Apollo Photos are Crude Studio Fakes

[Dave Greer]

Posting inferior purple images and then photoshopping tires tracks and drawing imaginary lines of them on these inferior purple photos , does nothing to help your case for nasa ... Neither does posting different photos from the Apollo 15 photo shoot .

But this is exactly what I expected you to do .. and in doing this once again , you have proven how completely dishonset you really are .

On the other hand , I posted HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOS FROM THE APOLLO IMAGE GALLERY ... and were'nt you always the one who claimed that the only photos worth studying and posting to prove your point , are the HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOS right from the original source ?

OK I'm fed up with these ridiculous assertions of yours. Anyone with Photoshop or a similar package can easily prove for themselves that the information is in the originals, NOT added by myself. It's purely a case of altering colour levels and contrast to bring out detail ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL. For the purposes of the study (which I did a few weeks ago) I DID use the ultra-high resolution image. Here's the link you rightly asked for (I did provide a link to the LPI).

Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. 10 Jul. 2006. "Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record."

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/phot...amp;frame=11902 (6 Feb. 2007).

This is just as sneaky as you photoshopping and then bending the shadow in the first photo I posted here .

Mistaken again. I stated very clearly that I had simply stretched the cropped image vertically - how is that being sneaky? It enables you to see the shadow detail more clearly, and thus have a better informed opinion on what the shadow is. You do understand what informed opinion is, don't you?

What a shame you feel the need to stoop to this dishonest level to defend nasa's lies about taking these ridiculous looking photographs on the moon .

For someone who constantly whines about being personally insulted you seem to take a perverse pleasure out of throwing insults at people who are simply pointing out where you are wrong. So far you've accused me of being "completely dishonest", "sneaky", "stooping to a dishonest level". These ad homs are all you're left with - throw enough mud at the messenger and the message becomes tainted? Ridiculous and hypocritical.

Look at the high resolution photos I posted here Dave ... There are NO TIRE TRACKS BEHIND OR UNDERNEATH THE LUNAR BUGGY .... And the reason there are no tracks is because the photos were FAKED ON MOON SETS !

There ARE tracks - as I've clearly shown. Either prove there are no tracks in the image I posted, or withdraw your claims. That would be deemed the honourable thing to do - you do understand honour? Otherwise your reply is obviously little more than flame-baiting.

You really need to open your mind and your eyes to the truth about this and stop playing games for a cause which was nothing but a hoax and a pack of lies .

I think you've indulged in too many irony rations for one lifetime.

Oh, I notice you haven't even ATTEMPTED to go anywhere near the evidence I posted against your "painted backdrop" claims. Remember all your whining over noone attempting to rebutt your Nathan Jones copy/paste job? Why not try doing some of your own analysis of what I've posted? Not up to the job? How about that?

Edited February 6, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

You know what the saddest thing is about you Dave ? .... You can NEVER admit when you are wrong about something ... and you can never admit when some of the Apollo photos have been proven to be fake ...

I don't care how many tracks are in your purple colored photos or how many of those tracks you outlined either ... because that is NOT THE POINT !

The point is ... you posted DIFFERENT PHOTOS to try to prove me wrong .... The three photos I posted here , two from Apollo 15 and one from Apollo 17 , clearly show in HIGH RESOLUTION that there are NO TIRE TRACKS BEHIND OR UNDERNEATH THE BUGGY .... and that is all the proof I need to show .

It IS a very dishonest and also a very sneaky thing to post photos which are NOT RELEVANT to the photos I posted here , which are so obviously fake .

And the same goes for streching and bending that weird looking shadow in the first photo I posted here , which is so obviously fake that the shadow doesn't even match the astronot .... Plus , the buggy tire tracks go right through the middle of that silly looking hole that nasa tried to pass off as being a crater .

I already addressed your other photo and so did Jack .... He said that the lunar day was too long to have the shadow change from one photo to the next so quickly.... and I said that someone just moved the spotlight on the moon set ... And so far, no one has shown any proof that the sun would have caused those subtle changes to the mountain backdrop from one photo to the next on the moon ...

Steve Ulman played some silly game by asking Jack and me about the terminator line on the moon , but so far he hasn't provided any proof that the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon .... and neither have you, or anyone else for that matter .

Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Len Colby]

You can NEVER admit when you are wrong about something

LOL ROTFTMAO, uuuh the irony!!!

[Duane Daman]

Wrong again dummy .... Check out my admitting to being wrong about the Apollo 17 visor reflections being footlights ... I conceded the point after debating it extensively on two different forums .

Look up the word CONCEDED .... Something which neither you or anyone else who defends nasa's lies about landing on the moon has ever done .... Even when the proof that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes is staring you right in your face , you all still lie about them and pretend that they are perfectly normal looking .

So if you're going to "ROTFLMAO" , maybe you should try reading your own posts , cuz they really are pretty funny ... Especially when you can't even manage to get your facts straight .

Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

All your pictures show is that the tire tracks were trampled by the astronauts walking around the rover. Why can't you understand that?

[Duane Daman]

Nice try Kevin ... but I'm afraid this kind of silliness just won't fly this time with the three photos I posted on this thread ..

Look at them again .... There are some bootprints in the photos but not that many and none completely covering the areas where the tire tracks should have been .

Why can't you understand that that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ? .... Maybe because you believe it's your civic duty to lie for nasa also ?

[Dave Greer]

You know what the saddest thing is about you Dave ? .... You can NEVER admit when you are wrong about something ... and you can never admit when some of the Apollo photos have been proven to be fake ...

Wrong again I'm afraid. Just like I told you when we were discussing the infamous "stagelight" photo. My initial guess as to what was causing the effect was wrong, and I happily withdrew it when someone proposed a better hypothesis, namely scratches. This later proved to ber the correct explanation.

And not a single one of the Apollo photos has been "proven" to be a fake, so why would I admit to being wrong?

I don't care how many tracks are in your purple colored photos or how many of those tracks you outlined either ... because that is NOT THE POINT !

The point is ... you posted DIFFERENT PHOTOS to try to prove me wrong .... The three photos I posted here , two from Apollo 15 and one from Apollo 17 , clearly show in HIGH RESOLUTION that there are NO TIRE TRACKS BEHIND OR UNDERNEATH THE BUGGY .... and that is all the proof I need to show .

It IS a very dishonest and also a very sneaky thing to post photos which are NOT RELEVANT to the photos I posted here , which are so obviously fake .

Tired old tactic of yours, setting up those strawmen to knock down. Let's see what I actually did.

Firstly, I answered your claims about AS15-85-11471 in this post. No reference at all to another photo.

Secondly, I answered your claims about AS15-88-11901 in this post. What was my very first sentence in that post? You can't have bothered reading it, so I'll post it again.

I'm sure you won't mind me using the very next photo to analyse this one - it shows more of the tyre tracks. I've already looked at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f.../?AS15-88-11902

Which part of that sentence can you not comprehend?

You posted this image (11901)

My study is of this image, 11902 - the very next one in the pan. It shows more of the region behind the rover, where the tracks are - the very thing you are disputing! How can you possibly claim this to be dishonest or sneaky when I've told you which photo I've used and why? Is it because you can't address my arguments, so you resort to your ad homs yet again?

Just so that EVERYONE on this forum can prove for themselves that I am telling the truth, including yourself, follow this very simple recipe.

1. Download IRfanview from http://www.irfanview.com/ - it's freeware.

2. Download the high resolution version of 11901 (11902 is better as you see more of the tracks, but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 11901) from here - http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/Larg...ilesize=1952536

3. Open IRfanview, then load up the image 11901 you've just saved.

4. On the menu, select Image, then Enhance Colours. In the box that opens, change the brightness to -60 , contrast to 100, gamma to 0.3. Click Apply to Original, then click OK.

5. View the portion of the image to the right of the tyres - you'll see something that looks remarkably like this:-

6. Save the image, then open it up in MS Paint and save a crop of the relevant section.

7. Use Photobucket or similar to post your results here for the rest of the members, so we can finally nail your baseless accusations of dishonesty on my part.

8. Post your public apology for publicly calling me dishonest and sneaky

9. CONGRATULATIONS! You just debunked yourself. Have an ice-cream

And the same goes for streching and bending that weird looking shadow in the first photo I posted here , which is so obviously fake that the shadow doesn't even match the astronot .... Plus , the buggy tire tracks go right through the middle of that silly looking hole that nasa tried to pass off as being a crater .

Yawn. I explained in my original post exactly what I did to the crop, and why. I've also explained it to you since. Another member on this forum also pointed it out to you. I'll try again - the crop was VERTICALLY STRETCHED - the shadow was NOT bent. Mentioning the tyre tracks in the crater now is just purely a distraction tactic on your part.

Thirdly, I haven't mentioned the last lunar buggy image you posted.

I already addressed your other photo and so did Jack .... He said that the lunar day was too long to have the shadow change from one photo to the next so quiclky.... and I said that someone just moved the spotlight on the moon set ...

... and Charlie had fish for tea. The shadow change is very subtle, and accentuated as it's being cast on a slope. But it is noticeable, when you examine the photos properly. Your spotlight theory is plainly wrong as you claimed the mountains were flat, painted backdrops. Moreover, showing how it might have been faked, does not show that it was faked - so please provide evidence that these photo must have been faked, and could not possibly have been taken on the moon.

And so far, no one has shown any proof that the sun would have caused those subtle changes to the mountain backdrop from one photo to the next on the moon ...

I don't need to Duane - it's called "burden of proof", and it's something you are desparate to slide off your shoulders. The photos were taken on the moon - hence you would expect to see changes in shadows. Anyone making the outlandish claim that this isn't true needs to PROVE that the photos are fakes.

Steve Ulman played some silly game by asking Jack and me about the terminator line on the moon

And you've been playing silly games by accusing me of dishonesty.

but so far he hasn't provided any proof that the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon .... and neither have you, or anyone else for that matter.

I don't have to. But as an intellectual exercise I do choose to provide evidence for them being genuine, such as the minute shadow changes. You have not been able to show that the images must be fakes. Come to think of it, neither you nor anyone else on any forum I've read has ever managed that.

[Duane Daman]

Your ridiculous posts almost make my eyes bleed .

The photos I posted clearly show that there are NO TIRE TRACKS behind the buggy ... You posted DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics ..

You also ALTERED the first photo I posted here by "stretching" it and bending the shadow to match the position of the astronot in that phony photo.

Then you throw out the out the old "burden of proof" tactic about a different photo in hopes that it will distract even further from the issue here ... Which would be the clear evidence that the photos I posted could not possibly have been taken on the moon because if they had been , there would have been TIRE TRACKS BEHIND AND UNDERNEATH THE BUGGYS !

Showing a minute shadow change between two photos of a fake looking mountain backdrop does not equate to being proof that the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon .

Why can't you just one time admit when you are wrong , instead of playing your typical games here ? .... By continuing this type of ridiculous 'rebuttal' , you not only look completely dishonest but also ruin your own credibility .

Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Your ridiculous posts almost make my eyes bleed .

The photos I posted clearly show that there are NO TIRE TRACKS behind the buggy ... You posted DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics ..

Completely ridiculous. You posted 11901, I posted 11902, and stated why. It shows MORE detail than 11901. I played along with you and then reposted a similar study on YOUR photo - did you miss it? Here it is again.

You also ALTERED the first photo I posted here by "stretching" it and bending the shadow to match the position of the astronot in that phony photo.

More lies - you've been told for the FOURTH time how I produced that crop. You don't even need Photoshop - got Windows? PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF with MS Paint.

Or are you running scared? Is that why you won't try these things for yourself - afraid you'll prove yourself wrong?

Then you throw out the out the old "burden of proof" tactic about a different photo in hopes that it will distract even further from the issue here ... Which would be the clear evidence that the photos I posted could not possibly have been taken on the moon because if they had been , there would have been TIRE TRACKS BEHIND AND UNDERNEATH THE BUGGYS !

Already addressed by myself and another forum member.

Showing a minute shadow change between two photos of a fake looking mountain backdrop does not equate to being proof that the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon .

No - but it equates to evidence that Apollo was real. And theres an awful lot of those real-looking photos! Even if you won't accept them as direct evidence, they are at the very least circumstantial evidence - and if you're willing to use circumstantial evidence to defend your position, then you can't deny it to anyone else either.

Why can't you just one time admit when you are wrong , instead of playing your typical games here ? .... By continuing this type of ridiculous 'rebuttal' , you not only look completely dishonest but also ruin your own credibility .

I no longer care what I look like in your eyes, you're beyond hope. Any casual observer of these threads can make up their own minds re your continued "dishonesty" claims. You're trying to discredit someone who provides evidence contrary to your beliefs - you don't understand the evidence, or at least refuse to address it - so you pour the poison.

Oh, and I do admit when I'm wrong - like I said previously - and gave an example - on more than one thread - so who keeps playing games?

[Kevin M. West]

Nice try Kevin ... but I'm afraid this kind of silliness just won't fly this time with the three photos I posted on this thread ..

Look at them again .... There are some bootprints in the photos but not that many and none completely covering the areas where the tire tracks should have been .

Why can't you understand that that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ? .... Maybe because you believe it's your civic duty to lie for nasa also ?

Has it occured to you that walking around will also destroy older bootprints, and only the most recent will be visible? Especially when walking around on a loose granular surface. Watch the videos, every step kicks up dust.

[Duane Daman]

Sorry Kevin but if bootprints had covered up the tire tracks , the prints would still be there .... The fact that there are no tracks between the front and back tires is the real givaway ... and something which not even Dave can ALTER by stretching the image .

Dave .... Even though you posted a DIFFERENT photo of the buggy , I still see no evidence of any tracks in the photo ... and even there were tracks , it is NOT the SAME photo , which clearly shows in high resolution that no tracks are in the photo and never were in the photo ... It's a staged , moon set photo and no amount of games or distration tactics is going to change that fact .

[Dave Greer]

Sorry Kevin but if bootprints had covered up the tire tracks , the prints would still be there .... The fact that there are no tracks between the front and back tires is the real givaway ... and something which not even Dave can ALTER by stretching the image .

Strawman

Dave .... Even though you posted a DIFFERENT photo of the buggy , I still see no evidence of any tracks in the photo ... and even there were tracks , it is NOT the SAME photo , which clearly shows in high resolution that no tracks are in the photo and never were in the photo ... It's a staged , moon set photo and no amount of games or distration tactics is going to change that fact .

Keep up Duane - I've used the photo YOU used, and told you how to prove for yourself the tracks are there. You simply don't read people's posts properly.

You don't see evidence of tracks? Something that looks like a track, EXACTLY where you would expect a track to be, is not evidence of a track?

Pray tell, what WOULD you accept as evidence of a track?

[Duane Daman]

What would I accept as evidence of a track ??? .... How about a track !

Look at this high resoultion photo again ... There ARE NO TRACKS BEHIND THE REAR TIRES OR BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR TIRES ... and you wishing they were there or posting different photos , is not going to change the fact that they're not .

Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

What would I accept as evidence of a track ??? .... How about a track !

Look at this high resoultion photo again ... There ARE NO TRACKS BEHIND THE REAR TIRES OR BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR TIRES ... and you wishing they were there or posting different photos , is not going to change the fact that they're not .

And the lack of visable tracks means what?

If could mean that for some really stupid reason some stagehands on an imaginary photoset placed a LRV into a set by lowering it in place...a LRV that is ON WHEELS, which would be the height of stupidity...

OR

It could mean that the astronauts kicked lunar surface dust all over the tracxk and their boot prints while the worked in front of, behind, and in back of the LRV while performiong thier jobs on the surface of the moon.

Given that all the evidence points to the Apollo photography being done on the surface of the moon and NONE of the evidence points to the photography being done on a photoset, chances are the former is the truth.

[Duane Daman]

Then take another close look at this phony moon set photo .... It doesn't have any tire tracks in it either ...

What the hell was nasa thinking posting these faked photos in high resolution on their Apollo Image Gallery for the whole world to see how fake they really are ?

And what the hell are you thinking by attepting to defend these obviously faked photos ?

You really do need a reality check Dave because your pro Apollo argument just keeps falling apart at the seams .... Especially with hoax evidence as obvious as this is .

Can't even one of you lying nasa defenders even admit it when you are wrong about something ? ... Apparently not .

Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman