Kevin M. West

Jack, why do you assume that the new sign is in the same location as the old one that was knocked down?

The "reflection" looks like a view of the flag from ground level, a real reflection in that window would be a top-down view of the flag, since the window is like 15 feet off the ground and facing downward.

The decibel scale is logorithmic, 12 is a huge difference. And don't forget the f16 escort, those are quite loud.

I've done central NJ to northern VA in 3 1/2 hours. Nobody drives the speed limit on those roads.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars. Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong". I'm curious myself, so far all I've seen is him calling me a xxxx. If it matters to whoever hid the post, you have my blessing to show it again unedited. I don't care what insults are in it.

No actually, they aren't explosions. If you watch the video, the velocity of the clouds of smoke & dust being ejected is a couple orders of magnitude too slow to be an explosion. I can see how you think it looks like an explosion from the still frame though. As yourself this... If those are explosions, why do they start after the building starts to collapse, not before? Cause has to come before effect. How is it that you can say there were no explosions for a fact? Are you stating opinion, or do you have some other kind of supporting documentation? Why do you require documentation for what can be seen with your own eyes? Do you require documentation that the sky is blue? You can watch and see for yourself, nothing in any of the videos can be seen moving anywhere near explosive velocities, and there is not a single bit of audio of any sounds of explosives detonating. That is pretty conclusive in itself, but also you can consider the fact that no steel was found with explosive damage, no explosive residues were found, no bits of detcord or blasting caps were found, etc. There is literally no evidence of explosives.

No actually, they aren't explosions. If you watch the video, the velocity of the clouds of smoke & dust being ejected is a couple orders of magnitude too slow to be an explosion. I can see how you think it looks like an explosion from the still frame though. As yourself this... If those are explosions, why do they start after the building starts to collapse, not before? Cause has to come before effect.

That is clearly not immediately after the crash. You can see that the buildings have already collapsed and the dust has settled before that picture was taken.

Watch again Kevin, at no time can Haise be seen turning away from the crew and turning the camera towards himself... He is never facing his crew mates in any part of this clip . Do you wear glasses by any chance ? .... If so, please put them on the next time you view this clip ... If not, please go get your vision checked and buy some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY Are you honestly saying that between :30 and :38 of that video, you don't think he is turning to his left as the camera pans?

Isn't that just like a typical Apollo defender, to never admit they're wrong, even when proven otherwise. You'd need to go to a drive-in theater to see a bigger example of projection than that.

Watch again Duane, as the camera pans towards him, he turns to his left. He turns away from the crew as he turns the camera towards himself.

So I'll ask again, when did they take out the film and lay it on the surface of the moon? You know that the 250f number refers only to the actual surface, the dirt, the rocks, etc. If it's not actually touching the ground, it's not being heated by the moon in any significant way.

No, it's your twist on it the meaning of it that would be ludricrous. It's an argument I believe and "properly" read also ... If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it . Duane, even today, still cameras have much better resolution than video cameras. In the 60's, still camera technology was hundreds of years old, while video cameras were brand new. Plus, video transmission takes a large amount of bandwidth, which increases with picture quality. They were limited in what they could broadcast back to earth.

I don't know of you are aware of this fact or not Kevin, but the use of the word "easy" at the beginning of a sentence usually implies that the statement is not true, but only an excuse being used in an attempt to explain away something that is not easily explained .... Crimimals often use this tactic after being accused of a crime and are trying to explain away their criminal actions . Well then let me be more verbose. You said the temperature in full sunshine was >200F and asked how the film could survive that. I answered that the film was never in full sunshine, so it didn't have to survive that. My use of the word 'easy' was because the question was incredibly easy to answer. The temperature of the moon is irrelevant, since the film NEVER came into contact with the moon. It was heated through conduction from the film magazine, which was only heated through radiative heating, which is controled by choice of materials and color. Why do you think white is such a popular color for spacecraft & suits? In terms of environmental temperature, the conditions were no different than they were for any camera taken into orbit. Are you disputing all film-based orbital photography?

Easy, the film was never in full sunshine. The only time the film was exposed to sunshine is the fraction of a second while the shutter was open.

So when did they put the cameras down on the lunar surface at high noon?

It's also the sign used by university of texas longhorns fans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SI_cove...ok_em_horns.jpg

Well, let's start with the obvious. In that lower middle picture, the image is rotated about 2.5 degrees to the right (the right fiducial is lower than the left) to exagerate the slope. But ignoring that, how do you even determine what is level ground? There is no reference to determine if the camera was held level when the image was taken.

The image appears to be AS16-115-18557, doesn't seem to be any better view of the scene unfortunately. If you look closely, you can see partial footprints just below the one on the right, and they are facing towards the pole and less than 2 feet away from it. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-115-18557HR.jpg And if you think about it, they were taking core samples, they wouldn't want to disturb the area they were sampling before they took the sample, hense the tool is in the middle of an undisturbed spot that they had to lean over to reach.

Pretty sure that's a core sampling tool. Judging by the angle, he most likely was standing just out of frame to the left and leaning far forward to put his weight on it and drive it into the ground. I'm looking for this image now (of course, it's not identified on rense), there are almost certainly additional images of the scene.

It sounded to me like the radiation could actually be heard because of this statement in Von Braun's article ... "When a rocket flies through this belt the trapped electrons impinge on its skin like raindrops hitting an aircraft which is flying through the clouds. Very much in the same fashion as the impinging raindrops cause sound waves audible within the airplane cabin, the impinging electrons produce an electromagnetic radiation inside the cabin. If I was wrong you have my apologies ... but I didn't read any explaination as to why I was wrong ... Instead you all just posted your typical insulting, condescending mockery . Well, can you hear electromagnetic radiation? That's what it says is produced by the particles.

Jack called them lights in his "enhanced" image. Sorry if I was incorrect in assuming that he/you meant stage lights. If that's not what you meant, I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

Sure, here's my original reply: And if you had even basic understanding of what you were reading, you'd know that Orion is intended for both LEO and lunar missions, which is why they are developing a new heat shield that would be appropriate for both. They can't just use the 40 year old Apollo heat shields on a new larger craft with different requirements than Apollo. The article clearly states that. Seriously, do some reading on the new program so you can avoid amazingly inaccurate statements like that. Orion is not the new LM, it's the equivilent of the command module of Apollo. The only landing Orion will be doing is on Earth, just like the CM from Apollo. They are giving it airbags so it can end its parachute descent on solid ground instead of the ocean landing that Apollo used. There are no legs involved in the Apollo CM or Orion. So far, you've shown an amazing ignorance of both programs, so your assessment is worthless.

He clearly has a pressure helmet on, the sun can be seen reflecting off it quite brightly whenever he's facing the camera.

Indeed, and most are on the ground, so they aren't stage lights.