Kaysing, was a head technical author for Rocketdyne or something along those lines.I have Kaysing's work history at Rocketdyne and a photograph of him with his group. He was head of technical publications for one of Rocketdyne's field offices. That means he would be both a writer and a librarian. He apparently supervised three other writers.
What technical cudos / clout does that give him, i.e would these be reasonable qualifications for an "expert Witness"No. Kaysing's degree is in English literature, a proper credential for a writer. He would not be considered an expert witness on engineering.
Kaysing did hold a number of security clearances, but this would have been normal for someone in his position. He would have been responsible for the custody of classified information. That doesn't mean he originated it or understood it. It just means he had care of it.
The experiments in the desert were with a small spotlight, as the point source.A spotlight, yes, but hardly small. It was an 18 kilowatt "brute", one of the most powerful single lighting instruments in the lighting director's arsenal. It threw a detectable beam for well over a quarter mile.
For a few shots we used a 1,500 watt fresnel fixture to illuminate the grip truck. I used a 200-watt "inky" for the still photo of the light scattered on the windshield that appears in another thread here.
The sun is a lot bigger, but further away.Correct. The angular diameter of the light was about right for the distance we used. In terms of the "shape" of the light, this was an accurate simulation of the sun. Our light was, of course, considerably less bright than the sun.
In terms of distance, beyond 30-50 meters the shadow convergence becomes undetectable in photography. A point light source at that distance will cast shadows virtually indistinguishable from sun-cast shadows. However, as you can see, the field of illumination is very limited.
Have HB'ers tried to use that to discount JayUtahs cute demolition of their little conspiracy theories.Not seriously. A few people online have tried to challenge the limitations of the experiment. I had expected Bennett and Percy to comment on it. But they chose to comment only on other parts of the program. They did not rebut the lighting demonstration.
The people who try to challenge my results generally do not understand what the experiment was meant to convey. Yes, you can argue that the light source was too nearby to accurately simulate the directional light of the sun. Mathematically that's not tenable for most distances, but it's a reasonable intuitive argument. But the point of the demonstration, in chief, was to show how light reflects diffusely from surfaces such as the ground or other nearby objects. I can perfectly demonstrate, using only a single point light source, the "fill" lighting that conspiracists say is impossible without a second light source.
Was Patrick forward thinking when he asked about the stars at the press conference with the Apollo 11 crew or what.Patrick Moore's question was interpreted as two questions by the crew. I'm not sure if Moore intended it that way, but the answer is reasonably comprehensible to someone who has studied the Apollo 11 mission.
The conspiracists want to make a big deal out of Collins having answered the question about seeing the stars from the lunar surface. At least one transcript attributes this statement to Aldrin, fueling the controversy. However, Armstrong and Aldrin spoke to the point of seeing stars from the lunar surface. When Moore mentioned the "solar corona" this apparently got the astronatus thinking about when they were photographing the solar corona from the CSM during the translunar coast. Collins was in charge of that experiment, and so he spoke to the point of seeing the stars alongside the solar corona. It is possible that Moore intended "solar corona" simply to mean the glare of the sun as seen from the lunar surface. As you saw, Moore indeed had something up his sleeve in asking that question. But the issue is not whether Moore was confused but whether the astronauts were confused. They gave reasonable and appropriate answers based on what they understood the question to have been.
Were the stars really good in the desert where JayUtah filmed his stuff.They were stunning, once we had our studio lights turned off. After we wrapped, we stayed for about half an hour drinking beer and stargazing. I love British film crews.
Coincidentally that night was when Mars made its closest approach to Earth, and it was clearly visible and clearly very red.
Is it a good place to go with a telescope away from the light polution of the city.Yes, although it is very remote. The area is known as the Trona Pinnacles, and it is about 30 miles away from the nearest town. However, it is federally-protected land, so in order to go on it you must first attend a briefing by the Bureau of Land Management concerning the wildlife and rules.
Why doesn't JayUtah take all his Clavius material and make a book out of it, I am sure a number of us would stump up for a copy I've spent most of this week working on a book outline. I'm writing this from the airport in southern California. I was hoping to make it out to Edwards AFB on this trip for some research and photography, but it didn't happen.