"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| Subject: (1) Forward and Intent
|
| It is my intention that this faq be a more accurate and detailed
| resource than most of the usenet chatter concerning this topic.

LOL.

| I will tell the reader now that although I haven't examined every
| reported anomaly in the Apollo record...

Forget that. Tell us where you went to school and what degree you earned.

| Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?
|
| I would remind the reader that It's up to scientists and
| claimants of this or that fact to provide proof of their claims.
| That's how it works in science and to do this scientists use
| something called "the scientific method".

Translation: Neither the scientific method nor the historical method
arrives at my conclusion, so I'm going to invent my own method that produces
the "right" answer.

| The stars really will have been a magnificent sight at all
| times from the Moon...

Nope.

| Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio
| broadcasts?
|
| Hmm... Your guess is as good as mine.

No. My guess is much better than yours.

And you still haven't considered all the evidence.

| Flared exhausts result in wasted thrust and will not be part
| of a working system.

Discussed at length. Like every layman, you have the relationship between
nozzle expansion ratio and plume geometry backwards. Just one of those
things you learn when you actually study rocket science and not just rely on
"common sense".

| From a couple of feet away the LM motor should have left
| unmistakeable marks

It did. It just didn't leave the marks you expect.

| Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?

Doesn't matter.

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

Three. You were told how to verify this. What happened to "accurate and
deatiled" you promised?

| Given the record of the training vehicles that would have
| been risky.

You refuse to investigate the record.

| Jim Collier the late investigative reporter had some remarkable
| things to say about the interior conditions and dimensions of
| the Lunar Module

....most of them misrepresentations.

| While Collier was no physicist and that is obvious in his
| video I have no reason to doubt his sincerity...

I do, and so does anyone who tries to objectively reproduce his research.

| It's not a blast crater, it's more like someone swept up with
| a broom just underneath the bell.

Even according to your (wrong) method it's up to you to prove this is not
what should have been. You simply suggest it should have been different.
That's "begging the question."

| Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.

Your "impediment" argument only works in one dimension. What about the
other two?

| Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon right?

Unparsimonious conjecture is not a viable alternative.

| Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof
| right?

Unparsimonious conjecture is not a viable alternative.

| ...frequency hopping, spread spectrum techniques, encryption...

Buzzwords are not proof.

| Subject: (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?

Straw man.

| Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.

Anonymous quotations are not proof. David Wozney is not an expert and
contradicts himself. You don't understand radiation either.

| Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.
|
| According to critics, the astronaut should have
| been merely a silhouette.

The critics aren't familiar with photometry.

| The Moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that
| falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07.

This is the beginning of photometry, not the end of it.

| The reflectance of grey paper is 18% and the Moon (close up)
| is brown with a reflectance of only 7%. This means that
| close up, on the Moon the lanscape is going to look very
| gloomy because the ground is brownish and the sky is black.

Albedo and apparent brightness -- especially in photography -- do not have a
linear relationship.

| Slide film cannot cope with a 10:1 highlight to shadow ratio

Yes it can, according to Kodak.

| and so it cannot be reflected light from the ground that
| provided fill-in lighting when the sunlit subject is correctly
| exposed for highlights.

Why do you presume the foreground was exposed for highlights?

| The following images all contained "photographic"
| anomalies or inconsistencies. In aS11-40-5903.jpg there is a
| strong lighting hot spot very near the subject

Explained. You agreed to the explanation.

| What about the following images,
| 10075741.jpg and 10075742.jpg.

Answered. Parallax accounts for this.

| Mt Hadley is 3 miles in back so a small shift of a
| few feet in camera position ought not to produce such a large
| shift of perspective at the top of Hadley.

Empirically disproven.

| There are many more examples of images that are
| not right and which may be described as fakes.

According to whom?

| In some NASA film footage included in the late Jim Collier's
| video "Was it only a paper Moon?" ...
| Of course the whole debacle is explained away as human error in
| the editing room by debunkers.

....which, of course, it was. It also exposes Collier's highly questionable
research practices.

| Next have a look at AS14-64-9089. Examine the astronauts shadow
| paying particular attention to the shadow of his legs.

Answered.

| I very much doubt it would happen twice...

"The universe is not required to conform to the expectations of the
ignorant."

| The ground looks reasonably flat there anyway.

The picture is part of a pan that reveals the extreme slope. You have
obviously ignored the context. Further, the preceding photo in the sequence
shows the foreground surface out of focus -- proof positive of the slope.

| Subject: (22) What still film was used?

Translation: I don't know the difference between emulsion and base, even
though I claim "photography has been in my family for generations." Nor do
I know what base the Apollo film used.

| Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?

Translation: The statement makes sense in the context it appeared in, but
in order to try to garner some "brownie points" with my readers I'm going to
bring up an esoteric, irrelevant point of physics that I misunderstand, and
try to use it to make my detractors seem unintelligent.

| Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.
|
| None of this takes into account that the Lunar day is 14 Earth
| days long. What that fact results in is even more extended
| periods of heating since the Sun's rays will be shining down
| on any particular surface at any given angle for 14 times as
| long as they do on Earth. Searing heat for 14 times as long!

You really have no clue about form factors in radiant heat transfer, do you?
Nope, not a SINGLE clue.

| While we are on this particular topic I will mention that I have
| started considering the functionality and suitability of the
| astronauts cooling system.

This should be funny. The porous nickel-plate sublimator is decades-old
technology, used by many countries. Its principles of operation are well
know and well understood.

| Subject: (26) Can the Moon rocks be faked?
|
| Researchers had to supply a protocol to the curator at JSC
| that described exactly their intentions. If anything "funny"
| happened or showed in undisclosed testing then they broke
| protocol.

How would this keep someone from discovering the hoax?

| K-Ar dating is often unreliable.

Not so unreliable as to be useless, nor its results discarded simply on a
say-so.

| Subject: (27) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?

Unparsimonious conjecture is not a viable alternative.

| Subject: (28) The Eagle landing site anomalies.

Despite dozens of coherent bits of evidence of many different types that
tell a single story, you take one bit of evidence and from it extrapolate an
entirely different scenario that is contradicted by evidence you refuse to
consider.

| Subject: (29) Some sceptics websites.
|
| http://www.empusa.demon.net/lunar/lunar1.htm

This link has been dead for many months.

| http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

Wozney does not answer his critics.

| http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

Aulis do not answer their critics.

| http://www.apollohoax.com/

Haven't been here in a while, have you. It's MY official web forum now.

| http://www.grade-a.com/moon/

Hawking Collier's video.

| http://www.moonmovie.com/

Hawking Sibrel's video.

| http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html

Photos shown here are CORRECTLY analyzed on my web site.

| http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

The "Yosemite Sam" of conspiracy theorists. He doesn't even know which
spacecraft is which.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org