Dave Greer

And I thought it was just a small number who were in on it in the late 60's early 70's? How deep does the conspiracy have to reach to stand up to scrutiny? And I'll ask again: when am I getting my cheque off NASA?

Duane If you can't find a photo you are looking for on the ALSJ, try changing the case of the mission number in the url. I've found a few redundant links that way. Here's the links I use - they are all useful in their own way. The LPI is good as you can click on the thumbnails, but it doesn't have as many hi-res images as the ALSJ. The archive site that Gavsto.com links to is excellent, but not very user friendly. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/ - click on 70mm Hasselblad http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html - select your mission then click on Image Library http://apollo.gavsto.com/ Select mission roll and frame number. This links to the following site, but has a much more user friendly interface - http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/. NOTE - if you request the ultra high resolution image, it may take a few minutes to appear as it needs to be retrieved from an archive site. It will only be available from the URL for 24 hours, then will need to be requested again. (Note - not all photos are stored on this site at present). http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html - Click on Full Hasselblad Magazines Another useful respource for seeing how versions of images have changed over the years is the Wayback mahine - this is peculiar with it's case-sensitivity as well. http://www.archive.org/index.php For example, look at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hq...s11-40-5903.jpg The first image may look prettier due to the way it's cropped, but the last version of this image is much more accurately cropped, and serves its purpose far better as an historical record.

Duane I can understand why you think this is all part of some big deception, but that viewpoint doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. NASA has fully documented all the Apollo missions, you can see transcriptions at the ALSJ, along with thousands of official photos, hours of TV footage, audio recordings, and an absolute mine of otehr information. This is quite clearly a documentary meant to serve a different purpose, and all the reviews I've read confirm that (yes, there are plenty of reviews of this documentary to be found quite quickly - virtually all of the ones I've read mention the fact that scenes are interchanged, and audio is dubbed over the wrong parts. This was the director's intention - he did it for effect. I agree it is a bit disconcerting for people like me and you, who know more than the average layperson about who said what on which mission. Remember, it isn't just the "football rock" scene you initially mentioned - it's virtually EVERY scene. It's a collage, and the director admits as much. This film was made in 1989, but and as far as I am aware the director is still alive and well. You could try and get an email address for him and ask him directly? The director's rationale is apparently discussed by the director in the DVD commentary. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the original audio was too dry, and didn't sound exciting enough for what he wanted at that point in the film? Incidentally, he even admits going to a space museum for one scene where he had no original footage to match the astronauts audio, and shooting a picture of the moon through a lander window! (I shouldn't really tell you this, because I know you will see it as proof that NASA faked all their missions - but the director readily admits to it, so why shouldn't you know!) In conclusion, it looks great - but it in no way depicts a single actual mission - and is not part of the record. In the same way that the novel Space (about Apollo 18) is not part of the official record (two astronauts die on the surface after a large solar flare).

This is an interesting one. I'd seen the claim before, and just assumed that the person making the claim was responsible for the editing of the audio - it seems this is not so. The official version of this scene can be found here, and it corresponds to the second half of the video under discussion. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1240739.mov It's from Apollo 16, at Station 1. The clip starts approximately 124:07:30. OK, that's the official audio transcript. Which leaves us with the "unofficial" audio. I have to admit, my first thought is that this was done either by Charles T Hawkins, or another conspiracist. Looking at the "For All Mankind" footage however does confirm that it is from this documentary. So, where exactly does this audio footage come from? Trawling the ALSJ, it does all come from Apollo 16, but is spliced from different EVAs. I've emboldened the audio we hear - this is all taken from the ALSJ. The time-stamps are clearly taken from different EVAs. 145:33:34 Duke: (Finishing the swath) Hey, there's a great one, John. There's a good rock, right there. 167:42:03 Duke: Look at the size of that rock! 145:14:39 Duke: I know it. Man, we('ve) come a long way! I thought this thing (meaning Stone Mountain) was just right next door to us (at the LM). (Long Pause) 167:43:11 Duke: Well, Tony, that's your "house rock" right there. 144:00:43 Duke: And it's got black streaks coming out of it. Okay, our Amps are now up to 60. Well, wait a minute. That's Volts. 144:50:36 Duke: Man, this is tough going, ain't it?. 144:52:01 Duke: Yeah. Here, let me have the shovel. Okay. I got it. (Pause) 167:47:03 Young: Okay, now I'll get it. 144:17:58 Duke: I'll get the lens brush. (Answering Tony) Yeah, it looks really dusty, Tony. Just a minute. 144:52:21 Duke: Here's some rocks. Good deal, boy. That's great! (As John reaches to start another swath) Wait a minute; let's fill this one up, and then...(As John lifts the rake) Hey, John, watch it. (Holding the sample bag relatively low) Is that okay for you? 167:53:07 Duke: There's a real frothy rock right there, John. You want to throw that in? (Straining, perhaps picking up the sample or helping John do so) (Pause) Doesn't look like you're...There you go. ...Garbled... 146:15:59 England: Okay, and you've got about 10 minutes left before we'll have to leave. 144:52:21 Duke: Here's some rocks. Good deal, boy. That's great! (As John reaches to start another swath) Wait a minute; let's fill this one up, and then...(As John lifts the rake) Hey, John, watch it. (Holding the sample bag relatively low) Is that okay for you? 124:21:06 Young: Yeah, it sure is. 146:16:28 Duke: Well, we try to please. 338 is the soil sample. Clearly the audio is not contiguous! Which leads us to an obvious question: why? This is from the documentary "For All Mankind". The director is a guy called Al Reinert. Apparently he has used an awful lot of artistic licence in the making of the film. Although it has some truly beautiful footage, it is in no way an accurate historical record, neither is it claimed to be. For example, the audio of Apollo 11 landing is played over video of Apollo 16 landing. Black and white footage of Apollo 11 is then intercut with colour TV footage from another Apollo mission (Apollo 11 had no colour TV images). In fact, it's probably easier to find audio that DOESN'T match the video, than it is to find audio that DOES match! This is mentioned in various reviews of the documentary at Amazon.com. This one in particular sums up how I feel having seen it:- I've never felt as ambiguous about a movie as I do with this one. It is a case of all the right ideas used in all the wrong ways. Exclusively using original NASA footage and audio makes perfect sense. Where Mr. Mattingly (sic) goes terribly wrong is taking footage from completely unrelated missions and creating his own Frankenstein's moon shot. I'm not picking nits here. The movie depicts a space walk during an Apollo moon mission, using Gemini footage. The astronaut identifications are sometimes wrong. The voice-overs don't match the images. And, by far, the most distrubing inconsistency is the depiction of the Apollo 13 disaster, followed by "everything is fine" dialog and a continuation to the moon! The only redeeming quality of this film is the footage itself. It is stunning, to stay the least. Especially beautiful is the footage on the moon and of the astronauts driving the rover. I shudder to think of anyone watching this film with the assumption that it represents historical fact. If you want pretty pictures, this film fits the bill. If you want history, go elsewhere. My bolding on the last sentence. In fact, in the DVD commentary, (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind) Reinert also explains that although the documentary purports to show a single moon mission, it is in fact a collage of images from all six missions. Furthermore, images are often presented out of context: the images of rocket stage separation are test footage shot during earlier missions; a shot used to represent lunar orbit injection is in fact footage of re-entry. Furthermore, the images of a spacewalk are from a Gemini mission, since Apollo missions did not involve spacewalks. Duane - can't remember if I was involved in any discussion on this on another forum, but if I claimed it was done by a conspiracist, then I was wrong. It was Al Reinert.

The moral of the story is, don't use wikipedia as the last word on autobiographical information. I think it has it's uses in terms of definitions, and as a basis for historical research. Always pays off to cross-check information from different sources. Didn't know about the Google tracking information, interesting stuff.

"We only have NASAs word" is hardly a robust argument or evidence in favour of the HB position. The moon rocks have been studied by many geologists from many different countries. Highly trained people with expertise in their field don't doubt that they are moon rocks, so why should I? I wouldn't know what a moon rock was if it landed on my head, but why should I doubt the people who do know? OK, who are you going to let have them first? Tom, Dick or Harry? Not unless Apollo 11 launched in 1982! Granted, a Japanese team did find a lunite in 1979 - but it was only verified as such after comparison with genuine moon rocks recovered during the Apollo programme. Duane - you keep stating that "we only have NASA's word" - time to put up or shut up I'm afraid! Can you provide credible sources (i.e. non-conspiracy sites) that state ANY moon rocks were discovered prior to 1969? I can provide sources for the 1979 date (1982 in the case of American scientists). Otherwise, we have your word against the word of NASA and all the geologists who have studied Apollo rocks and lunites. No offence intended, but I think NASA and the geologists have more credibility! So, please either provide evidence or withdraw the claim. You have a bee in your bonnet about what you perceive to be "misinformation" - what you have stated isn't just misinformation, it's plain wrong. It is mis-information that is being perpetuated by the HB fraternity - and by repeating it here, you are particpating in that misinformation. Unless you have credible sources of course. I don't doubt they are. Mainly in Oman if I remember rightly. All the articles I've read state that lunites are different to moon rocks in one very important respect - they have been heated while entering the earth's atmosphere.

The standard reply a few years ago would have been "baked in NASAs radiation ovens"... Most of the HB movement seems to be going with "found in Antarctica by Von Braun" these days. Despite the fact that:- Lunites retrieved from Antarctica have been heated while entering the Earth's atmosphere, which changes their characteristics. The first lunite was discovered in 1979 - wasn't identified as such until 1982 after comparison with Apollo and Soviet samples. NASA retrieved approx 382kg of moon rocks - only approximately 40 (paired) lunites have ever been found. Core samples retrieved from the moon were well over a metre in length. More information here There is also a school of thought that all the Apollo samples were brought back by robotic missions, since that is how the Russians retrieved their samples. Evidence against this:- The Russians only brought back a few grammes of material, compared with the 382 kilos of rocks, soil and core samples brought back by Apollo. Luna 16 brought back 101grammes, Luna 20 brought back 55 grammes, Luna 24 brought back 170 grammes - averaging approximately 110 grammes permission. I'll let someone else do the maths to work out how many missions would be required to bring back 382 kilos of material at this rate! Many of Apollo's rock samples were photographed in situ on the moon. There are a total of 2196 documented Apollo moon samples. There is another HB school of thought that NASA is simply lying about how many samples they have and they keep on circulating the same ones. It's quite clear that all the proposed explanations for the moon rocks are pure conjecture on behalf of HBers. Desparate to find a "smoking gun" that will hole Apollo under the waterline, this is really the "reverse smoking gun" in favour of Apollo. You can argue all you like about whether photos look real, and whether a reflection is a fan, or a light, or a scratch, or a smear (I enjoy doing that as much as the next man) - but it starts to get very difficult to explain away 382kg of lunar rocks. That's when the conjecture comes in and scenarios get invented (with no supporting evidence to back them up) that don't stand up to scrutiny. Personally, I don't see how this evidence can be rationally explained away, other than retrieved by astronauts on the moon.

I really have to take issue with this statement, which is patently false - perhaps not the detail of the statement itself, but certainly the premise is false. I'm assuming you posted it as you believe that the Apollo guidance computer was insufficient to guide a craft to a moon landing and back again. Duane, you keep on stating that you can't trust anything that NASA says because it is dis-information. What yuou have posted is effectively pro-hoax disinformation. There is no credible source for the information, it justs keeps getting cycled round one hoax site after another. It barely bears refuting, but if you really think you can back the claim up with hard facts, go ahead - I note Steve is prepared to have an intelligent discussion on the issue with you. Since you cut and pasted that unfounded claim, I'll cut and paste a suitable answer, not from Clavius (which does contain a lot of useful information), but from Did We Go To The Moon by Ron Miller. Incidentally, you could do worse than read the entire document, it explains many alleged lunar discrepancies (it is a bit old though, and I don't agree completely with all his findings - not a bad primer though). The question is: just how powerful did the onboard Apollo computer have to be? Comparing theactual lunar landing to a computer game simulation is hardly pertinent. None of the Lunar Module’s com-puter power was needed for graphics or high-resolution video displays—which is what eats up most of thememory in today’s computer games. Besides, the bulk of the work was done by the big computers inMission Control, which radioed the results to the spacecraft If you are genuine about thinking the Apollo Guidance Computer was inadequate, you'll need to do some pretty thorough research and come up with some convincing maths to prove your case. Wikipedia Entry Another interesting document here. The Apollo Guidance Computer: A Users View You've already been given a link to build your own AGC - or you can run a virtual AGC on your own computer. http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/

Duane As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. Thank you.

This is getting more and more ridiculous. Tell you what, get in touch with Squall on WOS - send him a PM. Ask him if he started the thread "Can you smell your own soul". Then get back to me with your apology - publicly please. How does someone starting a thread called "Can you smell your soul" become proof that I started it? And even if I had, so what? I've already stated that I contributed to that thread. What is the problem with that? The WOS was hacked WELL before I joined. PM Squall, then paste his reply here along with your apology. Then we can get back on topic and do what we agreed to - discuss Apollo. (I did not include you in any tirade on MSN - if you'd care to read this thread and UM properly, you'll know that I publicly praised you on BOTH boards for having the moral courage to admit to being wrong about the stagelight photo - I would hardly be doing that one second then turning round and slagging you off under a pseudonym on another board.)

Whoever eslewheremanisamoron is, posted this on MSN:- "This site was set up for this pathetic waste of space to gain revenge but those he wished revenge upon are all far too intelligent to turn up here." Firstly, Elsewhereman eventually admitted he set up the site so he could insult people without risking being banned. Secondly, I was one of the principle posters on MSN until a few weeks ago (I'd had enough of the ad homs from Elsewhereman so I left) - so why would I post that sentence above? I'd be insulting myself. (The sort of evidence I was expecting and hoping you would have of whoever had hacked WOS or vandalised MSN was IP addresses, registered emails addresses etc - NOT pure speculation. That is NOT proof - and it's very poor evidence.) Duane, you can take your false accusations and stick them. No-one enjoys having their name besmirched either in "real-life" or "cyberspace"... least of all me.

That's a direct and false accusation that you will end up regretting. Duane - we both agreed to draw a line underneath what happened at MSN and discuss fairly and in a civil manner on here, which up until your baseless accusations we'd managed to do. Why you've decided to bring up MSN here I don't know - anyone who read your posts on there before you systematically deleted EVERY SINGLE ONE of them can make there own mind up on who was posting untruthful hateful things. I have NEVER posted under the pseudonym elsewherisamoron, the only name I use is postbaguk as it relates to my email address. I posted on MSN as MisterChewbacca as I already had that MSN name from a while ago and didn't change it, though I did make it known that I also posted as postbaguk. On this forum of course, we all use our real names. ...setting you straight again, just so it sinks in... I did NOT post as anyone other than MisterChewbacca on MSN Duane - your inability to analyse photographs is mirrored in your inability to accurately draw the correct conclusions from analysing posts. I did not vandalise the MSN site under any guise, neither do I know who did (though I would like to know, because whoever it was has succeeding in getting my name blackened). Neither did I have anything to do with what happened to WOS. You, of course, have prior form for vandalising sites when you deleted all of your posts on MSN. Do I think you vandalised it to get back at elsewhereman for stripping you of your manager status? Of course not. I don't make ridiculous jumps of logic like that. Now, if I had a true conspiracist's mindset, I would use your analysis of the language style used as ABSOLUTE PROOF that it was either yourself or elsewhereman who vandalised the MSN site. Thankfully, I'm open-minded, and not having a conspiracist's mindset, I can't draw any conclusions. All I can say is I'm pissed off that whoever saw fit to vandalise the MSN site hasn't had the guts to own up, they must have known that I was being accused of doing it, so should have come clean just to stop me being falsely accused. I KNOW it wasn't authored by you - there were MANY threads that were muddled up after it had been hacked - many show you as the author when you clearly weren't. I read that thread because I was intrigued by the title. If I remember, it was authored by someone called Squall (just off the top of my head). I ended up giving him some genuine advice about the state of his health - let's hope if he does have a serious problem he read my advice before it was censored... errr, deleted. (I love this freedom of speech thing...) The title had nothing to do with the thread? I didn't start the thread, someone else did!!! Did you actually read my post? It was thoroughly genuine. "Phantom smells" and "deja vue" ARE symptoms of a tumour in the temporal lobe. That's one reason why I was compelled to respond... if the guy WAS still concerned about his symptoms I thought he should ask his doctor. Haven't a clue what you're banging on about. I posted in one thread, a thread of YOURS gets posted several times, and you think this is something to do with me? How on earth do you think the two events are linked??? Duane, if this is the level of "evidence" you have, I pity anyone who is being tried with you on the jury. They'd be hung, drawn and quartered before they even testified. You are quite clearly applying your "Apollo hoax" logic to real life and jumping to the wrong conclusions AGAIN - like you did with the stagelights in the visor photo. I can't wait.

I'm posting an email here I received from someone who isn't registered (the forum isn't accepting new registrations at the moment). It's from Mike Difronzo, he's been following this particular thread with interest, and has given me permission to post it here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One thing seems to be the actual quote that Mr. Krantz uttered in the documentary was as follows: “The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.” It should be understood that Gene was admittedly the most emotional Flight Director there was. In the documentary, his emotion regarding Apollo 11 is apparent, and the drama he injects is completely understandable, as well as profoundly human. Nonetheless, it might be mentioned that all of the controllers knew that sims were in fact sims. What Gene was indicating is that they were so well done that they couldn’t tell the difference between them and the real thing. All of the flight controllers would certainly agree with this assessment, despite the fact that they knew full well that they were sims. Someone mentioned that the difference between the sims and the actual landing was the fact that they had live TV feeds of the landing. This is incorrect. [EDIT (Dave G) - that was me - I wasn't very clear in my post, I didn't mean the landing itself, but the EVA... my bad!] There was no TV coverage of the landings provided from the spacecraft. The environment in Mission Control was precisely the same during the sim as it was during the actual landing. The 10 x 20 display in the front of the MOCR, as well as the data on the controller’s screens, as well as the comm between the controllers and the crew and the backroom people, were all indistinguishable from the real thing. The only difference was the PAO sitting there speaking to the networks, giving status reports from time to time. Duane said the following: “ He (Krantz) also went on to say that Armstrong had crashed the LM in the sims repeatedly many times before the Apollo 11 launch date , therefore it was not only a great surprise but a huge relief to him and all the other members of mission control when Armstrong miraculously managed to land the LM safely in the unknown and untested conditions of lunar orbit , shortly after repeatedly crashing the LM many times over in the practice simulation sessions .” Gene never said that, either in his book or in the documentary. Gene would say that “we crashed”, when speaking of a crashed sim. He wouldn’t, and didn’t blame it on Armstrong. He also never said they had crashed many times. The fact is that they had crashed several times during sims in June, 1969. These crashes were due to faults uncovered in mission control during the integrated simulations, which were designed to spot problems and weaknesses in the flight control teams. Prior to the beginning of these sims, Armstrong and Aldrin had practiced flying the LM many times, knew the process, and had developed their own operations quite well. No one, least of all Armstrong, was surprised, nor thought it miraculous, that he had landed the LM on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Relieved, mind- numbed, emotionally overwhelmed to one extent or another? Yes. Surprised? No. The sims were, after a couple days of nominal runs, purposefully loaded with problems. There was a purpose in this. To abort properly during a sim was not a failure. It was a success. To improperly abort was a failure, which was designed to highlight a problem, and develop a solution. Other facts that Duane seems to get wrong habitually, despite the fact that we discussed it in some detail on UM, are the following: He keeps stating that the Apollo 11 lunar crew crashed the LM just days before their launch to the Moon. This is incorrect. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin actually completed their integrated sims with Mission Control by June 25, 1969. They had spent approximately two weeks in 16 hour long sessions starting in early June. There were actually crashes on June 10, but no more. There were plenty of aborts, successful ones, however. They were in crew quarters at KSC as of June 26, 1969, and further integrated sims were conducted between the MOCR team and the Apollo 12 prime crew (Conrad and Bean), as well as the Apollo 12 backup crew (Apollo 15 prime crew: Dave Scott and Jim Irwin). July 5 was the final session of sims at Mission Control, which culminated in an improper abort due to mis-understood computer program alarms. The crew aboard the LM simulator was Scott and Irwin at that time, and a day or so later, they participated in a few more simulations geared toward refining the procedures for these program alarms (which turned out to be the reason that the actual Apollo 11 landing was successful…because these very same program alarms occurred on the actual landing). Thus, Armstrong and Aldrin were not involved in an integrated sim from late June through the actual landing…almost three weeks prior to launch they had concluded such sims. I think this statement of Duane’s reflects his contention completely: “…if mission control, including the flight director, couldn’t tell the difference between a real lunar landing and a simulated one, then how could the unsuspecting public be expected to?” An interesting twist. The answer would have to be with a question: The “unsuspecting public” had absolutely no idea about the training, the simulations, or the actual mechanics involved in spaceflight. The “unsuspecting public” generally had no idea that there was 6 months of intense training in all mission aspects for the crew of Apollo 11 immediately prior to the flight, and no idea that about 175 hours of intense integrated simulations were conducted with Mission Control and the flight crew (s) in a mere 11 days from early June through early July 1969. Thus: Why would the unsuspecting public have any concern about the difference between a simulated landing and a real one? The only thing they would be witnessing would be the real one. I think that the fact that the Flight Director couldn’t tell the difference speaks volumes about the quality of the training he and his team were put through. The idea that such a statement, in one person’s mind, points to a hoax, is rather skewed reasoning. …during the actual landing, while the program alarms were happening and GUIDO Steve Bales and his back room people were handling the situation, a line was briefly left open and the back room was heard to say, “This is just like a simulation.” (You’ll find reference to this in Gene’s book.) I think that pretty much sums up that Gene’s assessment was pretty well right on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, on topic... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With one minor but rather important addition - on the real landing they didn't just have telemetry, they also had continuous live TV feed. I don't know enough about how the simulations and the telemetry etc all fitted together so can't really comment further on this one. If you have any genuine questions about how the simulations worked versus the real thing, didn't someone link to the website of the EECOM guy (just remembered - Sy Liebergot) on Apollo 13? If you contact him he may be able to help out with any questions you have re the simulations and how they worked. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back to the insinuations and false accusations... Duane - am I being accused of hacking the WOS site? If so on what grounds? If not, please clarify your previous post concerning this matter to state that I am NOT being accused of hacking the WOS forum. Once you do this simple request, we can stay back on topic. Thank you.

I'm distinctly displeased by this. His site was hacked... I joined the site a few days later and posted in a non_Apollo related thread... Later on I couldn't even find the thread (I assumed it was due to problems the forum was still having)... And now you're suggesting that my post was deleted and my membership cancelled because he realised who hacked the site AFTER I joined? This is starting to sound very much like a direct accusation at myself. I'd never even LOOKED at the WOS site or forum until a couple of days ago, only registering today as I found a thread I wished to contribute to. Duane - the tone of your post suggests that both yourself and the admin at WOS know who hacked the site, and unless I'm reading the undertone of your post wrongly, this accusation appears to be directed at me. If this is the case, come out and say so directly, and also provide proof. If it is not the case, then please say so, because the innuendo in your post suggests otherwise, and I do not like being falsely accused. For the record, I had NO involvement whatsoever in the site being hacked, and NO knowledge of it until you even mentioned it. I also intend to contact the site admin at WOS to get to the bottom of this. It may only be cyberspace, but as far as I'm concerned your post is publicly calling my character into question - so please clarify exactly what you meant.

I registered at the WOS today, and posted one message in a non-Apollo related thread which you hadn't posted in... lo and behold, I can't find that message either. Duane - does the webmaster have proof that he has been specifically hacked, or is it some kind of bug/virus/worm/corrupted database? If you have a specific accusation against one of the members of this group then I would politely advise that you ensure there is very good evidence before accusing someone directly - as it stands you are effectively accusing everyone who has posted or read this forum, who believes in Apollo, of hacking the WOS site (whether that was your intention or not).

It's simply due to how that particular image was initially cropped. Subsequent versions have been better cropped - links have already been provided to you. Just because it's visible in the crop does not mean it was on the exposed part of the film. OK, here's a scenario... Bob preferred to write at the side of the negative, Jack preferred to write at the top. The short answer is, I don't know... why is it so important? Since when did I say I was quoting you? This is what I said:- Even if I didn't know, or have evidence, for what they are, they would not be evidence (and certainly not proof) of a hoax Never mentioned your name once, so I'll politely ask you to please stop falsely accusing me. Wrong... there is no overlapping of any image I have seen. All the handwriting is outside the exposed part of the film. Wrong - you simply don't understand the cropping issue. The marks are outside the exposed part of the film - you have been told how to measure this on several occasions. If you think the marks are within the exposed part of the frame, prove it. I've measured it, and I know it's outside the exposed part of the film. I've even told you how to prove it for yourself, several times.

Duane What they actually are is irrelevant to whether the photos are hoaxed, since they are not on the exposed part of the film. (I'm willing to accept the writing loops theory as they look like writing, I've seen photos with writing on them, albeit at the side of a photo, and I've had correspondence form a photographer who used to mark his own negatives this way and recognised it immediately). Even if I didn't know, or have evidence, for what they are, they would not be evidence (and certainly not proof) of a hoax... as I keep on stating, they do not appear on the exposed part of the film... I have measured it, so has Kevin West (I've posted his photoshopped picture below as a reminder), you can even measure it yourself in Photoshop, or using MS Paint by using simple geometry and the fiducial marks, or even using a ruler on your monitor screen. If you're interested in trying to find out what they actually are, then fair enough, but I think you need to cede the point first that they are indeed not on the exposed part of the film, otherwise we will carry on going round in circles.

Except there is a problem with that statement. There is only one recorded crash by Armstrong of the sim vehicle. That vehicle was the LLRV and the crash was not due to Armstrong's piloting but to an unrelated mechanical failure (the LLRV and the LLTV were actually more complicated than the LM as they used jet engines to support 5/6 of their weight and a rocket engine for the remaining 1/6 as they were designed to operate in an Earthly environment unlike the LM which only operated in space and on the moon.) This single crash is backed up by the fact that we know how many training vehicles there were and what happened to them and where they are now. Incidentally, there were hundreds, yes hundreds, of succesful flights of the LLRVs and the LLTVs. Mr. Lewis ... I was not talking about the alleged successful test flights of the LLRV's , I was speaking of the LM flights done in SIMULATION ... A big difference .... By the way , where is the proof of these successful test flights , outside of taking nasa's word for it ? .... Were any of these flights filmed , or just the one where Armstrong crashed the LLRV ? Here's some video of LLRV flights I Googled in a few seconds. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/LLRV/index.html http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/LLR...EM-0019-06.html http://www.space-video.info/moon/apollo/llrv-tests.html http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61...1528&q=llrv The LLRV and the LLTV were different... the LLRV was a research vehicle designed to test new technologies to assist in the development of a lunar lander - the LLTV (training vehicle) was borne out of this project, and was designed to train astronauts in how to fly in a 1/6g environment. Info on the LLTV More info on the LLTV I believe this one has alreayd been answered - (paraphrasing) simulations could only be run in modular fashion - it was impossible to simulate an entire mission from pre-launch to re-entry. I haven't seen the documentary you're referring to. I think I must be mis-understading you here, it seems as if you're claiming that the statement "Failure is not an option" is further proof that Apollo 11 never happened? I can't believe you actually mean that, so if you could let me know what the statement is? Or are you just referring back to the simulation being the same as the real thing?

Because that's where the technician chose to write it. Does this make you suspicious of fakery? If so, why? The writing is NOT part of any image we have discussed so far - as has been stated and shown, it lies outside the exposed part of the film. Parts of the writing are sometimes visible due to how the photos have been cropped, keeping part of the unexposed area of the negative in the crop. This is clearly evidenced not only in the image I posted showing the mission, roll and frame number, but also in the image which initially started this discussion - the writing is NOT on the exposed part of the film... very easy to check using the measure tool in Photoshop. It would also be a relatively simple to prove to oneself using Paintshop - using the visible fiducial marks you could use quite simple geometry to show that the writing is indeed above the top of the frame. Heck, you could even use a ruler up against the monitor as a last resort... I suspect it's just coincidence. I have seen at least one other photo from Apollo 12 that has some handwriting on the LHS of the frame, but no sunstrike present. You can claim this, but actually taking the trouble to measure it proves this claim to be false.

OK I've kindly been sent a copy of AS14-64-1975 by Kiwi on apollohoax.net. This is from a CD version of the ALSJ he acquired a few years ago, and has scans cropped slightly differently. Here is the image on the LPI. Current images on the ALSJ and apolloarchive.com show a similar level of cropping. Now look at the old copy I have from the CD version of the ALSJ. Quite clearly, the mission, roll and frame number have been written next to the frame, this time by the side rather than above it. I was sent this by a New Zealander Doug Bennett, who (and I quote) "has been taking photos since 1968, has spent 15 years as a professional photographer -- most of them in my own businesses, was very skilled at high-quality black-and-white processing and printing, taught photography to hundreds, and was regularly a judge of photographic competitions." He has confirmed on other forums that it was a common practice in the 60's and 70's to mark negatives using technical pens in this manner. Duane - the "artefacts" in the original image have been shown to be outside the exposed part of the film, and we have direct evidence that mission, film and frame numbers were indeed written next to the negatives. I can't see why anyone would continue to think there is something here that constitutes evidence of faked photographs.

I withdrew the "sprocket mark" theory in favour of one that better fits the data (hand-writing). Let's assume for sake of argument that they are indeed not part of the exposed film (I can measure this so know it to be true). Is it not logical to assume that it may be something written on the film by a dark room technician, to aid identification? I think this is down to who (i.e. which actual individual) performed crops of the photos, how accurate they were, and whether the scans came from negatives or prints. Remember, the film strip is black, the moon's sky is black, the fiducial marks are black - so any photo which had part of the moons sky in the frame at the top would be more difficult to crop accurately. Here is a the highest resolution version I've been able to find, which has been better cropped. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...-89-12015HR.jpg Well, this "light leak" or "sunstrike" phenomenon tends to be present mainly on the first and last frames of a roll of ilm, and it makes sense that a technician marking the film for identification would do so near the start of the roll. The photo in question is indeed the first of the roll. You'll need to measure it to prove it for yourself that the artefacts are not on the exposed part of the film, in which case any possibilty of them being stagelights is reduced to zero. No. There is a thread on the BAUT forum from a while ago, which has the reference numbers of many such frames which show similar writing, one even shows the whole number hand-written on the film. This thread dates back a while, and most of the images have been more accurately cropped to remove this (unnecessary) information. I'll see if I can find a link to the thread, or even some of the images referenced. EDIT The BAUT discussion is here. The post in question is this one here. I've had a quick look but can see any obvious marks, Kiwi on this thread had a CD version of the ALSJ from a few years ago, hence he has access to photos showing these marks. Indeed, but once again, it's not on the exposed part of the film... so not an actual photo of anything in the original scene. I'm assuming you're referring to AS15-84-11348? It looks like a passable number 4 to me. You can't have read what I posted under the picture, so I'll paste it in here again:- Again, the artefact is not on the exposed part of the film, so it's not stagelights. It looks even more like hand-writing... the last character looks very much like a "4" - i.e. the "4" in "AS15 84". It would be nice to know exactly what caused this, but again it's an academic exercise, as they are not on the exposed film.

More evidence that it's not a stagelight. Just noticed a thread on apollohoax.net discussing the same thing. There are indeed other images showing the same thing. Here's one:- AS15-84-11348 Again, the artefact is not on the exposed part of the film, so it's not stagelights. It looks even more like hand-writing... the last character looks very much like a "4" - i.e. the "4" in "AS15 84". I'm now even more firmly in the handwriting camp!

I do. <snip> I added the fiducials that aren't visible against the sky based on the locations of the rest of the visible fiducials. The red line is the approximate location of the edge of the exposure. I haven't done the same for the one with the sprocket holes but I'd be willing to bet that those are outside the exposure also. Kevin Thanks for posting that, it shows exactly what I measured in photoshop - whatever it is, it's outside the exposed part of the film. Hence, it's not stagelights. Whether it's sprocket holes, writing or something else is moot as far the hoax theory goes (my vote still goes to writing). Duane - do you accept that the "artefacts" are indeed outside the exposed part of the film, hence not stagelights, or anything else indicative of fakery? (PS re your question about not being able to find a higher res version of this picture online - I suspect it's because it's been spoiled by light leaking onto the film, so it's not a priority. The version we do have is sufficient to allow accurate enough measurements to be made to confirm the position of the "artefacts" - outside the exposed film.)

On the open-mindedness issue, I always try to be as objective as possible, but obviously I am coming from a particular stance - I believe 100% that Apollo happened, and will until I'm shown damning and conclusive evidence to the contrary. It's an historically and scientifically documented fact, mankinds greatest accomplishment, so why should I believe otherwise when there is no proof? I haven't studied the holocaust in any detail at all, but I'm willing to accept the historical version of events as being as pretty close to the actual truth, until someone provides very strong evidence to the contrary. Does this mean I'm close-minded and automatically believe what is spoon-fed to me? Another hoary chestnut that I drag up from time to time, but it's a good comparison to Apollo as being a technologiclqa achievement - bathyscaphe Trieste descending Challenger Deep, January 1960. Noone has ever been that deep since, and no vessel exists that could match it's achievement - yet this was achieved using 1950's technology. Very few photographs, no samples taken. Was it faked? I've neither seen nor heard of any evidence suggesting fakery, so I'm happy enough to accept it as having happened until shown otherwise. Apollo? A documented fact. Why doubt it happened, with no clear evidence? If there is plenty of - or even any - clear evidence, let's see it - because I've seen nothing yet.