Evan Burton

Duane,

You are continuing to make bold statements without any supporting evidence, or claim that rebuttals are invalid without showing why they are invalid. If I were to follow in your methods, I would simply claim that anything from a pro-"Apollo Hoax" site is obviously disinformation and therefore wrong.... and without showing any evidence as to why they are wrong!

That doesn't make the grade. You have to show the reasons for something being wrong, and allow that evidence to be subjected to testing & review.

...but unfortunately quoting from the ALSJ is not a rebuttal of any kind .... It is only quoting from the source of the misinformation ....

If you want to claim it is "misinformation", you have to show how it is "misinformation". For instance, you'd have to find a document that shows the construction of the LM and that the lunar contact probes were removed (remembering, of course, that the FAQ specifically mentions these probes. You'd have to present NASA diagrammes of the LM control panels which do not show the 'Lunar Contact' light on the panels. You'd have to present verified / accurate transcripts of the voice transmissions which omit any reference to the contact light and the shutting down of the descent stage engine. You'd have to present a checklist for the specified missions showing that the engine was not to be shut down until AFTER touchdown.

So far, all you do is say "You're wrong" without supporting that statement in any way.

One would need outside corroboration of nasa's technical claims of landing six manned missions on the moon ... but so far I haven't been able to find that anywhere ... and from the looks of it , neither have any of you .

I have twice offered you the challenge to select a technically qualified independent source, and have the Apollo hardware within their field reviewed by them. For whatever reasons, you have chosen not to accept this challenge - so your statement is invalid.

I agree with all of Jones' claims and opinions about Apollo and that is why I posted his FAQ article here .... So in what way would you like me to "defend" his statements ?

By offering supporting evidence. Let's say I posted a quote from someone who said that the Earth was a large cube supported on the back of a enormous tortoise, and then said I agreed with them. You then said that it was wrong, and that the Earth was an oblate spheroid in space (which it is). You then show experiments that prove the curvature of the Earth, link to images showing the Earth from space, etc.

If that was my opinion (that the quoted post is correct about the Earth being a cube), wouldn't you expect me to support that with some type of evidence?

And for those of us with restricted downloads and slower speeds, could you post links to hi-res images instead of the image itself?

Thanks.

Evan posted ... "Completely wrong. If you have a look at this image. " ... Didn't you mean .. have a look at this FAKED STUDIO IMAGE ? ..... You offer a studio photograph of a LM hanging by a cable wire , as proof that the engine was turned off ??? ...TOO FUNNY !

Even the FAQ mentions the lunar contact probes - are you saying it is wrong?

Even so...

From the Apollo 11 transcript:

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe.]

[Aldrin - "We asked that they take it off."]

[Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek notes that Apollo 11 photo S69-32396, taken on 4 April 1969, shows Eagle with a probe attached to the plus-Z footpad. This indicates that the probe was removed after that date. The probe attachment is highlighted in a detail.]

[Apollo 11 photograph AS11-40-5921 shows the area under the Descent Stage. A gouge mark made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) footpad is directly under the engine bell, a graphic demonstration that the spacecraft was drifitng left during the final seconds.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn't precisely determine (the moment of) touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I called contact light."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I'm sure you did, but I didn't hear it, nor did I see it."]

102:45:43 Armstrong (on-board): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

From the Apollo 12 transcript:

110:32:28 Carr: 30 seconds (of fuel remaining).

110:32:29 Bean: 18 feet, coming down at 2. He's got it made! Come on in there. 24 feet.

110:32:35 Bean: Contact Light.

110:32:36 Carr: Roger. Copy Contact.

[Jones - "I gather from the tech debrief that you actually dropped the last two or three feet."]

[Conrad - "You're supposed to."]

[Jones - "And the theory on that was?"]

[Conrad - "Lunar contact light came on and the probes were six feet below the gear. We were supposed to shut the engine off right then because they did worry about the bell mouth too close to the ground."]

[bean - "Or hitting a rock and denting the bell mouth."]

[Conrad - "And I said, always, 'I'll never do that; who wants to shut off a good engine when you're still in the air?' But we had to train to shut it off. Neil landed with his (engine still) on. And, so, I was going to do the same thing. And, whoever said 'lunar contact light', I went 'bamm' and shut it down. (Laugh) Somewhere in there, I think there's an 'Oh xxxx'. Or there almost was. But about that time we were on (the Moon), and I didn't have to get it (the 'oh xxxx') the rest of the way out. I remember that."]

From the Apollo 14 transcript:

08:15:11 Mitchell: Contact, Al.

[Note that the time indicated here - 108:15:11 - is the time since launch and agrees with the time given in the Apollo 14 Mission Report.]

108:15:12 Shepard: (Garbled), Stop. Great, Pro, Auto, Auto.

108:15:18 Mitchell: We're on the surface.

From Apollo 15 transcript:

104:42:29 Irwin: Contact. (Pause) Bam!

[irwin - "We did hit harder than any of the other flights! And I was startled, obviously, when I said, 'Bam!' (Laughing) And I think Dave didn't particularly appreciate my comment, that he made a hard landing on the Moon!"]

[i have been able to find estimates of the vertical speed at touchdown on five of the six landings. Neil Armstrong's was the lowest at 1.7 feet/second because he didn't get the engine shutdown until after the footpads were on the surface. On Apollo 12, 14, and 17, the landing speeds were all between 3.0 and 3.5 feet/second. Dave's was by far the highest at 6.8 fps, most likely because he was the fastest to hit the engine stop button and, therefore, fell the farthest. See the extended discussion below.]

104:42:36 Scott: Okay, Houston. The Falcon is on the Plain at Hadley.

>

>

>

[scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "When Jim called a Contact Light, I pushed the Stop button, which had been in the plan. Knowing that the extension on the engine bell was of some concern relative to ground contact (the bell was ten inches longer than those on previous LM's to give improved engine performance and allow them to carry more equipment), it had been my plan to shut the engine down as soon as possible after Jim called the contact and to attempt to be at some very low descent rate, which we felt we were at that time."]

From Apollo 16 transcript:

104:29:36 Duke: Contact! Stop. (Pause while they drop to the surface) Boom. (Static)

[Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "When we got the Contact light, I counted the 'one-potato' and shut the engine down. The thing fell out of the sky the last 3 feet. I know it did. I don't know how much we were coming down, maybe a foot a second."]

[Duke, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "I don't remember exactly, but about 1.8 (fps) - I think I saw - right before touchdown."]

[Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "I wouldn't (want to) stroke that gear (by shutting down the engine earlier), man. I'll tell you, that would really jar your teeth."]

From the Apollo 17 transcript:

113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact. (Pause)

Oh and Evan , where is the proof that Neil is standing in the LM that landed on the moon and not in a LM simulator ? ... You didn't just take nasa's word for that , did you ?

That image IS of the simulator, but it gives you an idea of the available room in the cabin - it wasn't much, but it was enough. Looking at available images, I figure that three feet above the ascent stage engine cover may have been about right.

So how about we look at the film that the FAQ refers to, and make our own assessments?

How about a link to the Apollo 13 video sequence that the FAQ refers to, Duane? Let everyone have a look at it, discuss it, and make up their own minds?

I'll just mention a couple of errors:

Debunkers have made comparisons with engine noise levels inside commercial jets claiming that passengers cannot hear engine noise coming over loadspeakers when the pilot addresses them on the intercom so why should anyone expect to hear engine noise over the radio say by ground controllers? I say that the reason passengers may not hear engine noise via the loadspeaker is because the passenger compartment is already filled with engine noise so what comes over the speaker is overwhelmed by existing similar noise. As for not hearing engine noise via radio comms I'm 100% certain I heard just that many times over vhf radio myself!

The author is probably unfamiliar with the stringent requirements for the Apollo headsets, which can be found here.

The microphones are noise-canceling microphones, designed for use in high ambient noise environments. There are two other factors to be considered when we think about the noise in the LM cabin.

Firstly, the astronauts were wearing their helmets. This will immediately attenuate the noise level.

Secondly, the air pressure is lower - both in the helmet, and in the LM cabin. This will actually help reduce the amount of noise that travels through the environment.

So, a noise-canceling mic, a helmet, and lower pressure account for the lack of engine / thruster noise.

The Lunar Module engine and the Space Shuttle Orbiter both use hypergolic fuel engines of the same type and fuel...

I believe it has already been pointed out that although they are both hypergolic fuels (ignite on contact), they are different types and produce different combustions characteristics.

It is a matter of record that during the Eagles descent the motor was not turned off until after the Eagle had set down.

Completely wrong. If you have a look at this image

(AS11-44-6598)

You can see long probes extending down from the landing pads. When these touched the surface of the Moon, it activated a blue light in the LM (the Lunar Contact Light). When this light came on, the LM descent engine was shut down, about 6 feet above the lunar surface. The reason for this was because if the engine was operating too close to the surface, there was risk that material from the lunar surface could blow back into the engine bell and cause damage to the engine or LM systems.

NASA had Lunar Module "simulators" built for astronaut training but four out of the five training/research vehicles crashed.

Actually 3 crashed - a minor point.

He concluded that the astronauts suited up and with their back packs on would not have been able to get out of the LM. That there was not enough room for them to manouver in the cabin also.

Could we see some figures?

He discovered that the clearance between the LM/command Module hatch and the top of the ascent engine housing was only three feet and yet in the Apollo 13 mission, NASA's own footage shows astronauts plunging through wide open space into the LM cabin when there should have been a rocket motor engine in the way but the footage clearly shows the astronaut diving through as if it was not there to obstruct him. How could that be unless the Apollo 13 footage was a fake, a set up, all a fraud, he asks? While Collier was no physicist and that is obvious in his video I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or his ability to use a tape measure.

I don't know about that; looks like enough room to me:

Apollo 8 orbited the Moon and returned to Earth. Apollo 9 never left Earth orbit. The astronauts allegedly practiced deploying and docking with the LM. Apollo 10 practiced everything but the landing itself. Lunar orbit, deployment and docking with the Lunar Module. If they were "real" then there's no technical reason we could not have gone on to land astronauts on the Moon is how the argument goes. The answer to that is, why should the deployment and docking trials of the LM be any more real than the Moon landings? If the LM wasn't fit to land on and takeoff from the Moon with then why would anyone risk any space manouvers with it? It would have been illogical to do so. Apollo 8, 9 and 10 don't prove astronauts landed on the Moon.

No, they don't, but it does show that the hardware was test in space, practicing everything but the actual landing.

The Apollo 10 LM was too heavy and did not have the fuel to make a safe landing.

Enough for tonight; I'll continue tomorrow.

Duane doesn't know who 'Nathan Jones' is, but because they side with Duane's opinions - they become "credible".

This is exactly the same as we saw with "Charles T. Hawkins": first Duane extolled the virtues of Mr Hawkins, voicing the undeniable truth of Mr Hawkins work, how brilliant it was.

Then he did a 180 and claimed Mr Hawkins was a NASA "disinfo agent" and how his work was obviously flawed and simply a strawman.

So, who is "Nathan Jones"?

There is a noise control expert

A person who corroborated on a RAND report about fertility control measures in Malaysia

A PhD (mathematics?) from the University of California

A nursing graduate in New York

A photography student

A wrestler in Australia

An American football player

Several actors

A chemistry professor in Canada

An attorney in Utah

etc, etc

So.. WHO is Nathan Jones of the FAQ, Duane?

Since some of you have done such a fine job of pretending to debunk Dr. Neville Jones claims of the Apollo photography being forged , I thought some of you really smart fellows might want to try to tackle his brother Nathan.

Funny how everyone just ignored this article when I first posted it .

Oh and instead of the typical distraction tactics of attacking the messenger ( Dr. Nathan Jones and me ) , how about trying to address the message for a change ....

Is there any reason to bother? You are going to ignore the results anyway, aren't you?

I am quite sure that Dr. Jones is a real person and that his credentuals are as he claims ... but even if we can't track down the good Doctor on the google search engines , let's just try to focus on his evidence of proving that Apollo was nothing but a 30 billion dollar fraud .

Some questions:

1. Where is a reference to Nathan Jones being the brother of Neville Jones?

2. I might have missed it, but where does it say that Nathan Jones holds the title of Doctor? In what fields?

Evan ... Nice post ... but unfortunately it was nothing new .. Just the same old tired 'rebuttals ' that anyone can find on clavius .

But you cannot disprove them.

I do appreciate your honesty with this statement though ..

"When the matter of Apollo images have been raised on photographic forums (as distinct from science or debunking forums), the opinions are polarised in support of the images being true representations of actual events."

I think what you said is not what you think it means; I said "...polarised in support..."; photographic forums overwhelmingly say your opinion on the Apollo photographs is wrong.

Dave ... It's apparently not just a matter of perspective but rather PERCEPTION .

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals , Dr. Jones , David Percy or Jack White is ever going to change your mind .

Duane ... It's not just a matter of opinion but rather PROOF .

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are not studio fakes, then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals, backed up with scientific evidence, is ever going to change your mind .

ANSWER

Next, under “no dark shadows,” he claims that, “There is a fable common to modern man which claims that all shadows in a vacuum are pitch black.” What?! This is an interesting tactic that I only realized a year or so back, by watching an awful pro-Apollo television programme. In that programme, the self-styled defender of Apollo made some outlandish claims about what people who doubted his god believed. He then set about debunking the claim. To the general viewer it must have seemed very convincing “proof” that the programme-maker’s view was correct. What a genius. But hang on a minute, who exactly made the alleged claim that he was so effectively debunking? Certainly I knew of no one.

There is some scattering of light off the surface, which is what Dr. Bouw then goes on to discuss in all but name, and there would be a small amount of “earth shine,” but nowhere near enough to ensure that we always got a good picture of the stars and stripes.

Well, here Dr Jones shows that he is also a victim of a commonly held misconception - that it was 'dark' at the Apollo landing sites. This misconception is stimulated by the appearance of a black sky; to us here on Earth, that says 'night'. It is, however, totally wrong.

During the lunar 'day', the Moon receives about the same amount of sunlight that we get on Earth - it's just that there is no appreciable atmosphere, so the sky appears black.

The missions landed during the lunar 'morning', and there was plenty of sunlight - easily enough to take photographs.

Dr Jones is correct to say that there is light scattering off the lunar surface. Despite its appearance, the lunar surface reflects about 7% of the light which falls on it (known as albedo). This reflected light helped light some of the areas in shadow.

The amount of "Earthshine" would be very low and can be discounted.

Also, on several photographs, such as one of Aldrin supposedly coming down the ladder, there is a quite distinct hotspot, as would be caused by, for example, a studio light.

See previous post and link to Clavius about this claim.

He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.

A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.

Dave addressed this claim.

Then consider what he says about backlighting: “If the lunar landing photos were shot in a studio with flood lights and fill lights, there should be multiple shadows in many of the photos.” Dr. Bouw has clearly no experience of studio photography. Master and slave lights would not produce multiple shadows, even if one had the slaves as bright as the master, which is unusual, but possible. For example, if you are taking a photograph of a girl in a studio you would not light her in the same way as you would a man. You would want to have quite strong and fairly even lighting, to bring out her beauty and skin tone. For a man, the standard method is to produce a rugged appearance by heavy lighting on one side of his face, such that you obtain a triangle of light on the cheek opposite the light source. But for a woman, you generally want an evenness of light to emphasize a smooth skin, with some difference in intensity to give the picture warmth and a sense of reality or interest, if you like. If I were photographing a brunette, say, I would use either three or four big studio lights. There would be the master light, positioned either to my right (illuminating the left side of her), or to my left (illuminating her right side). There would be a slave on the other side of me, set to half to three-quarters master intensity, a powerful light to illuminate the backdrop and a hair light, positioned not far above her head, with a snoot attachment. That is four powerful lights. How many shadows would I expect to see? None. The only evidence you would have in the picture that more than one lamp was used is the fact that there would be two distinct lights in her eyes. If she were wearing a space visor, then I could just remove one of those lights at the processing stage and you would be left with no evidence at all. Furthermore, a gold or silver or white reflector is not a light, but is specifically for filling in otherwise dark areas. In either case, I would not expect multiple shadows.

It is therefore preposterous to imagine that the professional photographers used by NASA would leave multiple shadows because they used multiple light sources and reflector boards. Some photographs have shadows running in different directions, that is true, but I would put this down to the superposition of images, not multiple light sources.

Apart from a rather extended discussion about lighting required for a girl, Dr Jones fails to provide any evidence at all that additional lighting was used in the Apollo images. Neither has he provided any evidence that his discussion on lighting is correct, however his own photographic methods for lighting a young lady is not in dispute. The daylight conditions and light reflected from the lunar surface still explain all the properties seen in the images.

ANSWER

“That the lack of stars in the photos argument is bogus” does not explain why they simply did not photograph the stars from the lunar surface.

The Hasselblad 500 EL has far slower stops than 1/125s at f/8. Photographing the stars would have been child's play on the Moon, compared to getting such crystal sharp images of the flag and the "United States" sign.

WHY photograph the stars? Pictures of the stars could be taken from the Earth, with more specialised equipment that would advance our knowledge about them. A photo of the stars from the lunar surface would be... a photograph of some stars, with no value at all.

Images of the US flag on the Moon gave people a sense of national pride in the achievements of Apollo. Photographs of bootprints in the soil told scientists something about the mechanical properties of the lunar soil. Photographs of the various rock samples gave the geologists the context of the sample.

They were there to examine the Moon!

ANSWER

I have skipped the van Allen belts, Moon rocks and the like, because his position is based solely upon his belief in NASA claims, and because I wish to point out his photographic errors.

Yet Dr Jones fails once more to offer any evidence to refute those claims. Dr Bouw's position might well be based on his faith in NASA... but Dr Jones has not proven that his faith is misplaced.

Such circular reasoning is common with those who wear blinkers (such as those so-called scientists who advocate the idea of organic evolution, for example).

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on persons who do not share Dr Jones belief in creationism. Once more, no evidence is provided to refute the claims of a lunar landing.

Dr. Bouw concludes with, “In general we found that hoax advocates are ignorant of photographic printing techniques, photo enhancement techniques, and computer photo enhancement techniques. They also lack a basic understanding of modern astronomy and selenology (study of the moon's surface and rocks), no, not enough to properly state what astronomy and selenology have to say about the moon, and thus certainly not enough to offer intelligent critique.”

I hope that this small appraisal of his article will show up his assertions for what they are - incorrect, ignorant and misleading.

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page81.htm

In fact, Dr Jones has shown his own assessments to have the properties he ascribes to Dr Bouw. He has not provided any evidence at all to disprove the veracity of the Apollo programme.

*bump*

The front page is still showing the last post being made yesterday.

Duane has said that no-one is able to counter the claims put forward by Dr Jones; I'll give it a shot. Please note that the claims are made by Dr Jones and the quoted sections are from Duane's post; the quoted sections are NOT what Duane has said.

ANSWER

Although I do not, in general, concentrate on the photographic record, because physics arguments are, in my opinion, so much stronger, I do feel that some of Dr. Bouw’s incorrect assertions need to be addressed.

There is quite a clear bias here, right from the opening paragraph. We have doubters labelled as New Agers, Hare Krishnas, Flat Earthers and communists. In his magazine, "The Biblical Astronomer," 8(83), 4, 1998, he has also dismissed those who question NASA and its claims as being "wanderers."

There will be no such bias in this review, although I note in passing that Cuban schoolchildren are clearly better educated than their Americon cousins.

No particular claim is made here.

ANSWER

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs.

Here Dr Jones makes the claim that there is extreme contrast, but fails to offer any evidence to support that claim. Even so, the gamma of the colour reversal film used by the Apollo astronauts is much higher than the corresponding value for negative film. This, along with the care taken in post-mission processing of the film, reduces the contrast and allowed good tonal response in the finished images.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered.

Again, a statement is made without any supporting evidence. It is, rather, an appeal to authority. Dr Jones says that "..anyone with any real experience would plainly see...", implying that persons with the necessary experience agree with his statement, and anyone who disagrees with his statement does not have the necessary experience! In fact, there are very few professional photographers who support Dr Jones statement but this is difficult to prove beyond doubt. The best example to support this would be to ask Dr Jones why, if the images are obviously faked, have not large numbers of professional photographers come forward and said so? The only professional photographer to have doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo photographs would appear to be David Percy (I do not include Jack in the definition of a professional photographer).

When the matter of Apollo images have been raised on photographic forums (as distinct from science or debunking forums), the opinions are polarised in support of the images being true representations of actual events:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001JaK

The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images.

The images were NOT all "perfectly exposed and composed"; there are many examples of 'bad' photographs from the missions. Here are but a few:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5894.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5904.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5970.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/46/6868.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/47/7009.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/47/7021.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S14/66/9327.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...15/86/11607.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17419.jpg

The shutter and apature settings were mostly pre-determined, so there was no requirement for a light-meter. Likewise, a viewfinder was not required; the camera could be chest-mounted and the astronauts had practised for months on Earth to take acceptable images without the need for a viewfinder.

Here are some resources on the Hasselblad:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/2.htm

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCam....html~mainFrame

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad...-beginning.aspx

They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

The 'hotspots' are explained clearly by the Clavius website; I see no need to rehash what is already clearly explained:

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

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

The Hasselblads had a matt silver finish to help protect them against thermal variation; even so, the film used could withstand the temperatures (as mentioned previously in two other threads, the requirements were for a temperature range of -186C to +114C; the emulsion used on the film included Ektachrome EF but it was placed on a special film base to meet the required specifications). The film magazines were kept in protected containers when not in use, and any radiation effects would have led to a very slight overall 'fogging' effect, which could be corrected in the processing.

His comment, “given the poor quality live video presented on world television,” is a little misleading, because television networks were not allowed any “live” feeds at all. They were actually broadcasting pictures off a large screen. The images on that screen were produced by NASA. In absolutely no way can one claim that the television broadcast was of a live event.

This only happened for Apollo 11. Because of the different video formats involved, the original video was played (live) on a monitor and then a NTSC TV camera broadcast the images on the monitor. This was a standard practice to convert incompatible video formats.

Anyone in Australia who watched American TV shows during the 70s and early 80s (before digital conversion) would have seen this effect. Americian programmes were recorded in NTSC (525 lines) whereas Australia used PAL (625 lines); the conversion process was the same as described above. This meant that US programmes appeared visually "softer" and not quite as sharp as local programmes.

He states, under “no evidence of air,” that, “The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape.” However, after having watched James Collier’s video, “Was It Only A Paper Moon,” I do not understand how he could have missed the undeniable evidence of air. Unless, of course, he has been watching NASA footage that has been “enhanced,” just as the “C” was airbrushed off the famous rock picture. (Just a thought here, why would NASA be touching up old photographs anyway?)

Once more, no actual evidence to support Dr Jones' assertion; he is merely saying "yes it is" or "no it isn't".

Firstly, have a look at some video of the LRV on the lunar surface:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/.../ap16_rover.mpg

Now, notice some things:

- the parabolic arc that the surface material follows

- no 'billowing' of the material, as would be expected in filmed in an atmosphere

- the material travels much higher than would be expected in Earth normal gravity

This all points to it having been filmed in an airless, low-gravity environment.

The infamous C rock has been explained. It was not on the original image, but turned up in one version of a scanned image. It was a hair that was scanned along with the image. Details of the full investigation can be found here:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

His next comment, however, is just plain rubbish: “Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.” Anyone who has seen this “thunderbirds”-style takeoff will recall the phenomenal rate of acceleration off the supposed lunar surface, and, of course, the exhaust must be pushing on something. So we are told that there is enough dust to leave zillions of footprints, but that this layer was not blasted away in all directions upon firing the engine! I do sometimes wonder about Dr. Bouw.

This would seem to illustrate Dr Jones' lack of familiarity with the LM. Firstly, though, he is correct about the thrust buildup. Although there is a small period of time for the thrust to build, it is for all intensive purposes zero. The LM ascent stage was not throttlable; it was an 'on/off' situation. The ascent stage, however, used the descent stage as a "launch pad".

The descent stage acted as a deflector, so none of the thrust went more than horizontal at lift off. As the ascent stage climbed, the "thrust shadow" area caused by the descent stage reduced - but the ascent stage was rapidly climbing away, so the effects were reduced.

The LRV camera (remotely controlled from Earth) was able to capture the effects during the ascent stage lift off:

Apollo 16 - note the "spray" pattern caused by the ascent stage engine; it tends to be deflected upwards by the descent stage

Apollo 17

The descent stage after lift off

I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.

This is a classic example of how not to conduct an experiment.

Firstly, Mr Rene used a standard industrial-type thick rubber glove - not the gloves used by the astronauts. The EMU gloves used on the lunar surface consisted of integral structural restraint and pressure bladders, molded from casts of the astronauts hands, and covered by multi-layered superinsulation for thermal and abrasion protection. This gave the glove flexibility that Mr Rene's example did not have.

Mr Rene then evacuates his test chamber to a near vacuum - but the outside air pressure was about 14.7 PSI. This gave a pressure differential of about 14 PSI, not the 5 PSI which Dr Jones states. This increased differential makes it far more difficult to flex the gloves.

The experiment did not recreate the conditions experienced, and is invalid.

I'll take a break here, and return later to continue.

Excellent point, Dave. Well done!

It's a very interesting question, John.

Just recently I have been listening to a series of radio broadcasts on the ABC's Radio National called "Prisoner of War - Australians under Nippon". These were accounts of life as a POW told by the Australian survivors themselves. Although there are many tales of harsh brutality, there are also tales of the Japanese soldiers who could be seen to be carrying out orders under duress, those who apologised for their conduct, and even those who helped Allied personnel.

It's a very complex subject. IMO, although there were questionable acts on both sides during WWII, there was a tendency for more extreme measures shown by the Japanese.

I think a lot of this had to do with culture, rather than "humanity". An example of this would be that it was accepted that Japanese soldiers would consider being captured to be a great 'dishonour'; it would be 'honourable' to die in battle rather than be captured - regardless of the odds.

It might be a little parochial if some say it was less important; in the Asia-Pacific region, discussion about the conduct of the Japanese military during WWII is far more prevalent than German conduct. Obviously each region has it own areas of 'relevant history'.

With regard to the accountability of personnel, I don't really have the knowledge to say. Perhaps it might because people associated responsibility with the military leaders rather than industrial civilians behind them. I know there were heated debates about retaining Axis personnel in various countries because they had the 'corporate knowledge' (to use a modern term) to sustain operations under Allied control, in order to "restart" economies. I am unaware of Japanese personnel being disposed of - in order to hide atrocities - but that is not to say they did not happen; I simply am unaware of them.

You said CONDUCTION FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE. The direct sun rays ON THE PHOTO would create great heat. Paper is a poor conductor compared to metal, but the paper molecules would heat the paper by conduction.

Checking internet sources...

Definition of conduction:

"It is the flow of heat through solids by vibration and collision of molecules and free electrons. The molecules of a portion of a system with higher temperature vibrate faster than the molecules of other regions of the same -or of another- system with lower temperature. The molecules with a higher movement collide with the molecules less energized and transfer part of their energy to the less energized molecules of the colder regions of the structure. For example, the heat transfer by conduction through the bodywork of a car."

And what is the temperature of objects heated by conduction on the moon?

"The temperature on the surface of the moon generally ranges from 265F (130C) in sunlight to -170F (-110C) in darkness"...

Notice that objects on the moon heated by the sun can reach 265 degrees. Remember, water boils at 212 degrees.

Jack

Jack,

You mentioned a temperature range with the conditions but neglected to fully explain it.

Firstly, ask yourself - why do we have that range of temperatures? Because the surface will go from total darkness to full sunlight. If an area receives no sunlight, then its temperature will drop to near the values indicated by Jack. If an area receives sunlight, then over the period of exposure it will heat up to a maximum value (probably near what Jack has said) then cool again.

Think about a hot summer day, and a concrete surface (this example will neglect conduction). Early in the morning, just after sunrise, the concrete will be cool. As the day passes, it will heat up, reaching quite a high temperature shortly after the sun's zenith. As the day turns into night, the concrete will cool down.

This is essentially what happens on the Moon.

Would that photograph be intact today? Most certainly not. It would have been exposed to sunlight / temperature and have degraded.

The point is, however, when the image of that photograph was taken, it had only been on the surface for a few minutes at best. That time would have been insufficient to significantly degrade the photograph such that it would have been visibly affected in the image taken of it.

Duane, for what it's worth, I think oftentimes the people who are shining a light where the fascists would rather it remain dark are the very people who are harassed, in the apparent hopes of intimidating and wearing them down. For example, it's precisely because Jack has furthered JFK research that he's targeted by some. They pile on when they sense a threat to the party line.

While Jack is being mentioned, may I highlight the fact that I do NOT mention Jack's worth as a JFK researcher; I do not have the background to assess his work in that area and thus I confine myself to his 'Apollo Hoax' claims (with the odd foray into the 9/11 world). That is where I am knowledgeable, and that is where I restrict my debate with him to.

I might be mistaken but I believe there was a gap of several years between the last moon landing and cooperation

Well, kinda but the co-operation actually started much earlier.

NASA Administrator Tom Paine actually started dialog with the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1969. By 1970, there had been discussion about a co-operative effort in space, mainly for the purposes of 'space rescue'. After Paine had resigned, the talks continued and by late 1970 a US delegation was in the USSR to study the feasibility of a mission and an agreement for co-operation had been reached. By the end of 1972, a mission had been agreed upon.

The ASTP actually flew in July 1975.

weak

Agreed. I'd point out the obvious flaws in Duane's various arguments, but they are so.... obvious. Besides, this thread is rapidly becoming akin to spamming by Duane.

Use whatever methods you believe are fair, John. My suggestion is similar to others: a warning, stating why certain behaviour is considered unacceptable; then a 24 hour suspension, then a 7 day suspension, then a permanent ban.

If people won't learn to act according to the rules of the forum, then they have no place here.

You play the HB game very well Duane.

You make a claim, then ignore the evidence that disproves that claim. You wait a while, then reintroduce that claim and want people to give you the evidence over again (which you will continue to ignore in your own drug-induced fantasy).

Still, so people can judge for themselves, let's go through this again.

Films were discussed in this thread.

Let's go over it again.

The photographic system had the following requirements:

1. Acceleration up to +/- 20G for 3 minutes in any direction.

2. A shock of 30G for 11 milliseconds.

3. Air pressure variation of sea level to less than 10^10 mm/Hg.

4. Temperature range of -186C to +114C.

5. Solar flare radiation of 600 rads.

6. Possibility of 100% RH, including condensation for 5 days in a temperature range 80-160F.

The films used were of a special high strength polyester-film base, allowing for thinner film (and thus more shots with a regular magazine). It gave good dimensional stability, and had less of a tendency to give off vapors in low pressure environments.

A test section at the beginning of each film magazine was exposed, on Earth, to a series of precisely controlled exposures of an exact quantity of light at a specified colour (known as sensitometric strips). After the missions, these test exposures were analysed and compared to standards to determine any variation in the film's light response.

The films used on the surface included SO-168 Ektachrome EF 70mm high speed colour reversal (ASA 160), SO-368 Ektachrome MS 70mm colour reversal (ASA 64), and SO-267 Plus-XX 70mm high speed B&W thin-base film (ASA 278).

The cameras had a dull silver finish to help with thermal properties.

(Source: PHOTOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES - A survey of NASA developments, Albert J. Derr, 1972, NASA SP-5099)

So, do we see Jack refute my evidence? Nope.

Do we see Jack withdraw his claim? Nope.

Little White lies....

ALL DISINFORMATION.

Jack

So are we to take that as to mean you are unable to prove them wrong?

Can you prove that Nathan Jones is not this person ? ... And more importantly , can you prove that his Apollo FAQ are wrong ? .... Without copying Jay Utah's lame attempts of rebuttal , that is .

It would seem as if you don't have anything original to offer to any subject ... except for more insults .

Actually, that's a fair point.

I'm not prepared to say Nathan Jones does not exists or that he does not hold the qualifications claimed until I confirm for myself that the links Duane provided refer to a different person.

Duane,

Since you agree with Dr Jones and his conclusions, you must believe that all the stellar photographs taken from HST, ISS, Skylab, Mir, Salyut, Soyuz, etc, are all faked. Correct?

The astronots never did take photographs of the really important things did they? .... I guess they were too busy photographing their bootprints .

Duane,

How many images, in total, were taken of bootprints in the lunar soil?

On what missions?

Why were they taken?

Germans are not Nazis but Nazis were German ....

You forgetting there were American Nazis, and British Nazis, and French Nazis, and Dutch Nazis, etc, etc?

The correct term would be Fascist, though I suppose.

I think you missed the point .... A researcher went to nasa and asked them to loan him the original telemetry tapes so he could reproduce them for everyone to see the moon landings like they were suppossed to be seen ... and also do a documentary on the Apollo program ... It was only then that nasa had to admit to him that they had no earthly idea where the tapes were .... and of course alarm bells went off for the guy who fell for the Apollo missions being real .... If this hadn't happened , nasa would have never admitted to not knowing where the telemetry tapes were ... and if the manned moon landing were really important , nasa would not have "lost " the evidence proving that they really went to the moon .

That's not quite what happened. The images are NOT 'missing'; the original tapes are missing, and that could give us better images of what we saw, not anything new.

Read about what really happened, and why:

http://honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tape..._SSTV_Tapes.pdf

Maybe not all of the blueprints were destroyed but the important ones were .... If Grumman destroyed the blueprints then it was done under nasa's orders via the FBI .

So Duane - what were the important ones? What did they show?

And now you are changing your story? First it was the FBI who ordered it, but now it's NASA who ordered it but got the FBI to carry it out? Which is it?