Apollo-gist / Virtual Apollo

[Duane Daman]

Apollo-gist / Virtual Apollo

Part Three

Here are two images from Dr. Mitchell's website, of "Nameless Crater" and the lander. Sure they are. Note the "stars" in the "sky" on both .

Part Four coming soon.

[Steve Ulman]

The A14-triplet FS top photo is a cropped, lo-res version of AS14-68-9486. Something is really strange about the version posted here – the photo appears to have been altered to remove some of the overexposure – when you view other versions, the bulk of the overexposure is to the left of the astronaut, not between him and the Lander.

The a-14-Nameless FS top photo is a cropped, lo-res version of AS14-68-9425.

From LPI

Station B2 - Old Nameless Crater

This view looking southeast shows Old Nameless Crater on the horizon and illustrates the difficulty of accurately judging distances on the Moon. Although Old Nameless appears to be nearby, it is actually more than 2 kilometers from this location and 1 kilometer in diameter. (Apollo 14 photograph AS14-68-9425.)

I can’t tell what is seen in the sky – little white specks – are they stars or dust – I have no clue and I cannot get onto the ALSJ (or other sites) to see if there are hi-res versions available.

{edit to fix bbcode}

Edited January 7, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Duane Daman]

Isn't it amazing when you think about it ? .... There is absolutely no way in 1969 through 1972 , during the time when NASA was faking the Apollo moon missions , that they could have ever conceived of the photographic technology to come , which would one day expose their hoax and their faked moon photos .... Nor could NASA have ever foreseen the birth of the internet , where now everyone can see just how cheesy those phony Apollo photographs really are .

[Steve Ulman]

Duane -

Once again you only provide opinion.

Your tactics are getting rather boring.

How about backing your opinion with some facts for once in your life.

EDIT:

Since Duane cannot be bothered –

This is the web page from this site that Duane copied the information from.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Duane Daman]

Steve .... It's apparent by now that you not only don't know how to play nice but you are repeating this same nonsense in every one of your posts here .

How about trying to discuss the content of this damaging article about how nasa the faked Apollo photos , instead of continuing to find fault with how I posted it .

The article provided the evidence of nasa's faking of the Apollo photos ... So I'm not sure what other "proof" of this fact that you are now asking of me .

[Kevin M. West]

The article is only proof that the guy who wrote it has no idea what the hell he's talking about. All he's doing is grossly distorting the images to bring out subtle artifacts created by the photography, developing, duplication, scaning, and compressing that took place between the moon and your web browser.

[Steve Ulman]

Steve .... It's apparent by now that you not only don't know how to play nice but you are repeating this same nonsense in every one of your posts here .

How about trying to discuss the content of this damaging article about how nasa the faked Apollo photos , instead of continuing to find fault with how I posted it .

The article provided the evidence of nasa's faking of the Apollo photos ... So I'm not sure what other "proof" of this fact that you are now asking of me .

{bolding mine}

Duane -

See part 4 regarding my posting of the link.

Do you even bother to read the responses?

I posted analysis and comment of the information you provided. (Which you have ignored)

Can you provide any insight into what the author is really trying to say with the two photos?

How are they “damaging”?

How is his analysis “proof” of anything?

[Craig Lamson]

Steve .... It's apparent by now that you not only don't know how to play nice but you are repeating this same nonsense in every one of your posts here .

How about trying to discuss the content of this damaging article about how nasa the faked Apollo photos , instead of continuing to find fault with how I posted it .

The article provided the evidence of nasa's faking of the Apollo photos ... So I'm not sure what other "proof" of this fact that you are now asking of me .

raphic record.

Oh please. You simply have NO CLUE as to the correctness nor incorrectness of the claims made in this article as it pertains to the photographic record. What you are doing is simply applying your BELIEF SYSTEM to the opinions presented. You neither have the photography or image the skill or the knowlege about image processing to even offer an opinion.

YOU SIMPLY CAN"T DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEGE.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

But you can , can't you Craig ? .... Your photographic knowledge is absoultely impeccible , right ? .... So why don't you tell us all what is wrong with the author's photographic analysis of the phony Apollo photographs ? ... Besides the fact that you disagree with him because he has proven without a doubt that these Apollo photos are cut and paste , superimposed , studio fakes .

[Craig Lamson]

But you can , can't you Craig ? .... Your photographic knowledge is absoultely impeccible , right ? .... So why don't you tell us all what is wrong with the author's photographic analysis of the phony Apollo photographs ? ... Besides the fact that you disagree with him because he has proven without a doubt that these Apollo photos are cut and paste , superimposed , studio fakes .

Well Duane, I've spent almost 30 years as a professional advertising photographer. I'm a master Photographer. I'm a master at creating lighting. I'm a master of photoshop composites. I'm a master of darkroom composites. Im a master of digital imaging. Is my photographic knowlege impeccible? Yep.

You have stated on other forums you are not a photographer nor a professional photographer. You have shown us that many times. Yet you claim the author has proven without a doubt that the Apollo images are cut and paste, superimposed, studio fakes. How in the world would you know this to be true? You have no photographic experience, no lighting experience, no retouching experince, no photoshop experince, no darkroom experience, no digital imaging experience...the simple truth is that you are ignorant of the the subject matter. You don't have a clue.

So lets say I spend a few hours or more picking apart the drivel you have posted. Is the ANY chance in the world you could understand it? Nope. WHy? Because you are simply ignorant when it comes to this subject matter. To the point, its a waste of time.

Now on the other hand, you posted this crap, how about YOU show us WHY this is proof without a doubt.

But before you do there is a little house cleaning you need to do. First you need to answers the questions I raised about the proper pixel spread on photographic edges. You know the edges you seem to to think are too sharp in some of the Apollo images.

Next you need to answer that question about expossure times need to image stars that was asked of you in the UM thread that Evan posted.

That will get you started on the path to PROVING you have the knowlege required to discuss the Apollo photography. Of course if don't, well that will simply point to your ignorance of the subject matter.

Time to put up or shut up Duane. Are you a man or simply a googlebot?

[Duane Daman]

Craig ... I'll tell you what you're a master of ... BS , disinformation , insulting those you disagree with and blowing your own horn with your self inflated ego .. That's what you're a master of ! .... This is the internet for godsake ... You can't prove any of your claims , even if they were true ... You could be a janitor of an elementary school for all we know .

Instead of posting your typical nonsense , why not try 'refuting' the author's photographic evidence of superimposed , cut and pasted images , in those phony Apollo photographs , which in no way possible could have really been taken on the moon .

I don't know the exposure time of photographing stars ... It would vary with the circumstances and the F stop positions involved ... My not being a professional photographer doesn't mean I don't understand anything about the subject of photography ... It's not very difficult to spot studio faked pictures with no depth perception to them , or superimposed images .... You see, there is a big difference between what planets look like and what studio sets look like ... and if you're really such a big shot professional photographer , then I can't understand why you can't see the difference .

Edited January 9, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Craig ... I'll tell you what you're a master of ... BS , disinformation , insulting those you disagree with and blowing your own horn with your self inflated ego .. That's what you're a master of ! .... This is the internet for godsake ... You can't prove any of your claims , even if they were true ... You could be a janitor of an elementary school for all we know .

Instead of posting your typical nonsense , why not try 'refuting' the author's photographic evidence of superimposed , cut and pasted images , in those phony Apollo photographs , which in no way possible could have really been taken on the moon .

I don't know the exposure time of photographing stars ... It would vary with the circumstances and the F stop positions involved ... My not being a professional photographer doesn't mean I don't understand anything about the subject of photography ... It's not very difficult to spot studio faked pictures with no depth perception to them , or superimposed images .... You see, there is a big difference between what planets look like and what studio sets look like ... and if you're really such a big shot professional photographer , then I can't understand why you can't see the difference .

LOL! I just LOVE seeing you boxed in a corner Duane!

I've not "insulted" you Duane, just detailed exactly what you are, simple truths that can bee see all over the net...everywhere you post. You simply drip ignorance in the subjects you attempt to argue.

You asked for my photographic qualifications. I answered. I'm sorry if my skill level in photographic arts threatens you, but facts are facts. I know photography inside out, you don't know crap. And I CAN prove my claims. Try doing a Google on my name and say...rv photography... see what you find. Contact any of my clients and see if I actually do the work I claim. Come visit me at my place of business....I've nothing to hide...do YOU?

Refute what? Someones handwaving claims that the images were worked in negative space? LOL! You have got to be kidding! Besides, you don't have the skill nor the knowlege to even begin to understand the arguments. You can't counter because of your ignorance of the subject matter. What we would get is what we always get with Duane Daman..."Sorry I don't buy it". Translated that means "I don't have a clue about what is being said but I "BELIEVE" Apollo was faked so evidence and my ignorance be damned..."I DON"T BUY IT!"

You have your head screwed on backwards Duane. You posted these "proofs", you need to support them. Your cutting and pasting means nothing other than you can type something into a search engine. Show us YOU understand the subject matter by EXPLAINING it. Can you do it? I though not.

Stars...what a stupid answer Duane. You were given EVERYTHING you needed to calculate the star exposure. You were given the film speed and the lens f-stop. You can't answer BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS BEYOND YOU. You even failed as a googlebot.

And now my favorite...

Duane droned

" My not being a professional photographer doesn't mean I don't understand anything about the subject of photography ... It's not very difficult to spot studio faked pictures with no depth perception to them , or superimposed images .... You see, there is a big difference between what planets look like and what studio sets look like ... and if you're really such a big shot professional photographer , then I can't understand why you can't see the difference."

Lets translate.

I have taken a few snapshots but I really don't have a clue about anything photographic, in fact my self-stated qualifications for stating I know enough to declare the Apollo images are fake is simply looking at web jepgs for a few years..and oh yes, reading and falling for the disinformation posted by the likes of Jack White. I don't understand any of this stuff but I BELIEVE in the Apollo Hoax therefore ANYTHING supporting my belief will be accepted by me despite of my ignorance.

And Yes my being a professional advertising photographer for almost three decades allows me to know a fake from a real image, outdoors, and more importantly in the studio. And the Apollo image are real. Duane Daman is simply a man without a clue.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Craig Lamson , the almighty know it all professional photographer .... LOL .... Still attacking and insulting the messenger because you don't like the message , I see ... Why is that I wonder ? ... because you can't refute the message ? .... Your program of ridicule and ad homs is as old as you are ... not to mention boring , redundant and ridiculous .... I may not know a lot about taking photographs of stars and what the exposure time should be but I do know quite a bit about psychology and you are nothing but a typical nasty nasa defender with only one agenda .... To shut up the conspiracy researchers and Apollo hoax believers at any cost and by any insulting means necessary ...

Your posts never have anything to do with discussing the evidence in the articles I post , but rather are nothing but a constant personal attack on me ... From the way you act I'm beginning to believe you may have even had a part in faking some those cheesy looking Apollo moon set photographs yourself ....

Edited January 9, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson , the almighty know it all professional photographer .... LOL .... Still attacking and insulting the messenger because you don't like the message , I see ... Why is that I wonder ? ... because you can't refute the message ? .... Your program of ridicule and ad homs is as old as you are ... not to mention boring , redundant and ridiculous .... I may not know a lot about taking photographs of stars and what the exposure time should be but I do know quite a bit about psychology and you are nothing but a typical nasty nasa defender with only one agenda .... To shut up the conspiracy researchers and Apollo hoax believers at any cost and by any insulting means necessary ...

Your posts never have anything to do with discussing the evidence in the articles I post , but rather are nothing but a constant personal attack on me ... From the way you act I'm beginning to believe you may have even had a part in faking some those cheesy looking Apollo moon set photographs yourself ....

Still stuck in that corner I see Duane. You have a pretty short memory. I posted quite a bit few rebuttals to your silly nonsense when you first joined the forum...you remember the ignorance you posted way back when about how "stage lights" work. Well your replies gave me you number. You don't know this material and you appear incapable of LEARNING. As all of us have seen further rebuttals are WORTHLESS when directed at you. You can't move forward because you have a closed mind.

So when can we expect your detailed explanations of this latest round of "evidence. We all know you can google and then cut and paste, when to we hear again from Duane? Again, its time to put up or shut up hoaxer....you stated you agree with the "evidence" you have posted...now tell us WHY. Drop your crutch. Fly solo. TELL US WHY THIS EVIDENCE IS PROOF POSITIVE THE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE FAKED!

Ah...poor little victim Duane. The whole big bad world is out to get him, after all only he and a few other "researchers" know the truth about Apollo. Never mind that their "proofs" cut against the grain of accepted science ( and we all know how over-rated science is...Duane told us so), only they know the real truth. Good grief are you delusional.

Time to put up hoaxer....

[Duane Daman]

Don't you think it's kind of funny how you can use all the defamatory comments in your posts to me that you please , but one of my posts was edited for making defamatory comments that I don't even remember saying .

If you want to believe that I'm delusional or paranoid or stupid or ignorant or a victim or anything else , then that's fine ... After all , we are all entitled to our own opinions , right ? .... I happen to think that you are a lot of things too ... The main one being something that is a four letter word which starts with an E and ends with an L ... and trust me , I would much rather be considered stupid or delusional to that .

From now on I will not reply to any off topic nonsense or personal attacks ... Your insults to me have been reported to John Simkin and if you continue to post them , I will continue to report them .