Looks like I missed most of this discussion. Not that it's really a discussion, just the standard "stealth entrance, big finish" conspiracy rant. But I'll weigh in here first, then go back and look at the thread in more detail.
How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them?
Cry me a river. You purposefully take a minority standpoint and then explicitly argue that standpoint where you'll find lots of critics. Why would you not expect a deluge of opposition and criticism? If you want a place to rant against NASA and pat each other on the back for how clever you are, there are plenty of forums that keep critics out for you.
Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that.
Encoding artifact. And you're only the 100th self-proclaimed "photo analyst" to try to make something of it. Go study photo analysis for a year in an accredited program, as I did, and get published, then maybe we'll take you seriously.
Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.
He left voluntarily. If you make a scene and leave the room, what do you think the conversation in that room will be about for the next few minutes? He's welcome to come back any time and continue the debate where he left off, or complain about having been talked about. You don't have standing to defend him, so please concentrate on your own arguments and stop trying to poison the well.
If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would...
"If I ran the zoo."
If you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands.
I would gladly show you, but it's presently 22,280 miles out in space and looks a little like
this. I would show you a few other things I've built, but they tend to be expendable and consume themselves as they operate. And yes, my (gloved) hands were on that equipment helping to construct it, along with other engineers and technicians. If you'd care to come to my work, I'll show you a city block full of equipment that I and my company have built (yes, much of it with my own two hands) to support our engineering. And if you go out to our manufacturing and test facility, I'll show you even more.
Instead I'll ask you what your academic and professional qualifications are. Do they include any formal adjudicated training in the sciences, engineering, or any of the topics you've attempted to invoke here? How many spacecraft have you
personally worked on?
You seem to suggest that engineering expertise is in building small objects by yourself. I think you confuse engineer with "mechanic" or "hobbyist." I'm sure you're proud of the things you have built. But that does not make you an engineer.
And you could have asked me the same questions.
I am doing just that. What academic and professional experience qualifies to you criticize and label fraud the U.S. space program? Put up or shut up.
Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out
I'm right here. I've been working in aerospace for about 25 years. My last major project was computational fluid dynamics for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in a contract that paid me and my team about $10 million a year for 5 years. I've studied engineering and computer science at three different universities and taught it at one of them. I work in this field, am recognized in this field, and have been quoted in many places as an expert on Apollo.
Pardon my attitude, but who the [bleep] are you?
i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft.
Another time and place, because that's my second-favorite subject (next to historical aircraft and spacecraft). But here and now we're discussing the validity and authenticity of the Apollo missions; airframes and speculative aircraft have nothing to do with that. If you have knowledge or expertise that bears on Apollo, now would be a good time to invoke it.
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space...
Yes, I've spoken to them personally and directly. I know the circumstances of which they speak. You should also know that these same people (i.e., several of the Apollo astronauts) endorse my knowledge of their missions and the means they used to carry it out. Don't invoke them unless you're prepared to play with the big boys.
and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White...
What are his qualifications to do so?
At least we know where you're getting your information. Don't pretend that you can leach off Jarrah White, spew his nonsense amid trained professionals, and hope this bluffs you past their questions.
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones...
NASA has simply asked other space-faring nations not to fly spacecraft so low over two of the Apollo landing sites that they disturb the artifacts, which have historical significance to the United States. They have little means to enforce that request. The other four sites are fair game, and no one has enjoined international orbital photography and surveillance, which has already happened. You protest too much.
...how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
NASA hasn't postponed anything. For that you can blame the elected officials who control NASA's budget and agenda and use it as a political pawn. You don't know how American government works.
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon.
"If I ran the zoo."
You can take star pictures more effectively from Earth orbit than from lunar orbit.
Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet.
Not according to Boeing. Scott Sullivan and other engineers were able to find quite enough information on the LRV from public sources (i.e., without even having to go to the Boeing archives) to reverse-engineer it. I've been able to personally inspect components of the LRV that were built but never flown. Boeing has confirmed to me that they retain a substantial archive of LRV-related materials, but the practicality of storing it makes it difficult to inspect casually. Typically those records are microfilmed and stored off site in climate-controlled bunkers. They are retrieved only when there is a business case to do so, such as if Boeing were asked to build a new rover and wanted to reclaim the previous investment. Boeing is not a library. They do not habitually make their records available to private requests, at least not free of charge.
Also, the commercial production of a manned flying machine intended to satisfy a government contract entails the production of unbelievable amounts of documentation, much of which simply becomes irrelevant after the vehicle is no longer in commission. Once the individual item is out of service, all the manufacturing, service, and test logs can go away. Once the design is no longer in use, all the design validation results can go away. There is much more produced in the course of an aerospace contract than is actually useful, historically speaking or in practice. The law requires us to keep it around, but only for a while. Due to its volume and the ongoing costs of retention, ephemeral documents are routinely destroyed when no longer needed.
If you worked in aerospace you'd know this. Also, because of budget cuts, not a lot of money was allocated for records retention. The contractors said to NASA, "Do you want any of this?" And NASA had to respond, "We can only take some of it," which was dutifully turned over to the National Archives and constitutes what those archivists believe to be a suitable set of documents.
Further -- and you would know this if you had any experience in the aerospace industry -- the engineering development records for any particular product constitute a trade secret. Even public contracts allow the manufacturer to retain trade secrets involved in the satisfaction of the contract. NASA engineers may inspect trade-secret materials. Investigative boards (e.g., the NTSB) may inspect trade-secret materials. But they are bound to protect those secrets from public disclosure. A fair amount of the Apollo contracts involved trade-secret processes, such as Grumman's chem-milling process for producing integrated skin-and-stringer panels and North American's sintering processes. We choose these companies to fulfill public contracts precisely because they have that expertise.
The bottom line is that if you go to Boeing or Hawker or Lockheed or any large engineering company and ask to see detailed records for how they produce any of their products, at a certain point you'll be told you can't see them. And it has nothing to do with shadowy hoaxed projects. It has to do with you being irrationally nosy.
I have an enormous amount of data on the Dreamliner airframe. If you came to my office asking for it, I'd tell you no and have security escort you out. Why? Because I have non-disclosure obligations to Boeing, and the lawsuit for violating it would probably ruin my company. Hence you'd immediately be considered an industrial spy, and you'd be quite insistently compelled to leave our property. Does that mean Boeing is hiding something sinister? No, they're just protecting their immense investment in technology they hope will make them money.
That said, there is a
colossal amount of information in the public record about Apollo's engineering. I own a mere fraction of it in solid form, and it takes up more than 4 feet of shelf space in my office. I have even started keeping some of it in my company library instead. That doesn't even count the material I can obtain in digital form.
So don't even
try to talk about the Apollo engineering records being somehow sealed or suppressed. You really don't know what you're talking about.
it is NASA itself that curbs the conspiracy.
Hogwash. When NASA announced plans to fund an effort to answer all the conspiracy theorists' questions, the American
public rose up and with a loud voice said, "No, do not spend our taxpayer money on such nonsense." The project was quickly canceled. You grossly overestimate the credibility of the hoax claims. These claimants keep the questions open for their own ends, not because there's any actual controversy. Jarrah loves all the attention he gets. So does Bart Sibrel, and so did Bill Kaysing -- who flatly admitted he made the whole thing up just to embarrass the government.
Any time I need to contact NASA for answer, they're quite helpful and forthcoming. On the contrary I've tried to deal with the major hoax claimants (e.g., interceding on behalf of television producers) and I find them to be secretive, evasive, and generally unwilling to have their claims examined. Some of them won't appear with the others because they accuse each other behind the scenes of stealing each others' material and market shares.
Did you know Jarrah was invited to present his materials to a panel of experts in his hometown in Australia? It was all arranged; all he had to do was
show up. He didn't even acknowledge the invitation. Why do you suppose that is?
Where is Baron`s report...
The short report is available and is part of the record. As nearly as we can tell, Baron's long report was returned to him at the close of hearings. From what we can tell in the short report, Baron had no real knowledge, no real credibility, and no real substance. He was only put there by Walter Mondale, who was trying to use the Apollo 1 hearings to shut down Apollo and NASA for his own political purposes. Putting Baron on the witness stand was a political stunt.
And none of that had anything to do with NASA. NASA was one of the entities
being investigated.
...even if he was killed by an alien
Thomas R. Baron was killed by a train, not an alien. Where do you people get this stuff?
The death of Baron and his family was investigated by the highway patrol and ruled an accident. There was one report that it had been a suicide, but that was followed up on and found to be a rumor only. No evidence supports this. No one except a couple of conspiracy theorists have suggested that Baron's death was anything other than an accident.
...what happened to NASA`s interest about the report of feasibility of the project.
Not sure which report you mean. If you mean the report referred to by Bill Kaysing, then there is no such report. Or at least none that he never produced it. He merely claimed it existed and never once substantiated that claim.
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances to adopt different lenses and exposure settings...
In your vast experience photographing stars, is that all that's required to obtain good pictures of them?
...and use very good circumstances in shadows or behind huge boulders to make really wonderful pictures.
They did. They put a Schmidt camera in the shadow of the LM. Why didn't you know that? Why do you think your feeble suggestions of how and where to take photos are useful ones?
Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon.
"If I ran the zoo."
I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well.
"If I ran the zoo."
And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today?
The same place Magnavox is today with their video playback technology. Times change, markets change, company focus changes.
"If I ran the zoo."
What stopped them from accumulating expertize and be a manufacturer of optics or consumer goods, domestically I mean?
Westinghouse was
never a manufacturer of consumer video cameras. Nor did their experience manufacturing special-purpose video cameras for space applications give them any particular expertise in consumer video technology.
If you knew anything about the video camera market, you'd realize that there's practically nothing in common between
consumer video technology and
commercial video technology, at least in terms of how the equipment is engineered. Consumer video technology is about reducing size and recovering manufacturing costs through planned obsolescence. During the heydey of the video camera market (which is waning now due to the incorporation of handheld video into smart phones), people replaced their camcorders every 18 months or so. This means the goal is to make them smaller (i.e., more attractive) and more cheaply. They are throwaway items, not meant to be repaired or to last very long.
In contrast, commercial video technology is about cameras that are rugged, field serviceable, and component-wise upgradable. A professional videographer is going to own his camera for several years. It's big and bulky in order to address the field-service and upgrade requirements. It has interchangeable sensors and lenses because that's what he needs to perform his service.
In further contrast,
scientific and
engineering video technology is about surviving the harsh environment to which the video camera is going to be subjected, such as space, or the fiery maelstrom of the launch pad. This is the market in which Westinghouse originally operated. And for a time after Apollo they continued to design and produce specialty video cameras for rugged, harsh environments (e.g., underwater photography and data-acquisition applications). But as with most American companies, they found themselves unable to compete in the 1980s with Japanese companies and so left the market.
"If I ran the zoo." Don't pretend you understand that market and the engineering that supports it.
I demand NASA for their future space exploration to (Mars) use their almighty F-1 engine and continue improving it. 
"If I ran the zoo."
What makes you think the rocket engines we use today don't descend appropriately from lessons learned on the F-1? What makes you think the F-1 is suitable to today's needs? What, other than its size and power, makes the F-1 the
sine qua non and gold standard of rocket technology?
Don't pretend you understand the current drivers for the space engineering market.
Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here?
At present you're the only one here. If your arguments don't convince anyone to take your side, try to work out why. If you can't deal with being a very small minority, go back into your house, close the door, and draw the shades. This is the real world, where practically every single appropriately qualified and educated person believes the Moon landings were real and has the knowledge to back up that belief. If you want to kick that in the shins, be my guest.
If you want someone to take your side, convince that person that you're right and that your cause is worth taking up. Don't just make a lot of demands for people to see things your way, and then complain when real life shapes up differently.
Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
Yeah, every conspiracy theorist whines about being outnumbered and outgunned. Try to work out why you're those things. Hint: it's not because everyone but you is sheeple.
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.
Appeal to pity. You are the one making accusations of fraud and hoax. If you don't want those accusations vigorously challenged, you're in the wrong place. You don't get to parade your ignorance and arrogance around for all to see, then complain about shabby treatment.
When you address us, remember that you are addressing people who do for a living the things you say can't be or weren't done. Your victim stance and bluster don't work on us. Every conspiracy theorist does that. We're used to it.
