Craig Lamson Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't have the time or the resources to photograph stage light fixtures and ceiling fans in astronot's visors ... If you can't see what is right before your eyes , and want to pretend that the Apollo 12 visor reflected anomaly is just a smudge on the visor , then go right ahead ....But as far as I'm concerned , you are wasting everyone's time with your silly claims .... Am I supposed to recreate the conditions of nasa's moon set photo shoot ? ... Are you clavius clones for real ? ... Or maybe you just want me to draw some clever little diagrams of where the ceiling fan, or stage lights and their shadows were on the moon set ? It's hard enough just reading the lies you geeks post without having to waste my time defending the obvious ... But it's all just a game anyway , isn't it ? .... You all pretend that something is not what it obviously is .. Then you all expect me to draw pretty pictures for you , of something you refuse to see or believe in the first place . Okay , let me put this simple terms that you all can understand .... The photo speaks for itself ... There is an anomaly reflected in the Apollo 12 visor which looks like either a stage light or a celing fan and this object also causes a shadow on the moon set floor ..... It is NOT a smudge and you do NOT need a picture or a diagram from me to prove this point .... Just open your blind eyes .... Open your closed minds .... and then look at the truth .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes shot on moon sets . Duane...there is no doubt that it is the reflection of SOMETHING, not a smudge nor scratch. I favor it being a studio light. A ceiling fan makes little sense in a photo studio, because wind would be a nuisance to the photographers, and not necessary for cooling. More efficient would be refrigerated air conditoning. I agree it may LOOK like a ceiling fan, but I believe it is lighting equipment. Jack Great Jack, now why don't YOU show us how a smudge and a reflection reacts on a convex surface? Duane is a bit short of the skills to do the test....now you have made the claim now why not prove it. Or are you a few skills short as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Why don't you do the "smudge ' test on the surface of ordinary household convex objects yourself , lamson ? .. I would really enjoy seeing how you turn a smudge into a ceiling fan/stage light reflection .... Can you do a smudge with four geometrical sides that look like fan blades ? .... and can you also please photoshop a shadow to match the smudge too ? .... You're such a world acclaimed professional photographer that I bet you could do all that in just a few minutes , right ? Why ask Jack to do your work for you ? ... I'm sure Jack is too busy has better things to do with his valuable time than placate or answer to you ... and after all , this is the winter and you just admitted that you have no important photographic 'work' to do during your down time ... Yep , I bet things are really jumping ( NOT ) right now in Nowhere , Indiana .... LMAO !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous .... Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything more is classified? Matt ... Are you for real ? .... If something is CLASSIFIED it is a SECRET . How could I possibly know what nasa is hiding about Apollo ? .... I was hoping that in my lifetime nasa would fess up to faking the Apollo moon landings ... but of course that was just wishful thinking on my part because that is something they are never going to admit to ... Even when 2026 rolls around , I'm sure they will find a good reason to continue the cover-up .... Just the way the corrupt American government continues to keep the truth of JFK's assassination classified and covered up . Unfortunately most of the Apollo evidence has already been destroyed that could expose nasa's deceit ... The LM and lunar buggy blueprints were ordered destroyed by the FBI ... and the "lost" telemetry tapes will most likely never be found because they have either been hidden away under lock and key and gun point or they have been flushed down the toilet , where they probably belong anyway. So in other words, no, you have no evidence whatsoever. Often when something is classified, one can still find out the title of the item. The only things there are evidence for being classified are medical records (for a darned good reason, would you really want your private medical records floating around the internet?) and a single military experiment on a single on of the missions. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for anything else being classified, don't you think it takes quite a leap in logic to assume that there is something and that that something is some crucial evidence? As far as the blueprints being ordered destroyed by the FBI, do you have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just some claim that is continually repeated across the internet with nothing to back it up? Do you realize how much room a full set of blueprints for those vehicles would take up? Think on the order of a several large warehouse and go up from there. Every part was custom made so every part would have drawings, testing information, certification information, fitting information, etc. You ever stop to consider that the blueprints don't exist because nobody wanted to pay for several large warehouses to keep them in? Nevertheless, some documentation has survived. You can view some of it here. http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm Here is a good quote from another forum where this same subject was discussed The allegation does not really make sense from the standpoint of how the FBI and other federal agencies are related. The FBI has general jurisdiction over all government entities to the extent of investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing. If NASA were alleged to have broken the law in any way, the FBI would investigate and possibly bring charges. The FBI does not have operational authority over any other agency. That the FBI "ordered" NASA to destroy the LM blueprints doesn't make any sort of governmental sense.I know for a fact that some LM documentation was destroyed. I know people who salvaged keepsakes from dumpsters. I too have tried to get Grumman to survey exactly what they have, but today's Grumman has gone through so many mergers and acquisitions since 1970 that it's a distinct possibility no one there now has the faintest idea where the LM stuff is right now. As usual, this means something only if you believe that "the blueprints" for the LM were some easily-managed sheaf of papers that ever existed together in one place. People don't understand the gargantuan amount of paperwork that accompanies the design and construction of a manned spacecraft, and that you don't need to retain all of it in order to satisfy historical needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Why don't you do the "smudge ' test on the surface of ordinary household convex objects yourself , lamson ? .. I would really enjoy seeing how you turn a smudge into a ceiling fan/stage light reflection .... Can you do a smudge with four geometrical sides that look like fan blades ? .... and can you also please photoshop a shadow to match the smudge too ? .... You're such a world acclaimed professional photographer that I bet you could do all that in just a few minutes , right ? Why ask Jack to do your work for you ? ... I'm sure Jack is too busy has better things to do with his valuable time than placate or answer to you ... and after all , this is the winter and you just admitted that you have no important photographic 'work' to do during your down time ... Yep , I bet things are really jumping ( NOT ) right now in Nowhere , Indiana .... LMAO !! I've nothing to prove Duane, as I've made no claims about any of this yet both you and Jack have and neither of you have provided any evidence to support your claims. Given that both of you have shown a distinct lack of knowlege about the art of photography, your words are meaningless. So, you gonna provide the emperical evidence to support your claims or shall we consider them null and void...YOUR CHOICE? Edited January 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post . lamson ... You have nothing to prove because you can't prove that the Apollo 12 visor reflection of the ceiling fan / stagelight anomaly is a smudge .... Anyone who claims this reflected object is a smudge is just playing games and lying .... Two things the typical nasa defenders do so well . My words are not meaningless just because I am not a photographer .... Anyone with eyes can see that something is reflected in the visor that doesn't belong on the moon .... What would my trying to recreate it prove ? By the way ... Jack white is a well known photographer who has worked hard at exposing the faked photography of the bogus Apollo Program .... I knew about him before I even started investigating this subject ... Where as you are just a nobody who lives in Nowhere , Indiana , who pretends to be somebody important ... So you can take photographs .. So what ? .... You still can't prove that the Apollo 12 visor reflection anomaly is a smudge because it isn't . Edited January 26, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post .lamson ... You have nothing to prove because you can't prove that the Apollo 12 visor reflection of the ceiling fan / stagelight anomaly is a smudge .... Anyone who claims this reflected object is a smudge is just playing games and lying .... Two things the typical nasa defenders do so well . My words are not meaningless just because I am not a photographer .... Anyone with eyes can see that something is reflected in the visor that doesn't belong on the moon .... What would my trying to recreate it prove ? By the way ... Jack white is a well known photographer who has worked hard at exposing the faked photography of the bogus Apollo Program .... I knew about him before I even started investigating this subject ... Where as you are just a nobody who lives in Nowhere , Indiana , who pretends to be somebody important ... So you can take photographs .. So what ? .... You still can't prove that the Apollo 12 visor reflection anomaly is a smudge because it isn't . You need to understand I'm not trying to prove anything, not that the item is a smudge or a reflection. You can't prove its a reflection any more than I can prove its a smudge. The question becomes, which holds the most promise as being correct. You have stated that without doubt that it is a reflection and to support your claim you have offered statements you believe portray the behavior of smudges and reflections on a convex surface. The only other evidence you offer is your opinion as a photo analyst. We can dismiss your opinion because you have failed in simple photo analysis tasks such as the footlights and the curvature. In other words your opinions are not reliable. That leaves you with your claims about smudges, relfections and a convex surface. You have been asked by more than one member to provide emperical data to back up your claim. You have failed to do so. It is established that your knowlege base in the art and science of photography is nil and you can't understand what you see in photographs to the point of not being able to see a simple curved line. So we are back to you providing emperical data to back up your claim. Can you do this or shall we dismiss your argument as unsupported? And btw, Jack White is and never was a "professional" photographer. He shot copy camera stuff and did some lightweight snapshot photography as a sideline to his job and a copywriter and artist. As far as I know he never met the standard requirement that over 50% of your income must come from photography. If I am incorrect I will gladly retract my statement. Jack has made quite a name for himself posting tons of mis and disinformation about photography. I've yet to see one of his silly and misinformed claims stand up to inspection,. I'm not alone in my views. But of course you have no way of knowing if Jack is right or wrong since you lack the skillset to understand the subject matter. You just bumble along believing...blind as a bat. Edited January 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post . I think you missed the point. First, the FBI didn't order anything destroyed. It is a completely absurd idea that they did.Second, NASA isn't even the organization that held the blueprints. Grumman as stated in my previous post was the manufacturer and held the blueprints. Also, as stated in my previous post, Grumman has gone through multiple mergers and acquisitions since 1970. Not only does that increase the possiblility of stuff getting lost, that also increases the possibility of someone new and unfamiliar with the project coming in and getting rid of the documentation because they either saw it as a waste of money to store for a old project that they weren't working on or idn't even realize what it was and got rid of it because of that. Third, not all of the blueprints are destroyed. I posted a link earlier that had links to many, many documents of the LM and lunar buggy. I'll post it again http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm As for the tapes, in my opinion, they were probably never properly cataloged and as a result got misplaced or even written over. But that fact that we even know about the missing tapes is interesting in and of itself. It was NASA and an agency working with them that announced that the tapes were missing. Why, if they were trying to cover something up by misplacing the tapes, would they announce publicly that the tapes were lost? Does that even make any sense? Edited January 27, 2007 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post . I keep hearing this claim that the FBI ordered blueprints to be destroyed, but can find no corroborating evidence. It only seems to be mentioned on conspiracy websites. I made the mistake of assuming the claim was correct because Duane has claimed many times that this fact is accepted even by ABers. It's an object leson to me to check every claim made, as this seems to be more disinformation being perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. If Duane or anyone else for that matter has eidence to the contrary I'll gladly reassess the situation, but as far as I'm concerned it's time to label this piece of dis-information as exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post . I think you missed the point. First, the FBI didn't order anything destroyed. It is a completely absurd idea that they did.Second, NASA isn't even the organization that held the blueprints. Grumman as stated in my previous post was the manufacturer and held the blueprints. Also, as stated in my previous post, Grumman has gone through multiple mergers and acquisitions since 1970. Not only does that increase the possiblility of stuff getting lost, that also increases the possibility of someone new and unfamiliar with the project coming in and getting rid of the documentation because they either saw it as a waste of money to store for a old project that they weren't working on or idn't even realize what it was and got rid of it because of that. Third, not all of the blueprints are destroyed. I posted a link earlier that had links to many, many documents of the LM and lunar buggy. I'll post it again http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm As for the tapes, in my opinion, they were probably never properly cataloged and as a result got misplaced or even written over. But that fact that we even know about the missing tapes is interesting in and of itself. It was NASA and an agency working with them that announced that the tapes were missing. Why, if they were trying to cover something up by misplacing the tapes, would they announce publicly that the tapes were lost? Does that even make any sense? I think you missed the point .... A researcher went to nasa and asked them to loan him the original telemetry tapes so he could reproduce them for everyone to see the moon landings like they were suppossed to be seen ... and also do a documentary on the Apollo program ... It was only then that nasa had to admit to him that they had no earthly idea where the tapes were .... and of course alarm bells went off for the guy who fell for the Apollo missions being real .... If this hadn't happened , nasa would have never admitted to not knowing where the telemetry tapes were ... and if the manned moon landing were really important , nasa would not have "lost " the evidence proving that they really went to the moon . Maybe not all of the blueprints were destroyed but the important ones were .... If Grumman destroyed the blueprints then it was done under nasa's orders via the FBI . Edited January 29, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) lamson ... If you can't see that the Apollo 12 anomaly reflected in the visor is either a ceiling fan or a stage light , then it would be you who is lacking in "skillset" and also the one who is "blind as a bat " . You worked for nasa on the ALSJ ... You have a biased opinion when it comes to the Apollo photos .... In other words , you are not to be trusted to tell the truth about any of the amomalies in the Apollo photos. My only proof that the reflected object is a ceiling fan or stage light is the fact that it is shaped like one and changes shape and position in the visor with the camera angle ... That alone proves it's not a smudge on the visor . So if you don't have anything to prove and don't have a dog in this fight , then why question my evidence ? .... If you were honest , you would admit it looks more like a reflected anomalous object instead of a smudge ... But of course you are not honest about any of this .... and that's precisely the reason you choose to attack my hoax evidence . Edited January 29, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I think you missed the point .... A researcher went to nasa and asked them to loan him the original telemetry tapes so he could reproduce them for everyone to see the moon landings like they were suppossed to be seen ... and also do a documentary on the Apollo program ... It was only then that nasa had to admit to him that they had no earthly idea where the tapes were .... and of course alarm bells went off for the guy who fell for the Apollo missions being real .... If this hadn't happened , nasa would have never admitted to not knowing where the telemetry tapes were ... and if the manned moon landing were really important , nasa would not have "lost " the evidence proving that they really went to the moon . That's not quite what happened. The images are NOT 'missing'; the original tapes are missing, and that could give us better images of what we saw, not anything new. Read about what really happened, and why: http://honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tape..._SSTV_Tapes.pdf Maybe not all of the blueprints were destroyed but the important ones were .... If Grumman destroyed the blueprints then it was done under nasa's orders via the FBI . So Duane - what were the important ones? What did they show? And now you are changing your story? First it was the FBI who ordered it, but now it's NASA who ordered it but got the FBI to carry it out? Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 You worked for nasa on the ALSJ ... You have a biased opinion when it comes to the Apollo photos .... In other words , you are not to be trusted to tell the truth about any of the amomalies in the Apollo photos. I emailed Eric Jones re a photo on the ALSJ myself a few weeks ago - it was a copy of a print that was reversed left-to-right (an Apollo 11 image I'd emailed JW about). If I get a mention in the credits on the ALSJ does that put me on NASAs payroll too? And WHEN do I get my cheque? My only proof that the reflected object is a ceiling fan or stage light is the fact that it is shaped like one and changes shape and position in the visor with the camera angle ... That alone proves it's not a smudge on the visor . I find it a difficult position to support given two photos alone, taken in separate locations, at different times - one colour, one B&W. The angle of the visor very similar in both cases, but different backgrounds - and the artefact is pretty much identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Am I the only one those only sees 2 of the 4 so called 'fan blades' that are supposed to be so clear that we're liars if we don't see them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) lamson ... If you can't see that the Apollo 12 anomaly reflected in the visor is either a ceiling fan or a stage light , then it would be you who is lacking in "skillset" and also the one who is "blind as a bat " . Seeing a bunny rabbit in the clouds or a fan or ceiling lights in a visor is not a "skillset" Duane. The skillset you lack is dealing with how photography works, as you have shown over and over and over again. You worked for nasa on the ALSJ ... You have a biased opinion when it comes to the Apollo photos .... In other words , you are not to be trusted to tell the truth about any of the amomalies in the Apollo photos.A blantant case of disinformation on your part. I never "WORKED" for NASA on the ALSJ. I supplied a single correction to the owner of the ALSJ (who is also not "working for NASA"). If this is a sample of your reasoning, research and logic skillset, we can see that it is also non-existant. As to my bias, yes I have one, I have found through study and experimentation that the Apollo image catalog is not faked. You also have a bias, can you admit that? You don't need to trust me, or anyone else who makes statements about the Apollo photography. Regardless of the presenter, the facts remain the facts. The great part about dealing with hoaxers who make silly claims about the Apollo photography is that most of the claims can be tested. Anyone can repeat the tests as needed. The facts stand regardless of the bias or trustworthyness of the presenter. You are the perfect dupe simply BECAUSE you do not have the skillset to conduct the tests or understand the outcome. You are simply left with "trust" and "belief", which is a pretty poor leg to stand on. My only proof that the reflected object is a ceiling fan or stage light is the fact that it is shaped like one and changes shape and position in the visor with the camera angle ... That alone proves it's not a smudge on the visor . And this is the point you have been asked to prove with emperical evidence. Given your bias and statements above, you are simply not to be trusted to tell the truth (providing you even know the truth) You claim rests on evidence you have not presented...will you? If not your claim will be dismissed. So if you don't have anything to prove and don't have a dog in this fight , then why question my evidence ? .... If you were honest , you would admit it looks more like a reflected anomalous object instead of a smudge ... But of course you are not honest about any of this .... and that's precisely the reason you choose to attack my hoax evidence . Why not question your evidence? You clearly claim the right to question ours? My honesty has nothing to do with your claim and the proof you suggest (but has not yet been presented) makes your point. I want to be convinced you are correct. I'm sure that desire is shared by other as well. Will you be providing that evidence? You are in no position to question my honesty, and unless you can offer proof that I am being dishonest, please withdraw your blatant disinformation. Edited January 29, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) Am I the only one those only sees 2 of the 4 so called 'fan blades' that are supposed to be so clear that we're liars if we don't see them? Kevin .... Maybe if you take a close look at the original photo before Dave posted a different photo which appears to be altered , you will see the shadow of the four slender fan blades ... Smudges do NOT create shadows on the moon set floor ... nor do they look like ceiling fans or stage lights ... Are you a xxxx if you don't see the shadow ? .... I would have no idea if you are lying or not ... but you certainly are blind if you can't see it and also playing games along with the rest of your nasa defender friends who refuse to see the truth about the faked Apollo moon set photos . Here's the original photo which clearly shows the fan shaped anomaly and it's shadow of the same shape . Edited January 29, 2007 by Duane Daman 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