Kevin M. West

Why do you say "Here's Walter's claim" then post something written by someone else?

So how do radar, radio, satellite communications, cell phones, etc still work if all those chemicals reflect or absorb such a wide range of frequencies?

If the pattern you see is that Lee is a common middle name among "Lone Nuts", have you considered the fact that Lee is a common middle name among everyone?

Unless you happen to point the camera at a bright enough light source (the sun) that there are internal reflections within the camera (lens flare). Then there will be light passing by the fiducial marks from another angle, casting a second shadow.

Not 100% sure but it looks like this: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/experiments/f_ultra/ Would be easier (as always) if you would provide the mission and/or image number.

How valuable is a piece of a equipment that is about to be abandoned on the moon and never used again?

You're talking about cosmonauts in earth orbit, not on the surface of the moon, and they say they can see just the brightest stars by looking away from the light source (Earth). Standing on the moon, the bright light source is taking up half of your field of view, and looking up puts the sun in your field of view. The only way to easily see stars on the moon is either at night, or standing in a shadow to block the sun and looking up far enough to get the Moon's surface out of your field of view. And guess what? The Apollo astronauts said they could see stars when standing in the LM's shadow.

Why would it be easy to see stars on the moon? All of the missions were during the day, with everything around them brightly illuminated by direct sunlight. To see stars, your eyes need to be dark adapted.

Because radiation danger increases with increased duration of exposure. Just like going out in the sun for 10 minutes is safer than 10 hours. Any new mission to the moon will be much longer duration than the Apollo missions, so having more precise numbers allows better protection to be designed for the longer missions.

But they didn't even show how it could be faked. The technology used to make this fake didn't exist in the 60s, and the single scene they filmed doesn't come close to covering all of the effects that would be needed. For example, it wasn't shot in a low-g vacuum like the actual Apollo footage clearly was.

How do comments by someone else when Evan isn't here illustrate anything about his moderation style?

You also must take into account that nearly 40 years passed in between the two videos. An amateur filmmaker can do things today for free that weren't even possible 40 years ago. ETA: Sorry just realized this is the debate thread not the discussion thread. Mods feel free to move this post (not that anyone's stuck to the debate format anyway).

How would I know? I was only saying that your statement that the killers would have had to reset it is incorrect, there are other possibilities.

Unless it was on a timer. Alarms don't always have to be armed manually.

Because they were dead! Really? Are you asking why the defendant didn't admit to murder?