-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- > 7. As I said before, all the photographs , (and there aren't that many > considering it was such a momentous event) are off. In one famous photograph > you can see one astronaut clearly reflected in the visor of the other > astronaut. The problem is that the reflected astronaut is turned away, so who > took the photograph? Also, shadows are wrong and lighting angles do not match > up with the only light source, the sun. The dark side of the craft is lit up > like Disneyland; where did that light come from? Pellow says; The questions of the photographs is one which the hoax theorists have put a great deal of effort into. There are a lot of questions regarding the so called 'anomalies.' I can't answer them all now but if you mail me again I'll do by best to answer any specific points. In the meantime, to answer your specific points: I assume that the 'famous' photograph that you refer to is Armstrong's picture of Aldrin? If so then I've no idea why you think that he is looking away. He's clearly facing him. Gavin says; We are either looking at different photographs or seeing different things in the same one. In the video Jim shows the photo, (which he says is famous so I assume it's the same one) in which the reflection in the visor of one astronaut shows the other astronaut with no camera, he looks to me as if he's turned to his right, but the shot isn't as clear on the video tape. The main point is that the cameras were mounted on their chests so it would be impossible to miss the black camera. The anomaly in this photograph is verified by Thomas Brown in Suppressed Inventions & Other Discoveries. Brown says, page 398, "...The cover photo on the book (Gavin: "NASA Mooned America") shows two lunar astronauts ( or astro-nots as Rene' calls them ), one reflecting in the other's visor. The reflected astronaut is not holding a camera, so who took the picture with only two [ men ] on the Moon?..." Jim also points out that the shot was taken from above, shooting downwards, at a height of about 8 ft. Obviously impossible as both men were on level ground. Pellow says; As far as the shadows being 'wrong.' I suggest that you look at any collection of earth photos: a holiday brochure containing beach photos is a good place to start. Use a protractor and see if the shadows are all totally parallel. A detailed examination of such photos will show non parallel inconsistencies. Do you consider these fakes? The moon's surface is far more irregular than a beach. You will only get totally parallel shadows if you are directly above the light source. Otherwise many images will be foreshortened. Notice the fact that railway lines join together in the distance. Gavin says; In the same book, pg 399, Thomas Brown explains his favorite photographic (photo is on pg. 400) anomaly taken from Rene's book. Brown says " ...This is a photo of Armstrong, holding the staff, and Aldrin, holding the flag. While the two astronauts are basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75 percent the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light. Rene' used trigonometry to discover that Aldrin's personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong's is at 34.9 degrees. The sun was at 13.5 degrees of altitude on the real Moon, so where were these guys? Certainly not where we have been led to believe..." There was a second light source - the earth. On earth the moon casts enough light to read a book on a clear night, and produce distinct shadows. Six times as big, the earth provides considerable illumination on the moon. Gavin says; Interesting you should mention the earth being six times as big as the moon. In one shot the earth looks at most the same size as the moon. Jim says this shot is impossible. Regarding the dark sides being lit up - the moon provides a highly reflective surface. This is where the lighting of 'dark sides' comes from. Known as 'down-Sun' this illumination is known as 'zero phase glare'. In terms of 'stage lighting', it is equivalent to placing a large mirror down-Sun so as to reflect light back up-Sun. Check out the 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' at the website of NASA HQ's History Office and see for yourself. Gavin says; Jim talks about the light source from earth. He still says the dark side, in some shots, should not be nearly as well lit as they are. > 8. A very important question is one of radiation. Once you get into outer > space the radiation will kill you very quickly. Russian and American > scientists in the 60's said the biggest obstacle facing astronauts was > surviving radiation on the Moon and solar flares. Jim says that they had not > made a space suit which would keep out radiation. Pellow says; Conspiracy theorists say that people couldn't have gone to the Moon, because six feet of lead is required to protect a capsule from the radiation beyond the van Allen Belts, which the capsule did not have. But in asserting this, they display their misunderstanding of the van Allen Belts. They think that the van Allen Belts are a shield that protects the Earth from the intense radiation of space beyond. In fact, it is the Earth's magnetic field which protects the Earth from the solar wind, and the van Allen Belts, which are deep within the magnetosphere, are belts of plasma (in effect, 'radiation') which is trapped by the magnetic field. So, far from serving as a 'shield', the van Allen Belts are the worst bits. And Apollo flew through them just as fast as it could go in order to minimise exposure, and reach the comparative safety of cis-lunar space beyond. So long as there was not a 'solar flare', the fellows were okay on the lunar surface. It is true, however, that NASA did run risks with regard to solar flares, and in the future, travelling to Mars, radiation will be a serious problem, but this is not to say that Apollo astronauts could not have visited the Moon. Gavin says; In the book, Suppressed Inventions & Other Discoveries, on pages 404/405, Brown says; "Van Allen radiation belts and solar flares create deadly radiation in space. NASA spacecraft were not shielded against this. Apollos 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 flew during the peak of solar cycle 20, with large flares occurring during the flights. All those astronauts would have received many hundreds or thousands of times the LIFETIME radiation limits for nuclear energy workers. A Supersonic Transport (SST) must drop altitude when it gets a dosage of 10 millirems, at 100 millirems it must alter it's flight plan. 170 millirems is dangerous and almost guarantees cancer in the future. During Apollo 14 and 16 the solar flares would have given the astronauts approximately 75 rem (not millirems!). In an article in National Geographic, "Chernobyl--One Year Later" it says: In general, 5 rem is considered acceptable for a nuclear-plant employee in a year, with 25 rem (the total countenanced for Chernobyl cleanup workers) an allowable once-in-a-lifetime dose." The walls of the spacecraft were "paper thin" and the fabric suits had no radiation shielding built in, anyway only very thick lead or a large measure of water (approximately 6 feet of shielding mass) will reduce the radiation of solar flares to anywhere close to safe levels. How did NASA protect the astronauts against this deadly radiation?..." As I said there is also a chapter in the same book which gives direct excerpt's from Rene's book. On page 289, Rene' says; "... In 1963 the Russian space scientists told the famous British astronomer, Bernard Lovell that they "could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation." (Gavin: Rene' footnotes this quote as taken from Young, Silcock and Dunn, Journey to Tranquility [Doubleday, 1969], p. 173). This had to mean that not even the much thicker metal walls used on the Russian capsules could stop this radiation. How could the very thin metal-almost foil-we used on our capsules stop the radiation? NASA knew that. Space monkeys died in less than ten days but NASA never revealed their cause of death..." > 9. We know white men can't jump, but on the moon one of the astro's only > jumps about 4 feet. With only 1/6 the gravity, why only 4 feet? Why didn't > they throw a ball 60 feet in the air instead of throwing an equipment case 4 > feet above their heads? Pellow says; How high could you jump (on earth) whilst wearing a very heavy and unwieldy space suit and exceptionally heavy lead boots? 6 inches would be a fair guess... 4ft strikes me as a reasonable effort in 1/6 gravity. Gavin says; I don't agree with you here, Ed. A 165 pound man with an 80 LB back pack (lead shoes and suit, maybe another 50 LB's ?) at 1/6 gravity weighs about 50 LB's and he can only jump 4 ft. Even with the space suit on, he should be able to jump higher. > 10. A moon rock has a letter C on it and is rounded in parts. How can you > round a rock with no wind, rain or sand erosion and no atmosphere? Pellow says; This one is really silly. In the book 'Dark Moon' David Percy makes a big play on this. He doesn't give any reference to the original photograph, denying me the opportunity to check it, but admits that he 'enhanced' the picture for 'clarity.' So it's OK for him to 'enhance' images if they suit his argument, but the least suspicion of NASA manipulating any image 'proves' conspiracy. We might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Gavin says; I don't know about Percy's book but in Jim's video you see a B/W photo of a rock with a letter C clearly etched into it. > 11. Why didn't they place mirror reflectors up there so we would know for > sure that they went there? Pellow says; I'm sorry? Reflectors _were_ left by several Apollo missions. Even Kaysing accepts this. Numerous astronomers have sent signals that have been reflected from these reflectors and shown their existence. Not sure where you get this idea from? Gavin says; Jim is referring to mirrored reflectors which could be seen by astronomers all over the world. This idea was suggested by science writer Jules Verne. That would prove that they went to the moon. As I said before, when Jim asked Frank Hughes for the proof, he referenced the Rover scene, he didn't mention the reflectors you are talking about. > 12. In shots inside the craft as it heads for the Moon, how come blue light > (looks like sky)is coming in through one of the windows? There's no blue > light in space. Pellow says; This isn't a 'hoax proof' that I've come across before so I can't comment. I'd be interested to hear more information about this Gavin says; In two or three shots inside the LM in space you clearly see white and blue light coming in through different windows. The newsgroup that I sent the same questions I sent to you said it was reflected light from the earth. This bright light definitely does not look like diffused reflected light that you might get from earth. Jim says there should be absolutely no light coming in through those windows when in space. Pellw says; I've tried to answer your questions as honestly as I can. I'm not a scientist, but I hope that I have a degree of common sense. If you wish to believe that it's all a conspiracy, then there's little I can do to change your mind. Gavin says; Like you Ed, I'm not a scientist either, just an interested layperson who would like some straight answers to the questions Jim raises. I do not want to believe it's all a conspiracy. What I do want is to engage in open and objective discussion, applying critical thinking and logic to the questions asked and questioning the answers given by mainstream science. As I said before I was not that impressed with Kaying's book either, he makes a few good points. Jim's video is far better. Pellow says; As an example, take Kaysing's view of the filming of Apollo 11. Dennis Muran, as 'Seniour Visial Effects Supervisor' at probably the most respected special effect studio in the world (Industrial Light and Magic) comments that: "A moon landing simulation might have looked pretty real to 99.9 percent of the people. The thing is, though, that it wouldn't have looked the way it did. I've always been acutely aware of what's fake and what's real, and the moon landings were definitely real," Muren stipulates. "Look at 2001 or Destination Moon or Capricorn One or any other space movie: everybody was wrong. That wasn't the way the moon looked at all. There was an unusual sheen to the images from the moon, in the way that the light reflected in the camera, that is literally out of this world. Nobody could have faked that." If we are going to trust anyone concerning the 'truth' of special effect photography, Muran's view would seem a good place to start. But what does Kaysing say? "Perhaps this guy was part of the cover-up. Anything is possible." If you prefer to believe that 'anything is possible' than scientific evidence, then good luck! as you say, regarding Collier's video: Gavin says; Kaysing's inference about Muran being in on it are ridiculous. First off, NASA had a much bigger budget than all the movies Muran mentions, combined. They also employ or have access to the leading space experts of the day, not to mention access to the best filming technology money could buy. But here is the most important points when considering Muran's opinion. Muran has spent about two or three decades of very hard work to become one of the top experts in his field. He makes an excellent salary, may have a family to support, is revered by his peers and has a lot of respect amongst his friends and family. It would take an awful lot of courage for Muran to denounce even part of the Apollo missions. Even if he had doubts, what would be the advantage in pointing them out? He would incur the ridicule of his peers, would become the butt of jokes, would probably find himself passed over for promotions, he may find "friends" not calling very much. He will be greeted by strangers with the line, "You are the guy who thinks the Apollo missions were faked, aren't you" (snigger). To sacrifice his professional and personal credibility to point out anomalies in such a sacred and iconic event as the Apollo missions would bring a lot of heartache and no rewards. And of course, the establishment will wheel out 10, 20 or as many experts as they need to counter his arguments. What has he achieved? Career suicide possibly. His honest opinion probably is that the Apollo missions were real. I would like to run Jim's video by a few special effects guys and ask them if they think it would be possible to fake it using state of the art late 60's technology with a multibillion dollar budget. As a laypersons view, and I'm not just saying this Ed, many parts, especially on the moon and in space, look really fake. > The only criticism I have of his video is > that he didn't get or at least try to get the opinions of physicist's, > astronomers, photographers or any other professional people. Pellow says; If you want to believe anyone who doesn't bother with the opinions of experts - I don't think I need to say any more. Gavin says; Jim probably came up against the same wall of silence that I'm encountering. T here is no incentive for any scientist to voice doubts about any part of the Apollo missions, no matter how strong the evidence. He would be burnt in effigy by the rest of the scientific community. I can understand how difficult it would be for Jim Collier to find an objective and honest scientific evaluation of his 2 hr video since my 20 some e-mails went unanswered. What scientist, with their arrogant know-it-all attitude, wants to admit they were fooled by a faked moon landing, or even a small part of it? A major ego deflator and embarrassment if it were ever proven, and there's no glory in that. Very few scientists would dare to criticize a scientific "holy of holly's" and endure derision and alienation by their peers. Far better to run with the pack, keep your career, your salary and your social standing. On this point Ed, I will add a very good passage from the book, Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries. pg. 177, "The history of science is hardly the history of free inquiry. Rarely does science engage in self-examination, whether scientifically or simply reflectively. Occasionally we may benefit from the perspectives of those observers and historians form outside this branch of knowledge, who seek to bring to the world some solid wisdom. More frequently they fail to awaken interest within a rigid system that believes, as Organized Science does, that all mistakes were committed in the past. ("We might have got it wrong with Galileo and Semmelweis, but that was then.") Seldom is truth met with unconditional acceptance in professions that are not renowned for their engaging humility and willingness to embrace information that conflicts with their cherished and well defended beliefs." (and their mighty ego's, I might add. Gavin) Below are 3 more anomalies I picked out of Jim's video. Thanks Ed. I look forward to hearing from you. Gavin Phillips. 13. The LM never flew on earth. It blew up on it's first test, nearly killing Neil Armstrong, who bailed out just in time. Would you go into space in a vehicle in which the only time it flew, it exploded? 14. In Apollo 16, Young and Duke set off in the Rover to collect samples. In one filmed shot they are on the top of a hill, you can see the top of the Rover's antennas from the other side of the hill. There are about 20 rocks strewn about on the hill. A couple of rocks are fairly large and distinctive. On another day, time, and no Rover in the background and supposed to be a different location, we see exactly the same rocks in exactly the same positions. I think this is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that it was filmed on a set. 15. Jim called Eastman Kodak and asked them the temperature tolerances of the film in the cameras they were using. Kodak told him F. 150 . As he says, all the shots taken at noon with temperatures around F 250 the pictures/film should never have come out. The film would be crispy. 16. In one famous B/W 16 mm film from the moon, you see two astronauts running around in front of the LM and you can see right through them. As Jim says, this is the film in which many people questioned the validity of the Apollo missions. The whole scene looks superimposed, the astronauts look like ghosts. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
