subject and commenting in the capacity of an export on a subject. You have not learned the difference.

    You’re also not qualified to have a view on photography or lighting

    Except for the fact that I'm also a competent photographer and a competent lighting desigher, and where my expertise may have lacked in those areas I have confirmed my statements with those who are professional practitioners.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as they say.

    Except that I listen to the experts I consult, whereas you only argue with them.

    [b]Bill Kayseng was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963 (ref: Dark moon).[/b

    I am well aware of the claims made by Dark Moon and well aware that it does not claim Kaysing was the head of "advanced research" which is an entirely different occupation from "head of technical publications." The statement that he is head of "advanced research" appears only on your web site. Please either give a source for that, or withdraw it.

    3. A lot of the footage was pre-recorded and not live at all.
    No need to answer this as you have confirmed it is true –why did you bother bringing this question up?


    Because your statement is misleading. It implies that parts of the EVA record (i.e., film, video, and photography) were produced before the missions. If this is the case, you have not given evidence of it.

    Not once do we see this flap appear on the movie footage taken from behind the astronaut.

    I can see it just fine, and so have many other people who have seen the footage. Because the flap is in front, and the LRV-mounted television camera somewhat low, you can only see the tip. But it's definitely there. For heaven's sake you can see it wagging back and forth when he lands.

    I refute it is scatter, along with many other people more qualified than I.

    Such as?

    My response: Neither are you skilled in thermodynamics, but this doesn’t stop you having your say.

    False. Engineers are required to certify in thermodynamics.

    Tell me then what the normal temperature is on the Moon (and I don’t mean ground temperature).

    A meaningless question. If you are asking for other than the ground temperature then you must tell me what the object is whose temperature you are interested it.

    [b]My response: The Moon is not a controlled environment, so your argument is incorrect.[b]

    Handwaving. Certain aspects of the lunar environment provide enough such control.

    If you don’t know how far the module is how can you take accurate measurements?

    Boy, wouldn't you like to know?

    If you had read and understood http://www.clavius.org/photlens.html you would have realized that the reseau grid sets up a very accurate and precise method of measuring the angular subtension of an object in a single photographic frame. If you know the size of that object (i.e., that the lunar module is 22 feet tall, or that certain portions of it are so many inches across) you can determine using trigonometry exactly how far away the camera's focal point is from that object.

    Further, by noting the patter of obscuration on the "locator" object (i.e., that the landing legs form a certain angle with each other in the picture) you can determine the photographer's azimuth from that object. And since objects like the lunar rover and the lunar module have precisely known azimuths due to their onboard guidance platforms, that translates into a precise location of the photographer by the azimuth and distance method. This is the science behind the "locator" shots.

    My Response: So know you’re an expert on everything that has happened in the film industry since Cinema began?

    No, that was not my claim. Further, this is less about what I know than it is about what you know. You have made the claim that these prop annotations are "common" in Hollywood. Since you've obviously never been to Hollywood and you have given no indications of being personally familiar with the practices of the entertainment industry, I want you to tell me the basis for your claim.

    As for me, I never professed to be an expert on "everything that has happened in film". You have this persistent habit of constructing straw men by hyperbole, and it makes you look foolish for attempting to dodge expertise. But I would say that if something were "common" in Hollywood, and that if someone like me were to spend some appreciable amount of time in Hollywood, he would expect to see that phenomenon which you say is so "common" there.

    Well, I didn't. Not only that, I even asked people there about prop and stage markings, and nobody I talked to has ever marked the stage or props so prominently. Certainly if something were "common" in Hollywood, the people who have worked there all their lives would have known about it.

    On a Hollywood soundstage props are not marked. Set pieces sometimes are, but only on the back side which is never visible to the camera. Markings on the stage floor ("mark" for an actor, "spike" for an object) are a simple "x" in chalk for some surfaces, or a small strip of tape for others, if the floor is not going to be in the frame.

    Putting a huge "C" on the ground and a huge "C" on the visible portion of a prop is contrary to all the training, experience, and intuition of the property master, for the very reason that those markings would be visible to the audience.

    I've been on stages performing or doing technical theater work since I could speak. I don't claim to be the world's expert, but I'm telling you that what you claim is "common", is not. Therefore you must provide additional proof.

    Further, the marking on the rock has been fairly conclusively determined to be something on the print. The mark is not on either duplication master, but only on the scans taken from one print. The mark does not appear on any version of the other photograph taken of that rock.

    10. The shadows in Apollo 11's 16 mm DAC film are suspicious ...
    Jay: Vast amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to refute this claim ...
    My Response: NASA have provided plenty of evidence – can’t you see it?


    And still you dodge. The question is with your interpretation of that evidence, which as been shown to have no theoretical or empirical support. Whereas my explanation has both theoretical and empirical proof.

    The bottom line, Mr. Cosnette, is that you cannot support your interpretation of the photos, but you refuse to withdraw your assertion.

    My Response: But it is on NASA records of the time of day that these EVA’s took place.

    That is not in question. The problem is with inferring sun elevation from shadow information, which is what you are doing.

    Experts in the field know how light should fall, whether it be on a flat or uneven surface

    Correct, and they know not to try to infer things from apparent shadow direction and length when the precise undulations of the terrain cannot be determined.

    several good examples appear in ‘Dark Moon’. With all types of terrain taken into consideration ...

    David Percy is not an expert in shadow analysis. Further, he categorically denies that surface variation has any appreciable effect on the appearance of shadows. Dark Moon most certainly does not account for surface variation in its shadow analysis.

    My Response: Your response proves me ‘factually correct’. Apollo 11 DID use night lenses. Thankyou. Another case of nit-picking.

    No, it is not nit-picking at all. You don't know which camera the night lens was intended for, nor when that lens was intended to be used. So later when you try to compare Hasselblad photography with DAC footage (which you incorrectly say was photographed with a night lens) you can't intelligently draw the comparison.

    Of all the hundreds of hours of film and video downlink from the Apollo missions, only about 30 minutes of it was shot with a night lens -- the portion taken from Apollo 11's MESA prior to Armstrong changing lenses.

    My Response: A quote from Joe Durnavich,
    one of your groups members ...


    And if you continue reading the discussion you'll understand that Joe has realized what I have been discussing with respect to albedo -- that it varies depending on where you measure it and which of the several acceptable methods you use. The number will come out different.

    In any case the question is not what Joe Durnavitch knows about albedo, but what Dave Cosnette knows about albedo. You say the moon's albedo is 7%. You didn't say where or how you got that number. Now that you know the moon's albedo varies as I said, how do you explain your argument?

    My Response: Neither can you. How can you generalise on Dr. Groves’ conclusions when you are not in the position of being a photographic expert?

    I am in the position of being a photographic expert. Most engineers require the science of photogrammetry in order to do their jobs. This is what enables me to point out the flaws in Dr. Groves' analysis, especially the fantastically inflated claims of precision. If Dr. Groves' claims of precision are for real, he is claiming to be able to locate the spot on Aldrin's boot to a precision of 0.002 inch, or less than the thickness of a human hair. Pretty good for measuring a tiny spot on a 70 mm transparency.

    My Response: My claim of the camera being strapped to the front of the jacket is the same as your claim of the camera being on a mount, strapped to the front of the jacket

    No, it most certainly is not. Your statement implies that the camera cannot move independently of the astronaut, and you go on to make that implication explicit, claiming that the only way the astronaut could point the camera at all is to orient his entire torso. That is not the case.

    The PLSS is suspended by over-shoulder straps which connect to a ring on the suit chest. The two buckles which effect this connection each has a small horizontal bar which receives one of two pincer hooks (similar to a car door latch) on the rear of the RCU. This allows for considerable "play" in the RCU, especially in the vertical tilt (i.e., pitch) direction.

    You argue this wouldn't allow for the extreme downward pitch of the optical axis in AS11-40-5903, and your argument is solely that the camera was "strapped" down. I have made a very detailed study of the mechanical connection between the camera and the RCU and between the RCU and the rest of the suit, and I don't see any reason why it's impossible to point the camera downwards. In fact, that's the "natural" position of the camera.

    Either defend your argument or withdraw it.

    My Response: Yet again, saying exactly the same thing as me, without realising it.

    No, yet again you have completely ignored an important difference. To say a photo has been "retouched" when it has been "pushed" is factually incorrect. Those refer to two completely different activities.

    My Response: You cannot retouch negatives on a continuous roll of film

    I asked you to support your assertion, not just restate it.

    Perhaps you mean that specific frames cannot be pushed during development because the entire roll must be developed identically. But that is not the assertion. It is suggested that individual frames were pushed during duplication which is a separate step and not bound by the limits of the film format.

    You may be unaware that underexposed film preserves detail which is not readily apparent in the transparency or negative, and that by manipulating the photochemical parameters of duplication you can quite effectively extract those details. The scans of the egress photos made from the transparencies themselves are very dark. But the scans made from large-format prints are suitable. Creating the print necessitated a duplication step where corrective action for underexposure could be applied.

    My Response: Armstrong, Aldrin – whatever

    No, not "whatever". If you wish to be taken seriously then you must demonstrate careful research. Correct your page.

    Natural sunlight cannot create hotspots

    What about natural sunlight reflected off a big sheet of aluminum?

    I use reflectors and sunlight to create pools of light all the time.

    Again my old theory of common sense reigns supreme – photo analyst or not – we can all see the hotspot with our own eyes

    No one is arguing that a pool of illumination isn't really there. We're arguing over what you (or rather, Mr. Lundberg) says is causing it. Mr. Lundberg, in his inexpert opinion, says it's a spotlight. You say it's a spotlight. But you have no evidence that a real spotlight is actually causing it.

    My Response: Actually Dr. Groves, Percy and Bennett have successfully provided enough data about the lay of the lunar surface in their book to satisfy anyone who is inquisitive enough to dig deeper (pun intended).

    No, they haven't. They have provided only speculation which is contradicted by observation. I pointed you several times to the page on my site where I conclusively proved -- using Percy's own evidence -- that the lunar surface was in fact irregular where Percy claimed it was flat. To date you still have not commented on that evidence.

    Now that you mention it, Percy and Groves actually disagree on the effect of terrain. Percy says the terrain would have no measurable effect on the appearance of shadows, but on p. 538 of Dark Moon Groves purports to be able to measure down to a hair's breadth that same effect which Percy says is negligible.

    This happens all through Dark Moon. The authors simply assert whatever needs to be asserted in each case to make their conclusions true, irrespective of whether they asserted the exact opposite in some other case.

    My Response: But the astronaut pointed the camera at the Sun all the same, rendering the camera useless.

    No, you misunderstand your own argument. You wonder why Mission Control told Apollo 15 to point their camera "at the sun" when the same procedure had ruined Apollo 12's camera. The answer is that Apollo 15 was told to point their camera "up sun" which is not directly at the sun, but merely in the sun's azimuth.

    My Response: Yes, it is possible to aim a camera with a wide-angle lens and get proper framing – if the camera is placed before ones face and looking through a viewfinder.

    That is desirable, but not necessary. If you have a wide-angle lens, precise aiming is not as necessary as when you are using a telephoto lens.

    Could you guide me to the original picture of the wrongly framed shot?

    Try ALSJ.

    ... the astronauts would have found it difficult to change lenses, film and especially filters when they had pressure around their fingers.

    But there's a big difference between "difficult" and "impossible". I'm sure it was difficult, which is why they trained for it.

    Also the gloves were not of surgical glove thickness for greater sensitivity, but rather the size of a fireman’s glove.

    There's an important difference. A huge gauntlet operating under pressure would indeed be a serious impediment. But the huge gauntlets weren't pressurized. The inner glove was pressurized, and the inner glove is what most closely resembles a surgical glove, but a bit thicker.

    You haven't yet caught onto the two-glove idea.

    To prove your conviction perhaps you could try changing the film in your camera with heavy gloves on, and then you will see how difficult it is, whether pressure inside the glove is involved or not.

    Already done that. I can change a magazine camera, my miniDV video camera, and my 35 mm Canon camera while wearing my heavy leather work gloves. Further, I can change all the exposure settings on my Canon in those same gloves, and manually focus. And that camera isn't even designed for space use.

    Further, I have done manual dexterity experiments in space gloves, specifically those that were developed for use with the shuttle's MMU.

    The question is not what I have done to assure myself that the astronauts could operate the camera. The question is what you have done to support your assertion that it was "virtually impossible" (your words) for them to have done so.

    What have you done?

    how do you suggest I carry out further investigation, save going to Australia myself?

    Why don't you simply pay attention to the findings of people who live in Australia, have researched this question, and posted their results here?

    Neither you nor Mary Bennett seems overly concerned that you have alleged as fact something which you admit you have not corroborated. The correct course of action is not to first publish the allegation and then go see if it is true. The correct course of action is to first perform the research and then afterwards report the findings.

    I was promised that Bennett and Percy's work was carefully researched and meticulously documented. Now I find, from Bennett's own acquaintance, that she's frantically writing to Australia to see whether or not the story she published is true. That makes me wonder what other parts of Dark Moon are simply unsubstantiated rumors.

    My Response: Try and put whatever spin on it that you want. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Worlds media had to film the Lunar event off of a monitor.

    Yes, it most certainly does alter the fact. The world's media did not have to film it off a monitor, they were given standard broadcast feeds from the MSFN equipment in Houston.

    You can spin whatever you want, but the fact remains that you're alleging things that are provably untrue, and you don't seem to care.

    Jay: Mr. Cosnette's summary and analysis of Wood's statement is completely incorrect.
    My Response: Same answer as above.


    The dodge continues. You are factually incorrect, and you don't seem to care.

    My Response: So is that why my video recorder or DVD player can play films in double speed?

    Completely irrelevant. Fast-forwarding a recording means extracting a portion of the sampled signal. If the video was sampled at 30 fps and you want a 2X fast-forward, you pick every other frame out of the sample and display it. If you want a 6X fast-forward, you select every fifth frame and display it. What if you want an 8X fast-forward? 30 is not evenly divisible by 8, so you must either try to interpolate between frames or settle for a nonuniform sampling of the frame. (DVD players do the latter.)

    The display rate on your television is still 30 fps (25 for you in the U.K.) but you're not seeing frames that were created 1/30 second apart. The time domain is not preserved.

    The Apollo 11 downlink problem is the opposite sampling problem. For American broadcast purposes you need to supply 30 frames per second. But the video is being taken on the moon at 10 fps. You can't just store up those frames and then play them back at 30 fps -- the action would be comically sped up because the 1/10 second interval between when the frames were photographed would be rendered as a 1/30 second interval between the display of those frames.

    So you must scan-convert. Fortunately it's not hard. Basically you take each frame and duplicate it twice. So each frame from the spacecraft produces three identical frames for output. This satisfies the 30 fps constraint for broadcast without altering the time interval that existed between the source frames.

    Mr. Wood explains the equipment they used to do that. It's all very straightforward. Your argument that it would have scaled the time domain of the playback is simply wrong.


    My Response: Correct actually. I’m talking about ‘pictures’ not movies.

    Right, that's your limitation, not NASA's.

    You're trying to draw a conclusion about suspicious absence, but using selective evidence.

    It would be as if I came to your house and looked at one of your aquariums and said, "Hey, you've only got one blue tang in this tank, do you have something against blue tangs?" And then you point me to three other aquariums in the room which are each filled to capacity with blue tangs, at which point I said, "I'm just talking about this one tank. I don't care about those others."

    My Response: The same could be said about Formula One race drivers.

    No, it could not. An F1 racing engine is not the same as a rocket engine.

    but there again they are also not above an engine capable of producing 10,000lbs of thrust!

    It was explained to you that rocket engines produce a steady roar only when fired in an atmosphere. In a vacuum you only get a brief sound of the ignition transient and then during steady-state firing very little if any flow noise. You have not accounted for this in your argument.

    My Response: Why do you keep stating the obvious? Spontaneous means ‘at the same time’.

    No, "spontaneous" does not mean "at the same time". It means to occur without any apparent external cause. All bipropellant engines consume each propellant component at the same time, but not all are hypergolic. Other bipropellant engines (e.g., the SSME) require an explicit ignition source. Hypergolic engines do not. Your definition describes all bipropellant engines, but does not sufficiently discriminate between hypergolic and non-hypergolic bipropellants.

    This is not a nit-pick. You have presumed to criticize Apollo on the grounds that its rocket technology is implausible. You are unable to correctly describe that technology, therefore we take legitimate issue with your opinion on Apollo propulsion. The nature of hypergolic propulsion is important to understanding the design and behavior of Apollo spaceships.

    My Response: In the book ‘Dark Moon’, Percy and Bennett ask George Pinter – previously of Grumman Aerospace and actively involved at top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module – why no clouds of red smoke were visible on the Lunar landings or ascents.

    Cryogenics have nothing whatosever to do with hypergolic propulsion. Mr. Pinter is correct in that gas under pressure disperses quickly in a vacuum, but that is not the reason the red cloud is absent. The red cloud is produced by the chemical reaction of preinjected nitrogen tetroxide with the air.

    I have provided David Percy with detailed information on this phenomenon. He erased it from his web site and now pretends it never existed. I am not impressed with his allegations that he is waiting for an unresponsive NASA to answer his questions. There are any number of sources he could have consulted, including me, on this matter. Aerozine/N204 is a common fuel mix today and there are many engineering firms all over the world who are familiar with its behavior.

    What David Percy is waiting for is irrelevant. I want to know why you -- who have received a lengthy treatise on this -- persist in your assertion.

    ... and can produce thrust on a sandy surface such as the Moon’s

    The moon is not a "sandy" surface. Sand is not especially cohesive except when wet.

    ... will at least leave scorch marks or heat up the ground. No evidence of this is seen.

    False. AS11-40-5921.

    Even if the engine was throttled down it would have produced enough power to effect the ground underneath the engines exhaust pipe.

    It did. But you describe a specific effect, that of melting the surface and producing a crater. I'm an engineer. I want a quantative dynamic gas pressure analysis and a compaction analysis to prove a crater should have been formed. I want a quantitative thermodynamic analysis to prove the surface should have been melted.

    If you can't provide me with either of these, then you haven't considered the question sufficiently to determine whether your assertions are plausible.

    One the one hand your saying that the dust landed pretty quickly, and on the other your saying that it was actually airborne after the engines had been switched off?

    No, that it is exactly not what I am asserting.

    You have combined two points which I wished kept separate.

    First, you argue that there shouldn't have been enough dust remaining after landing for the astronauts to have made footprints. Yet you ignore the fact that all the while the engine is firing, we see dust being blown outward in the film. The blowing dust continues largely undiminished until the engine is stopped. This implies that dust remains.

    An analogy. Let's say I have a pitcher full of water. I begin slowly pouring that water out. When you say "stop" I will stop pouring the water and tip the pitcher back upright. Now if the trickling water ceases immediately when you say "stop", you can infer that there is likely still water in the pitcher, even if you can't see inside the pitcher. But if the trickling of water ceases long before you say "stop", you can infer that I ran out of water and the pitcher is empty.

    The fact that dust continues to blow outward for as long as the engine is firing suggests that the dust was not blasted completely away in one fell swoop, but was being slowly eroded by the exhaust plume in order to create that steady stream of dust. Thus there is no basis for the argument that the area under the lander should have been swept entirely free of dust.

    Second, you argue that there should have been dust in the footpads. Dust does not billow in a vacuum, even in response to a directed stream of fluid. It sprays outward in a radial pattern and at a fairly shallow angle.

    As the LM lowered, the dust dispersal was almost entirely below the footpads. Now recall that the descent profile calls for the LM engine to be shut down while the lander is still some five feet off the surface. This is to prevent a back pressure wave from damaging the underside of the lander. So if the engine is cut off with the footpads still five feet off the ground, and the dust is only blowing when the engine is firing, most or all of the dust will have settled back to the surface before the footpads -- falling from above -- strike it.

    I didn’t say it was the first footprint did I?

    No, but you imply that the first footprint was made in dust. Since you have no idea what that first footprint may have looked like, your argument is based simply on your assumption.

    how did Armstrong manage to create a footprint in heavy dust?

    Who says he did?

    Nevertheless, What luck that the Apollo could actually land within a few hundred yards of the Surveyor anyway

    Luck is not a factor. It's a matter of guidance technology.

    Further, you have not addressed the issue. The issue is that what you claim to be official NASA footage of the Apollo 12 landing is not. Provide a source for your footage or withdraw your claim regarding it.

    And I have written to a satellite expert who also has not heard of this phenomenon

    Neither has my dentist, but that's means nothing. If you want information on an optical phenomenon, talk to an expert on optics. A satellite expert is not expected to know anything about optical scatter. So if he says he doesn't know what it is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    You and Percy share a trait: you both consult people on questions that are irrelevant to their stated field of expertise.

    no one else who I have debated the blue sky has explained this as ‘scatter’ either!

    But would they be expected to? You're making an argument from silence. It's only evidentiary for people not to know something if it's guaranteed they should have known about it.

    My Response: This does not rule out the possibility that another panel could be removed

    But not all bays contain the same equipment. Those of us who are familiar with the SM configuration know which SM sectors we are looking at in each photo. In the Apollo 13 photo we know for a fact we are looking at Sector 4 and what we see in that photo looks like the wreckage of the ECS equipment that would have been in that sector. We similarly know for a fact that in the other photo we are seeing an opened Sector 1. We know this not by looking at their contents, but by matching external features on the SM which reveal its orientation.

    If you argue that Apollo 13's wreckage was faked by simply putting fake wreckage in Sector 1, then you have to answer why it's perfectly clear that we're looking at Sector 4.

    Dark Moon and What Happened on the Moon? That’s my reference [for Apollo 13] – they have done at least as much research as yourself and written a book to prove it!

    No, they have not done as much research as I. I have read the Apollo 13 transcripts from cover to cover. Mary Bennett all but admits her "research" on Apollo 13 consisted mostly of watching Ron Howard's movie, since that's what she most commonly cites in defense of her argument.

    You appear to be impressed simply by the fact that Bennett and Percy wrote a big book. You don't seem concerned in the least about whether that book contains fact or error. And it's obvious that you have done absolutely nothing to verify the claims in the book, even if you possessed the skill and knowledge to do it. But we have examined the book in great depth and have applied our various fields of expertise to it and find it almost completely lacking in merit.

    I don't consider Bennett and Percy experts on Apollo 13, and so if your argument is simply to fall back on them, I reject your argument.

    My Response: But it’s possible and proven to be similar

    You cannot prove something which is a subjective opinion, by definition. That's like proving that broccoli tastes good. Individuals either like it or dislike it; it's not an objective condition which can be proven for all cases.

    The film evidence of wires being used is on my site. Perhaps you could watch them?

    I did, but apparently I was not looking at where you wanted me to look in the frame, so I will go back and look again.

    By turning a blind eye on things doesn’t make them go away.

    So then why don't you comment on how wires could be used to produce low-gravity dust arcs. You seem to be turning a blind eye on that part.

    Actually I have given a very plausible explanation in another post about the effects of radiation.

    What other post?

    Obviously human tissue would need greater protection.

    Why do you say that? A CCD cannot heal itself.

    By C.J. McFee ...
    ... for a five year mission ...


    How does a five-year mission differ from an Apollo mission in terms of radiation exposure?

    I'm sure Mr. McFee is perfectly conversant with radiation exposure. I want to know how conversant you are with radiation exposure.

    57. ...
    My Response: See above.


    That does not address Dr. Groves grossly overinflated dosages to which he subjected his photographic film. The dodge continues.

    My Response: As told before, there are many sites on the web with these pictures, but Jay is too lazy to go and look. Or does he not want to go look for fear of not having an answer?

    Mr. Cosnette, I addressed this point explicity on at least three occasions. I have some idea in my head what your argument may be, but until you actually present your argument I have no way of knowing if my idea is correct. I have no intention of presenting a lengthy rebuttal to what I think your argument may be, only to have you come back later and say, "Dummy, that's not my argument."

    Further, I believe your argument have something to do with parallax, but since particulars of identifying and quantifying the effects of parallax differ from photo to photo, I require a specific photo to refer to. You may choose whatever photo you wish, and as many of them as you like. But I have no intention of choosing some example of parallax and analyzing it for you, only to have you say, "Well that doesn't explain this photo over here."

    I'm not about to play silly rhetorical games such as Guess Mr. Cosnette's Argument. It has nothing to do with my laziness, and the extensiveness of my contributions here demonstrates. It has everything to do with not setting up some situation where you can try to trap people into meaningless inconsistencies.

    If you can't be bothered to supply an argument, you have no right commanding anyone's attention.

    Surely a documentary made on the behalf of NASA would have had to have been checked before release to realise such errors?

    No, not necessarily. I'm not interested in what you speculate might have been a good idea. I'm interested in what you can prove actually happened.

    I have another Apollo film which has the same footage – did they not learn from their mistake?

    Those original films have been incorporated into many other works.

    By the way, any footage of the Apollo on the Moon is ‘official NASA footage’

    No. If that footage is incorporated into someone else's compilation, errors arising out of the compilation are not necessarily errors in the source material.

    Let's say I write to the BBC and ask them for various video footage of the British P.M. entering and leaving 10 Downing St. Let's say I take departure footage from one day and edit it with arrival footage from a different day. Let's say I add some narration that says, "In BBC footage here's the P.M. leaving for work and returning later that same day." Now suppose someone looks at that footage and concludes that "official BBC footage" shows an inconsistency in the P.M. clothing on what was purported to be the same day, whose error is it? Is it the BBC's fault? Is it my fault?

    Until you can demonstrate you understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, you will not be taken seriously.

    What film are you talking about being an artists concept? I don’t know what site you’ve seen this one – but it certainly isn’t mine.

    It certainly is yours. It's the six-second Real Video clip you say is your smoking gun. Your video is a pan, yet it lacks the vidicon "smears" which are a telltale of actual pans from the LRV's camera. Further, the terrain does not resemble any of the terrain experienced on any of the missions; it is inconsistent with all other video. Finally, the upper scanline contains ATVEF-encoded data, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was obtained from a modern television broadcast.

    Since your Real Video clip could have come from anywhere, your argument rests on your ability to substantiate it as actual downlink video. You have not done that. I will not accept it as evidence until you have documented where and how it was obtained.

    The group has not been able to prove that the photos on my site don’t show stars.

    They are not required to. Your argument rests on the premise that they are stars. Yet you have not sufficiently discussed any other possibility.

    You are guessing ...

    No, I am not. You argue that the specks must be stars, which means they cannot be anything else. If they could be anything else, they are not guaranteed to be stars.

    Your photos come exclusively from the JSC scans, and there are known contamination problems with those scans. Further, other versions of those photos, duplicated under less contaminated circumstances, do not show the specks.

    Further, some of the specks lie outside the boundaries of the frame. A camera cannot expose an image beyond its hard matte.

    Finally, it has been exhaustively demonstrated to you by rigorous theory, data from Kodak, and empirical proof that you cannot simultaneously expose sunlit terrain and stars on the film in question.

    In short, there is a monumental case against the specks in your stills being stars. If you argue that they must be stars you must

    1. explain in terms of theoretical exposure and the characteristic curves of the film in question, just how such an exposure could have been made,

    2. explain how stars could be exposed on the film outside of the camera's matte,

    3. explain why the presence or absence of specks correlates to the conditions under which the scan was made.

    Of course I cannot prove that the specks are contamination, but the observations point more toward that than toward a hypothesis that they are stars. Further, I'm not required to prove some other hypothesis in order to show that your hypothesis is not true. I'm simply required to show that your hypothesis does not sufficiently explain the facts and involves unproven and/or unprovable premises.

    My Response: I concede – the footage will be removed – happy?

    Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Thank you.

    As a scientist, surely you would know that for the scientific community to accept something it has to be reproduced and reproduced again.

    Under ideal, perfectly controlled circumstances, yes. The principles of real-world empiricism dictate that many subjects be used, and many successive samples taken, prior to generalization in order to compensate for effects which the experimenter cannot control, but which affect the outcome.

    Considering that on some ascents the flame is visible and on others it is not – does this prove that the LEM is doing something out of scientist’s knowledge?

    Of course not. No two ignitions are the exactly the same. No two dispersals of insulation and debris are exactly the same. No two separation sequences are exactly the same. No two lighting circumstances are exactly the same.

    You can assert that the plume must be uniformaly visible or invisible in all cases only if you can show that everything which might affect the observation is perfectly identical between the cases.

    The flame should either be visible or not visible on ALL ascents, there is no middle ground here.

    I disagree entirely. You have almost antithetically misrepresented the principle of empiricism.

    My response: In your opinion – you don’t agree with them so say that I have ‘brushed them aside’. That’s two different things.

    No, I mean that I have provided lengthy discussion and in many cases factual corrections to your questions. Your questions remain unchanged. You cannot say that Apollo defenders have not answered your questions. You simply don't like the answers, but that's a different issue.

    My Response: Ever worked in a department store or factory? If so, did you know what a person upstairs job involved?

    Why do you assume that engineering is like working in a department store or factory? Citing examples of other enterprises which may be compartmentalized does not prove that aerospace engineering is also similarly compartmentalized.

    My Response: But being the expert that you claim to be, you would already know right?

    As a matter of fact I have all the names, dates, and purported causes of death for all the astronauts who died prior to the conclusion of the Apollo project. You have made some very specific assertions regarding those deaths, but you have provided no names, dates, or conclusions regarding the causes of death.

    Do you have any intention of supporting your argument?

    Why did NASA send a man into space with a suspect heart then?

    Irwin's symptoms were very mild during his active period as an astronaut and didn't materially affect his performance. It was only during the long-term monitoring associated with his mission that they discovered his arrythmia.

    But you haven't answered the question. How can a man's death from heart attack be considered suspicious when the man had a fully documented history of heart problems? The only thing suspicious about his death is the timing, and the only thing that makes the timing suspicious is Bill Kaysing's unsubstantiated claim (made after Irwin's death) that Irwin was about to reveal the secret of the moon hoax. Remove Bill Kaysing from the picture and all you have is a man with a known heart problem dying of a heart attack.

    This is clearly an attempt to "tack on" some sort of conspiratorial interpretation to Irwin's death.

    I really can’t believe that you had the time to write such a long letter with your busy schedule ...

    What I do in my spare time is my business.

  20. #20
    I just noticed this little gem:
    9 and 43: Any type of engine that is capable of lifting the LEM of of the lunar surface and can produce thrust on a sandy surface such as the Moon’s will at least leave scorch marks or heat up the ground.
    The part about being able to 'produce thrust on a sandy surface' would suggest that CosmicDave is so naive in his knowledge of physics that he believes the rocket requires something to 'push' on to produce thrust. It is hard to take his claims seriously when he makes such fundamental mistakes.

  21. #21
    I was right - this was fun.

    I have merely one small thought here. Please don't be offended, JayUtah - I think you're doing a wonderful job and I have learned a great deal during my time here. But there's just one little thing I've been thinking about in your answers to comicdave. I mean no disrespect, JayUtah, and I realize this *might* have something to do with English not being my native language, but I *think* you perhaps might be using a slightly too advanced language for comicdave to understand.

    I mean, it is by now clear to most of us that comicdave is either slightly less intelligent, or significantly less educated than most people (and possibly both). Because of that, I was thinking that perhaps comicdave might in some way find your answers easier to understand if you perhaps sometimes used a slightly less advanced terminology in them.

    For example, I know, and I'm sure 99% of the people here know, what "azimuth" means. But I doubt comicdave knows, so perhaps you could have said "the angle along the horizon" or something similary descriptive instead, so he could more easily understand.

    Please don't take this as criticism, JayUtah, it is merely a suggestion, and believe me, I understand perfectly well why you choose to use a short precise word instead of a longer, inprecise sentece to describe somthing. I just think we have to remember here that we are dealing with a person (comicdave, that is) who is not entirely capable of understanding basic written text, and we might just have to compensate for his lack of understanding when we talk to him.

    Well, that was just my thought. Feel free to disregard it - I usually don't have any problem myself with your language level.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Consider also this quote from his site:

    "I have heard some skeptics state that the engines force would have been dispersed mainly sideways, but if this is so, what actually held up the 2,300lbs of lunar lander when it was on its descent to the Lunar surface?"

    This too appears to argue that the characteristics (or even the presence) of an underlying surface is a key factor in how much thrust a rocket develops. Now there is a sort of ground effect when one is very near the surface, but that's not the essential component of thrust. It's merely tacked onto the basic thrust developed through Newtonian conservation of momentum.

    And plume dispersal does affect the amount of thrust developed, but not the dispersal that occurs when the plume encounters a surface some distance away. In convergent-divergent nozzle designs, the nozzle converts pressure to velocity. Ideally the path of all exhaust molecules at the exit plane will be collinear and parallel to the axis of thrust, and the pressure of the exhaust gas will be equal to the ambient outside pressure. But it's practically impossible to achieve the ideal nozzle design for a vacuum (exit plane pressure of zero), and there will always be some residual pressure at the exit plane that will cause the plume to disperse and "waste" some thrust nonpropulsively. And it's even more difficult to design the ideal nozzle for a variable-thrust engine.

    But this doesn't appear to be what Mr. Cosnette is talking about. A common, though inaccurate, abstraction of the principle of propulsion is that the LM "balances" on a "column" of exhaust. Balance is indeed important; the thrust vector must point through the center of mass. And there is indeed a column of exhaust -- the more columnar the better. But this is not the same physical arrangement as a static load balanced on an actual solid column. The density of the exhaust plume is, in fact, almost entirely irrelevant to the amount of thrust that engine produces.

    Apparently Mr. Cosnette's common sense has failed him again.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    I *think* you perhaps might be using a slightly too advanced language for comicdave to understand.

    Perhaps, but I'm caught between trying to explain complicated topics to him in his terms (perhaps inaccurately as a result) and raising his level of understanding to that which is appropriate to the topic. I would prefer to do the latter, if possible.

    I hope it's clear that obfuscation is not my goal. I've always been used to the concept that correct use of precise terminology is what separates the novice from the expert.

    Your point is well taken. I would prefer to use precise terms, but that obviously presumes that everyone understands those terms. Otherwise I'm just wasting my time.

  24. #24
    On 2002-06-29 16:33, M_Welander wrote:
    I was thinking that perhaps comicdave might in some way find your answers easier to understand if you perhaps sometimes used a slightly less advanced terminology in them.
    I would have to politely disagree. I don't think Co(s)micdave *wants* to be educated. Now matter how simple Jay puts things, he will continue to brush them off.

    However, by using the correct terminology, others reading (definitely myself included), who are capable and willing to learn, are receiving excellent information.

    I know you hear it all the time, but thanks Jay!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Aldrin versus Armstrong in AS11-40-5903. I see the problem; it's my fault.

    Aldrin is the subject of the photo, but Armstrong appears in it in the visor reflection. The problem is that there are two hot-spots in this photo: one behind Aldrin and likely caused by the reflection from facets of the LM, and one associated with Armstrong and very clearly due to heiligenschien. We have to be certain which pool of light we're talking about from moment to moment.

    Anticipating Mr. Cosnette's typical, "But which is it? You can't seem to agree!" let me be as explicit as possible.

    The pool of light behind Aldrin is most likely the somewhat directional reflection of light from the cover of the LM's aft equipment bay. That is the most likely LM surface to provide such a reflection. Obviously an object like the lunar module with many facets facing odd directions will present a number of opportunities for partially directional reflections.

    If we closely examine the reflection in Aldrin's visor, we see the reflection of Armstrong taking the picture. And in the reflection of the lunar surface behind the reflection of Armstrong we see another pool of light. Reflection establishes a new line of sight. The image in the visor is produced by the line(s) of sight which extend from there to objects and surfaces in front of Aldrin, and probably behind the photographer.

    When the light of sight corresponds to the angle at which light strikes the object, we say scientifically that the phase angle is zero. And some peculiar things happen when the phase angle is zero. Specifically, objects obscure their own shadows.

    I've already posted photos taken on earth which show this phenomenon. It can be seen on earth, typically any time you have a broad expanse of textured surface. I recently saw some film taken from one of those hydrogen peroxide rocket packs which showed the pilot's shadow on a grassy field. Heiligenschein was clearly apparent. There is also a down-sun shot from the film Apocalypse Now in which helicopters are flying over the jungle canopy and heiligenschein is very noticeable around the copter's shadow. It can be seen on earth, but it's harsher on the lunar surface where shadows are harsher.

    It's quite important to realize that it's solely a function of phase angle, or the difference between the line of sight and the direction of illumination. If I were standing on the lunar surface taking a picture of my own shadow, I would see a very strong heiligenschein surrounding the "head" of my shadow. But if my companion astronaut were standing off to the side and looking at the tip of my shadow from a different angle, he wouldn't see it.

    The hot spot reflected in the visor is actually the easiest to explain. And despite what Mr. Lundberg thinks, it's not a spot light.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-29 17:52 ]</font>

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,160
    CD,

    If you have problems with determining the temperature of various objects on the lunar surface, I sure the following heat transfer expert, could help you. He's British as well, so you won't have to deal with our American bias.

    http://www.cham.co.uk/website/new/dbs.htm

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    187
    On 2002-06-29 17:48, RalphVanDyke wrote:
    On 2002-06-29 16:33, M_Welander wrote:
    I was thinking that perhaps comicdave might in some way find your answers easier to understand if you perhaps sometimes used a slightly less advanced terminology in them.
    I would have to politely disagree. I don't think Co(s)micdave *wants* to be educated. Now matter how simple Jay puts things, he will continue to brush them off.

    However, by using the correct terminology, others reading (definitely myself included), who are capable and willing to learn, are receiving excellent information.

    I know you hear it all the time, but thanks Jay!
    Moreover, cos, or any other lay person here (that would be me), could simply ask for a more basic explanation at any time. I've found the experts here to be more than willing to take the time to explain things in terms understandable to those of us without their years of training. Cd has never once to my recollection asked for an explanation on any point presented to him. In fact, it seems clear to me that he holds in disdain those who might punch a hole in his tidy little conspiratorial thinking. Personally I think Jay has demonstrated enormous patience in his dealings with him.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    315
    And almost as if to illustrate the point:

    Jay, what exactly is meant by "up sun" and "down sun"?


  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Wow, what a thread. It's taken me most of the day to read through all of it, along with following up by checking out CD's site, the ALSJ, and such.

    Jay's comments on AS11-40-5903 got me looking closely at the photo and I noticed something cool about it. If you look at the inside of Aldrin's left leg you can see it's illuminated much more brightly than his right one. It's obvious to me that the extra light comes from the reflection from his right leg.

  30. #30
    Heiligenschien?

    I tried looking that one up in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 edition) but didn't find it. I think in this case a definition would perhaps be in order. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Similar Threads

  1. The lasest from Cosmic Dave
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2004-Jan-12, 08:38 PM
  2. Cosmic Dave's 32 questions
    By JayUtah in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-21, 03:16 AM
  3. Our mate Cosmic Dave
    By Peter B in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-06, 07:42 PM
  4. For cosmic dave....stars
    By infocusinc in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 2002-Jun-24, 06:51 PM
  5. Cosmic Dave and Apollo 13
    By JayUtah in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2002-Jun-12, 05:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: