Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Click on the links below to take a spin on Apollo's moon ..... Right click and pull your mouse to the left or right to see the show and turn on your sound to listen to the silly dialogue and songs .. "We Were Strolling on the Moon One Day" The mission numbers are listed at the top of the screen ... Click on each one to view this unbelievable fraud or use the links below. Here we get to see all six of the Apollo moon sets in their full panoramic glory ... It doesn't get any more fake than this folks . Apollo 11 moon set . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-11.html Apollo 12 moon set . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-12.html Apollo 14 moon set . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-14.html Apollo 15 moon set . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-15.html Apollo 16 moon set . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-16.html Apollo 17 moon set and silly song . http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-17.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Duane- Why do you believe these are fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) Great panorama shots, I'd seen them a while ago but forgot about that site. OK, you keep saying they look like painted moon-sets - if that is the case, how do you account for the minute changes in shadow lengths on some slopes between photos taken on different EVAs? Personally, I don't see how pointing a spotlight in a slightly different direction cuts the mustard. IMHO these minute changes in shadows are very good evidence that there are no "painted backdrops" in these scenes. It's certainly in keeping with the photos being taken on the moon as claimed. Both from Apollo 15, as previously discussed. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...5/shadow_03.gif Edited February 12, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Steve ... Why do you believe these panoramas are real ? .... Did you take a good look at them ? ... They are so obviously moon sets ... and of all the phony looking Apollo photos , I would have to say that these are some of the phoniest looking of all .... Planets don't look like what these photos depict .... Not even small one's with no atmosphere . Dave ... I know that you are very impressed with your mountain photos showing a lighting change ... but I don't think anyone ever answered the question as to whether this was even possible on the moon with such a long lunar day . Steve said he knew the answer about the movement of the terminator line on the moon at noon , or some such thing , but then never explained what he he meant by that question . I must admit though that of all the phony looking Apollo photos , this one does look at tad more realistic ... and I also noticed that there is no astronot in the photo either ... Hmmmm .... Something else to think about ... Phony mixed with real perhaps ? .... With nasa and their very questionable Apollo Program , I guess anything is possible . Edited February 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Steve ... Why do you believe these panoramas are real ? .... Did you take a good look at them ? ... They are so obviously moon sets ... and of all the phony looking Apollo photos , I would have to say that these are some of the phoniest looking of all .... Planets don't look like what these photos depict .... Not even small one's with no atmosphere . Duane ... Why do you believe these panoramas are fake? .... Did you take a good look at them? ... They are so obviously taken on the moon ... and of all the great looking Apollo photos, I would have to say that these are some of the most realistic looking of all .... Planets don't look like what these photos depict ... Especially small ones with some atmosphere . Steve said he knew the answer about the movement of the terminator line on the moon at noon , or some such thing , but then never explained what he he meant by that question .Jack said that because of the length of Moon’s day, you would not be able to discern any movement of the sun over 40 minuets, therefore Dave’s animation was wrong, and you agreed. My point was, unless you know how fast the Sun moves in the Moon’s “sky”, you are in no position to claim anything about the relative movements of shadows on the moon. I must admit though that of all the phony looking Apollo photos , this one does look at tad more realistic ... and I also noticed that there is no astronot in the photo either ... Hmmmm .... Something else to think about ... Phony mixed with real perhaps ? .... With nasa and their very questionable Apollo Program , I guess anything is possible . What exactly are you trying to say? Edited February 14, 2007 by Steve Ulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Steve ... Why do you believe these panoramas are real ? .... Did you take a good look at them ? ... They are so obviously moon sets ... and of all the phony looking Apollo photos , I would have to say that these are some of the phoniest looking of all .... Planets don't look like what these photos depict .... Not even small one's with no atmosphere .Dave ... I know that you are very impressed with your mountain photos showing a lighting change ... but I don't think anyone ever answered the question as to whether this was even possible on the moon with such a long lunar day . Steve said he knew the answer about the movement of the terminator line on the moon at noon , or some such thing , but then never explained what he he meant by that question . I must admit though that of all the phony looking Apollo photos , this one does look at tad more realistic ... and I also noticed that there is no astronot in the photo either ... Hmmmm .... Something else to think about ... Phony mixed with real perhaps ? .... With nasa and their very questionable Apollo Program , I guess anything is possible . You keep saying things like "They are so obviously moon sets" and yet you have no actual set building nor photography experience to support your claims. In essence you are simply waving your hands. Its no wonder your claims are rightly dismissed as wild speculation. Edited February 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Dave ... I know that you are very impressed with your mountain photos showing a lighting change ... but I don't think anyone ever answered the question as to whether this was even possible on the moon with such a long lunar day . It's going to be difficult to prove with a great degree of accuracy that the shadow movement is 100% accurate as there are so many variables involved - the angle of the sun, the height of the mountain casting the shadow, the angle of the slope onto which the shadow is cast, even the latitude of the Apollo 15 landing site will have a bearing on the sun's trajectory in the lunar sky. However, I can do a quick "rule of thumb" calculation that will demonstrate the principle is correct. (All values below are approximations). Lunar daytime = 14 earth days = 336 hours Earth daytime (at equator) = 0.5 days = 12 hours Hence, sun appears to move across sky on earth 336/12 = 28 times faster than on moon. (Again, there is margin for error here due to variables such as latitude, time of year etc.) The time between the two photos in question was approx 40 mins, which would equate to a time difference of approx 40/28 on earth, approx 1.5 minutes (remembering margin for error). So, a fair question would be, would we expect to see a similar shadow change, given similar circumstances, on the earth. I don't have the time or motivation to try and reproduce that one myself, but there may well be stock footage. I've hunted through some time-lapse photography to try and find something that will reproduce this effect, but it's quite difficult finding a shot that closely represents what we see in the lunar photos, as well as being able to make an informed guess as to the passage of time in the clip. I think the best one I can find so far is this time-lapse footage of Hong Kong:- http://www.timelapsedigital.com/proddetail...prod=HKHarbour5 We have clues as to the time frame given the movement of shipping on the harbour. Approximately 3/4 into the clip, we see a small boat leave the RHS shoreline. I've produced a GIF of two frames which is my guesstimate as to how far the boat travels in approximately 90 seconds. The boat I'm referring to has a small green dot above. Now look at how far the shadow of the hill behind Hong Kong moves across the buildings - there is a perceptible movement. So that Duane doesn't accuse me of mind-games, distraction tactics, and disinformation, I just want to reiterate what I'm trying to show here, and just as importantly what I'm not trying to show. I am NOT claiming that all the figures I've used are 100% accurate - though given a reasonable margin of error they work as a "rule of thumb". I'm NOT claiming that the Hong Kong harbour scene is a like-for-like comparison of the Apollo 15 photos. What I am claiming, is that during the passage of time between the 2 Apollo 15 photos in this GIF, the Sun will have moved approximately the same amount as in the Hong Kong picture (notice I say Sun, not shadows). The Hong Kong picture and the Apollo 15 pictures both show a small but noticeable change in the position of the shadow. I am not claiming that this is proof that the Apollo 15 photos are real - I'm simply demonstrating the principle that given how far the sun has moved in the sky, it is not unreasonable to expect to see a small but noticeable shift in some shadows cast by large objects over long distances. We see this on earth (Hong Kong pictures), so why not on the moon? Of course, if anyone else believes that the Apollo 15 shadow changes are impossible given the time differential (approx 40 minutes between shots), please feel free to show how this change in shadows could not have happened. Edited February 15, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Nice work Dave .... Once again you took a great deal of time and effort in defending your cause ... I hope you get a bonus in your nasa paycheck this month . lamson .... I don't have to be a set builder or a photographer to see that these moon panoramas are not only fake , but some of the cheesiest work ever done by nasa's hired photo hoaxers ... I'm not waving my hands ( another lame Bad Astronomy phrase ) ... but only posting the evidence which clearly proves that the Apollo photography could not possibly have been taken on the moon .... But don't take my word for it ... just watch 'What Happened on the Moon', where professional photographer David Percy will be happy to explain to you in great detail , how nasa faked the Apollo photography ..... Oh , that's right ... I almost forgot .... the Bad Astronomy boys , with their guru Jay Windley at the helm , have already pretended to debunk all of David Percy's evidence against Apollo .... Silly me , what was I thinking that you could ever open your mind and your blind eyes to the truth ? ... Or perhaps you do know the truth , but are part of the cover-up ? ... After all , your name does have top billing as having helped out with nasa's ALSJ ! Edited February 15, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Nice work Dave .... Once again you took a great deal of time and effort in defending your cause ... I hope you get a bonus in your nasa paycheck this month . lamson .... I don't have to be a set builder or a photographer to see that these moon panoramas are not only fake , but some of the cheesiest work ever done by nasa's hired photo hoaxers ... I'm not waving my hands ( another lame Bad Astronomy phrase ) ... but only posting the evidence which clearly proves that the Apollo photography could not possibly have been taken on the moon .... But don't take my word for it ... just watch 'What Happened on the Moon', where professional photographer David Percy will be happy to explain to you in great detail , how nasa faked the Apollo photography ..... Oh , that's right ... I almost forgot .... the Bad Astronomy boys , with their guru Jay Windley at the helm , have already pretended to debunk all of David Percy's evidence against Apollo .... Silly me , what was I thinking that you could ever open your mind and your blind eyes to the truth ? ... Or perhaps you do know the truth , but are part of the cover-up ? ... After all , your name does have top billing as having helped out with nasa's ALSJ ! Its very clear you DON"T have any evidence other than your "opinion" which I might add is based on NOTHING...so yes you are simply waving your hand wildly. Lets take ONE SIMPLE part of your argument and see if it holds water, that here was a large spotlight only a few feet above the 'moonset". You state your ignorance of studio lighting and set building...in fact photography in general, yet you claim the uncanny ability to see the Apollo photos are fakes. How can that be? Without the background in these areas, you ARE WAVING YOUR HANDS. But back on topic, Please explain in detail exactly how your "MOONSET" could have been illuminated by a single light only a few feet above the set and yet not show ANY effects from the law of theinverse square? Can you do anything besides parrot your favorite hoaxers? As for the complete debunking of Percy, if you disagree please offer us a detailed rebuttal..instead of waving your hands wildly. Edited February 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Craig ... Didn't you forget something in your last post ? ... Like maybe your reply ?? Plus you're five minutes late too ! ... Did you perhaps have some important photos to take in your busy studio , or were you too busy posting more disinformation on other forums , discussing how nasa hoaxed their moon landings ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Craig ... Didn't you forget something in your last post ? ... Like maybe your reply ?? Plus you're five minutes late too ! ... Did you perhaps have some important photos to take in your busy studio , or were you too busy posting more disinformation on other forums , discussing how nasa hoaxed their moon landings ? Why yes I did hit the wrong button but the mistake is fixed. Now how about you actually answer ind etail the many questions you have been asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Silly me , what was I thinking that you could ever open your mind and your blind eyes to the truth ? ... Or perhaps you do know the truth , but are part of the cover-up ? ... After all , your name does have top billing as having helped out with nasa's ALSJ ! Duane, you're dancing on the rim again, as you are aware it is against Forum rules to call other members liars. By all means debate forcefully, but please cut out the ad homs..Steve. ps, I do not want a debate on this. Edited February 15, 2007 by Stephen Turner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Steve ... I didn't use the word xxxx but if you think I am using ad homs then I will try to tone my posts down at bit ... Sorry . lamson .. I am not "waving my hands" as you put it ... I could see that the Apollo photos were studio fakes before I ever "parroted my favorite hoaxters" . Can I explain why I know this technically ? ... No .... but others can and have , such as David Percy, Jack White and Dr. Jones .. Jack just explained in another thread how multiple lighting can be used without creating multiple shadows ... and Percy explained in detail how an artificial light , used to represent the sun on the moon sets , created hot spots , anomaluos shadow lengths and huge spotlight reflections in the astronot's visors ... If you choose not to believe all of this photographic evidence , which proves that the Apollo photography was faked , then that is your right ... Just as it's mine to agree with the professionals who have exposed nasa's bogus Apollo photos . No other professionals or even laymen , disputes any of nasa's other missions or space photography ... Only Apollo .... So not everyone was fooled by the faked moon photos ... Only those who can not conceive that such a thing could have been done , or are part of the cover-up to keep the lid on the hoax evidence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Steve ... I didn't use the word xxxx but if you think I am using ad homs then I will try to tone my posts down at bit ... Sorry .lamson .. I am not "waving my hands" as you put it ... I could see that the Apollo photos were studio fakes before I ever "parroted my favorite hoaxters" . Can I explain why I know this technically ? ... No .... but others can and have , such as David Percy, Jack White and Dr. Jones .. Thank you. You have just admitted to Waving Your Hands" And since you have admitted more than once you dont understand any of this, how can you be sure that Percy, White and Jones are correct? Jack just explained in another thread how multiple lighting can be used without creating multiple shadows ... and Percy explained in detail how an artificial light , used to represent the sun on the moon sets , created hot spots , anomaluos shadow lengths and huge spotlight reflections in the astronot's visors ...No what Jack did was type some words. He "explained" nothing. All he did was expose his lack of knowlege about light and shadow as I will detail in a later post. And again White and Percy have been completely debunked time and time again. But given your limited skill set when it come to photography, light aqnd shadow, how could you know who was rihgt or wrong in any case?If you choose not to believe all of this photographic evidence , which proves that the Apollo photography was faked , then that is your right ... Just as it's mine to agree with the professionals who have exposed nasa's bogus Apollo photos . Thats the great thing about the most of photographic arguments...no one has to "believe" anything. The arguments can be proven or disproven by simply taking pictures and understanding things like perspective, parallax, exposure, light, shadow etc....basic photography. The fact that your limited knowlege leaves you in a position of "believing" is not my problem. As such your "opinion" carried very little weight. No other professionals or even laymen , disputes any of nasa's other missions or space photography ... Only Apollo .... So not everyone was fooled by the faked moon photos ... Only those who can not conceive that such a thing could have been done , or are part of the cover-up to keep the lid on the hoax evidence . The HOAXERS are the only ones being fooled...by the likes of Percy, White and company. Those with the skill and the knowlege can see right through the BS being spread by the HOAXERS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now