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?

Jack, Duane's post was not removed and readded. Duane is under moderation which means his posts do not appear until they are approved. He knows this, and if he told you otherwise he is using you to circumvent the rules.

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image. HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA I take it you disagree? Feel free to explain why, if you can.

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact. If you want proof it's a lens flare, look no further than the fact that it overlaps everything in the image. If it were a spotlight, it would have to be between the lander and the camera. More proof? The fiducials within the bright parts of the flare have shadows. This requires light to reflect within the lens and hit the fiducials from a second angle. More? There are at least 5 visible reflections of the bright spot forming a line passing directly through the center of the image. This is a classic example of a lens flare.

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg So what is your point? Lens flare. What's YOUR point?

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg

A nano-second? No. Two minutes? Yup. It's really not that hard if you're actually familiar with the material you're supposedly studying.

Jack, they aren't all in order on that site. Hit ctrl-f, type in the image number, it's there.

If you were using the correct number you would have found it, it's on NASA's page and several third party sites.

Jack, why do you crop and scale up low quality images when there are higher resolution images available to begin with?