Craig Lamson

First Duane says: "All I know is what Gene Krantz admitted to in the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option . .... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ... and that's why he and everyone at mission control were so relieved when Armstrong somehow miraculously landed the LM on the lunar surface after crashing it repeatedly in the sims shortly before the Apollo 11 launch." Then he says this: (to cover getting his butt kicked once again) "Stephen ... Thanks for getting back on topic ... No one said anyting about the pre-launch , launch or re-entry being simulated ... Obviously the launch and re-renrty were real events ... It's what took place in between those two events that is being called into question . Krantz was speaking of the LANDING only ... So if I confused the issue and said launch , you have my apologies .... " And then there is the entire statement you simply made up about Krantz being suprised at the landing....sheesh... Of coure there is more...you want me to bust your chops again? Nope...sorry Duane it was YOU who was wrong and you got BUSTED>>>AGAIN!

As usual that's quite a fine bit of spin you posted there Mike ... Now I see where you got your user name of MID from ... your initials ..... But like I always said , when it come to being a spin master of nasa disinformation , you are one of the best ! ... Too bad you can't join this forum , as that's just what is needed here ... one more nasa defender who is a pro at spreading nasa BS ... You even managed to bring up info from past posts of mine on the UM which have nothing to do with what I posted here now ... I didn't claim that the LM was crashed just a few days before launch ... that's just more disinformation on your part .... and you thought that I never learned anything from you ! LOL But in spite of all the spin you posted here ( thanks to your partner in crime , Greer /postbaguk/ Mr. Chewbacca ) .. the bottom line still remains the same ..... Flight director Gene Krantz could not tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one .... Funny how nasa's sims were SO REALISTIC IN EVERY SINGLE RESPECT ! .... The better to fool us with , I'm thinking . I see now why Mr. Lamson was in no great hurry to race back here with Krantz's verbatum quote ... It's even more damaging than I remembered it to be .... and I guess Lamson was in no hurry to post it here because he didn't have a spin story all ready to go with this very revealing quote either , as you always seem to do .... Yes sir , when it comes to twisting , spinning , and outright inventing pro-Apollo 'evidence' , you are still the best in the business , no matter what user name you choose to use ... MID , Apollo 5140 and now Mike . So the bottom line to all of this and the simple answer to Stephen Turner's original question of why I believe that mission control was left out of the loop and not in on the hoax, still remains the same ... The quote by Gene Krantz ... and now thanks to you , we can all read exactly what the Apollo flight director claimed in the documentary 'Failure is NOT an Option" ( I guess NOT !) “The SIMULATIONS were SO REAL that NO CONTROLLER could discern the DIFFERENCE between the TRAINING and the REAL MISSION .” How about that ? .... The launch was real , the spashdown was real , but the lunar landings ? .... Who knows ? ... Like I said before, if the flight director of mission control couldn't even tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ( or like he claimed ... "NO CONTROLER COULD DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE " ) , then how could the unsuspecting public be able to tell if the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon or not ? .... Obvious answer .... We couldn't ! I have no doubt that you will now send your friend Dave another e-mail to post here , telling us all about how ignorant and uninformed I am when it comes to the Apollo Program , but please spare me and the rest of us here the dramatics because I've read it all before in every condescending sermon of a post you ever wrote to me on the UM .... and you personally insulting me and my beliefs still does not help you to prove your case that Apollo really landed men on the moon . No Duane it was not the nature of the Krantz quote that delayed my posting ( and thanks to Dave for providing the imformation) nor my desire to "spin" The quote simply is what it is. No I've been away on a location shoot for some days and even though I've checked this forum quickly from time to time while I was on the road, I was too busy processing files and posting web galleries to deal with the Krantz quote. I do see however that when faced with someone actually finding the qoute and posting it, you changed your story in a nice little 'pre spin" move....

Ah yes another useless Z film thread. Healy posts a strawman and has yet to deal with it in an over a 100 post thread. White posts more disinformation this time concerning the qualities of Kodachrome and Extachrome film. Then really spins one as he tells us he has made dupes without generational loss and Hollywood does the same. Black chimes in with more nonsense about the secret film editing prowess of the government and how he believes it must have been possible in 63 to fake the Z film (never mind that Hollywood still cant do what he suggests today) and in the process shows us all the depth of his paranoia Miller posts some nonsense about how its the lightsource making dupilcation impossible and Mack joins in with some silly statement about how clothes look in different light...stupid. Of course all along Healy continues to act the jerk and fails over and over again to deal with the Mary Poppins defects, and his original strawman argument that started this thread. Len joins in and is, as we can always expect, attacked by Healy who once again fails to deal with the objections to his arguments. What a crock. Why should we give any "weight" to you David, you have NO film compositing experience and yet you spew ignorantly on the subject every time it gets mentioned. Hell your posted examples of computer aided digital composites are "third grade" level. We should listen to you why? Because you have read a book?

Duane, just wondering WHICH of your TWO statements about the quality of the Krantz doco is correct....this one: or this one: Excellent or utterly boring...?

I'll quote the doco correctly. And why not? Since the dvd is available to anyone who wants it, misquoting would be rather silly. I don't have a "complete dislike" for you and everything you stand for. How could I, I don't know anything about you other than what is available on the web. I do however dislike your ignorance on the subject of the Apollo photographs and your inability to deal with fact and hard evidence...not to mention your arrogance when spewing your ignorace. So you think you have your hacker eh? Great. And since you now claim it leads back to this forum why not post your evidence for all to see. In any case you "research" going missing is no great loss, it was just more of the same crap that is posted all over the web by others just as ignorant of the subject matter as you. Cant wait to see who you try and finger for hacking your website.

Has anyone got a copy of this doco, and can check the accuracy of Duane's quote from Gene Kranz? Based on Duanes past record of quote accuracy, I just want to be absolutely sure of what Gene Kranz said. I've got it Evan and I'll check tonight.

Duane strikes again. You, like oh so many of your CT friends are very selective readers. Pick and choose until the words fit your faulty worldviews. First, if you care to look my words about the sprocket holes being on the sides of the Apollo Hasselblad images pertain to the CAMERA ORIGINAL FILM...not any dupes that have been made later. As a side note I did make a mistake in my statement that it was impossible for camera original film sprocket holes to be on the top of an image. The correct term should have been improbable. If one were to turn a lunar Hasselblad on its side and take a picture the sprocket holes would be on the top and bottom of the picture. That said turning a Hasselblad on its side to take a picture has litlle use. As a Hasselblad user for over two decades, I can say with confidence that I have NEVER found a need to turn the camera on its side to take a picture. WHY? BECAUSE THE CAMERA PRODUCES A SQUARE NEGATIVE! Anyway back to the sprocket holes on the top of the dupe frame in question. You ridiculed the suggesting that the sprocket hole could have changed location relative to the image during duplication. That was born from your ignorance of the duplication process. Many, many dupe generations were made of the Apollo images AFTER the Dupe Masters were created by the contact process. If you made dupes via projection for example, on a printer that used 70mm film, the sprocket holes could easily be changed from being on the sides of the image to the tops and bottom of the image. How? Simply by the design of the printer and the orientation of the film magazines to the subject frame bring copied. After all the sprocket hole have nothing to do with the images, they are ONLY a method of moving film past the gamera gate. Nothing sinister, unless you have a ct worldview..... You are in over your head Duane. Back to the drawing board.

Ah yes, as I thought..David is stuck again without a clue.... Attempting to change the subject when at a loss for an argument is such a lame tactic David, but its one you use constantly. Get back to us when you can answer my original quetion.

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment. And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum. Bill Miller If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in context. Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used. Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions. Jack "old opinions" eh? ROFLOMAO!! How old? LOL! May 6 2006, 04:03 PM Post #3 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 2344 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made! It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME! Nobody but a dunce would think that! There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect. Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other techniques of which Miller has no understanding. But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short, would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist. Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above. Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that nicely. Jack WANNA TRY AGAIN? LOL! What a major strawman David! The question is not IF it was possible to create special effects on film, but RATHER could those special effects hold up to the level of detailed study applied to the Zapruder film. When you can deal with that question get back to us.

I do. I added the fiducials that aren't visible against the sky based on the locations of the rest of the visible fiducials. The red line is the approximate location of the edge of the exposure. I haven't done the same for the one with the sprocket holes but I'd be willing to bet that those are outside the exposure also. Well outside the exposure mask ...try this highres image with no sprocket holes for comparison. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11214HR.jpg

Duane, as long as you continue to spew uninformed opinion that FLYS DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF EMPERICALLY PROVEN FACT you will continue to be treated like a crackpot. Your postings continue to be nothing more than than smoke. So go ahead and continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that the facts are not real...the only one who is being hurt by this childish tactic is you...as you continue to wallow in ignorance. Oh and btw, if you make a claim of fakery, ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE THE POINT...and your "I believe I'm right" is not proof.

Thank you for proving my point Duane. You simply have no clue about how light and shadow work and you CONTINUE to try and blow smoke up our butts with your uninformed opinion. Hate to break it to you but IF the light had struck the visor (and that is what have given the specular highlights you claimed were foot lights) they would have left shadows in all the areas that were in shadow from the main light source. And if they would have been footlights as you suggest, even if they WERE pointed directly way, for the speculars to appear on the visor, light rays would need to strike the visor...leaving shadows and highlights. No, you just failed ...again. If you want to talk about studio photography, photography in general and lighting, you are either going tha have to buy a clue or do some in depth study...you are out of your league. As for your open mindedness, you have none. It is you who is blindly following the ct mindset and accepting things you don't understand, simply because it fits your worldview and because you believe someone like Jack White, who is a worthless in regards to understanding the science of photography. I suggest you open your mind and perhaps you might actually learn something about the subject instead of just spewing smoke.....

I'm not surprised you don't accept my suggestion as to the origins of the markings on this picture. same old same old. First off why do you find that these marking don't resemble writing? Second have you ever seen film that has been marked with a technical pen? Have you ever personally marked the septum of a piece of 70mm film with a technical pen (or any film what so ever)? If you answer no to these question you are in a pretty poor position to make value judgments about these markings. So lets work through the ideas being tossed around and see what idea best fits the evidence (markings on the top of the film) Dave suggested that the markings might be sprocket holes in the film and posted an Apollo frame that has what looks like sprocket holes at the top of the frame. Not a bad idea, as the 70mm film used in the Hasselblad was double perforated...meaning it had sprocket holes on both sides of the length of the film. So does Dave’s idea fit the photographic evidence in question? In a word, no. First off the 70mm film magazines used in the Apollo missions placed the sprocket holes on both sides of the image, not the top or the bottom. Based on that fact alone we know that the camera original of the frame in question did not have sprocket holes on the top. (see attached photo showing the perfs and their location in a Hasselblad back) Second the markings bear no resemblance to sprocket holes. Interestingly the markings on the second image that Dave found DO appear to be sprocket holes. While they would be impossible on an in camera original frame it is possible that they were introduced during the duping process. However these possible sprockets holes bear no resemblance to the markings on the frame in question. I suggest that the marking might be writing. Does my idea fit the evidence? In a word, Yes. In the attached crop of the image ( upsampled in PhotoShop from a really crappy net jpg taken from ALSJ) the loops for the suggested writing is visible. We see five markings. The first is a large dot followed by a small dot The second is clearly a circular marking with a "dot at the bottom. Third is a "dot and what appears to be a line extending upward from that dot. Forth, and this is a good one, is a circle with an overlapping "starting or finishing" point. Finally we have dot with a lighter, circular /horizontal line. All in all these marking look very much like hand writing. So would writing make sense in this location on a strip of film? In a word, yes. This is a common practice and method for adding reference markings to a strip of film. The unexposed septum on a roll of film (and on 70mm its the ONLY place that makes sense due to the perfs.) is near clear on negative films and the technical pens generally use black ink. This combination produces white-ish writing on a black-ish background...which is consistent with the markings on the frame in question. Does the writing look like what we would expect from a technical pen on a film surface? The answer is yes. Technical pens by their nature produce markings that are often uneven in density and fullness. The pens are designed to operate like a fountain pen but unlike a fountain pens that has a split nib, a technical pen uses a hollow steel tube with a blunt, square tip. In other words it is simply a tube cut at a right angle and the ink flows down the tube to the writing surface. When writing with one of these pens, its quite easy to create a heavy "spot" of ink if you move too slow, and for your line to get thin and weak if you get the blunt tip too near vertical when writing. The markings on the image in question show signs of both "heavy spots" and thin, weak lines...consistent with the properties of a technical pen being used on film. Finally Duane suggest that the markings could be spotlights. Does the evidence fit that conclusion? In a word, NO! First lights don't create an image on film that is a thin circular line with an overlapping stop or start mark. Second lights do not create an image that looks like a thin looping line. Finally and most importantly a light shining towards the lens will not create a sharp edged image...it will "glow" around the edges due to light scatter and in the film base. There is no evidence that the markings are lights. The best fit for the available evidence is writing. Should new evidence become available, that conclusion is subject to change.

Good grief...we have gone over WHY your foot lights "idea" was a failure. You were even shown an emperical example on the UM forum and through it all you simply denied that any of it was real. The answer to your problem is that light travels in a straight line....and that a light always casts a shadow. You need to do a bit of study Duane because you are in way over your head. And of course this little physics tidbit will not make you believe the Apollo photographic record is real....that is going to take an open mind.

Now onto the next photo which I don't believe has been discussed yet .... From looking at the photo study that Jack has posted here , it does look as though there are a bank of stage lights at the very top center of this photo which are creating the appearance of "lens flare" ... I'm not sure where nasa was going with this one ... If indeed these turn out to be a bank of stage lights , what would have been their purpose in this particular photo ? .... The only light source on the moon would have been the sun , yet this light looks nothing like sunlight .... Perhaps after making a mistake with this one and letting it slip by quality control , nasa had to come up with the explanation of lens flare ? Without seeing the high resolution photo it is difficult to tell exactly what we are seeing here , but it does does appear to be a bank of stage lights causing this "lens flare" effect in this photo . I have just searched for this number AS15-89-12015 , on the Apollo Image Gallery but had no luck in finding it so far .... Maybe Dave can locate this one , as he is very good at finding elusive Apollo photos and I am not , as he knows from past experience . ( Alien bootprint !! ) If Dave or anyone else can either find the high res photo of this or let me know where I can find it , I would appreciate it very much . If you're still up for discussing this one Duane First off, I haven't been able to find a very high resolution online version of this picture, and I'm not sufficiently motivated to pay for a print! But we can work with what we've got. This is the first exposure on the film - and as can be seen on many first and last exposures (as well as some others), these frames sometimes suffer from light leaking into the cartridge and partially spoiling the film (I believe the term used is sunstrike). This sun-strike can manifest itself in various ways - here are some other examples. AS15-86-11530 AS12-49-7324 I hope that's a satisfactory explanation for the "glare" in the frame. As for the alleged "stage-lights" - well, we can be fairly sure they aren't stage-lights, since they aren't on the portion of the film that is exposed when a picture is taken. This can be verified by measuring the distance from the visble grid-lines on the reseau plate to the bottom edge of the frame, then working out where the top edge actually is (it's impossible to judge by eye, since the blackness of space isn't distinguishable from the unexposed portion of the film. Using the measure tool in photoshop is is fairly easy to do this, although I agree it would be more clear if we had higher resolution scans available. So, if the artefacts we see are not in the portion of film that is exposed, they can't be stage-lights... so what are they? I believe an explanation can be found in this photo... AS15-82-11214 It seems as if it may just be the sprocket holes on the edge of the film, used for winding it along. I realise the marks look different so am not 100% happy with this explanation, but they are definitely not part of the actual exposure, so whatever they are, there must be some benign explanation. Anyone have an explanation that better fits the available data? Dave, if you look at the alleged "stage lights" they are not actually spots but rather lines and loops. In other words they look like writing, or at least the very bottom of writing that has been cut off in the scanning process. Why writing you might ask. I suggest it is the method of adding identification markings to the roll of film. This is a very common practice and is usually done in the septum (blank area between frames) with a very fine pen. The standard instrument for this job would be a technical pen such as a Rapidograph pen. On a black and white negative such as the one in question , the black ink from the pen on the clear septum of the negative would produce a black background with white lettering when printed. I think what we might be seeing is the mission and roll number AS 15 89

Duane, Thanks for conceding this point. However I think there is a bigger question that remains unanswered. Sure we know the scratches are scratcfhes, but do you understand why your theory of the "footlights" not lighitng the visor because the were pointed up and away was invalid? There is a basic physics point here and I want to make sure you understand it before we move on. It just might save us all a lot ot needless typing in the future. Who knows, given some time , you just might find that the photographic record of Apollo is actually real.

Well Duane I have done the "homework". I know all about the "evidence" you have concering Mr. Tuttle. That you find it of value speaks volumes as does your very interesting statement about science. Thanks you so much for both.

OUCH..thats gonna leave a mark!

Just how much bandwidth do we need to waste here, reposting images that are availabe to anybody who wants to see them with a simple click of the mouse? The full image of the A17 shot was posted on this thread, You were given the link to the A12 shot and you said you looked at it ( and said you found the scratches and highlights were dis-similar). So there is no deception, I simply posted crops of both scratches so you could not miss them. No manipulation at all, unless you call cropping manipulation and we know that is not the case because we have your words on this very forum defending Jack's cropping of images. Now of course you have both images available and you with little effort could prove I have manipulated these images if that were the case, but the simple fact is you can"t because the images have not been manipulated...only cropped from the original. So just who's arms are waving wildly and who is being dishonest here? Why that would be you Duane.

I suggest you do a bit of background work on this great evidence on Tuttle Duane is promoting...its almost too funny for words! Simply amazing people will believe stuff like this and yet NASA's documentation is worthless. And lets not forget how easy it is ti dismiss science....

Your arms are waving wildly but its still not going to fly Duane. IF THE LIGHT CAN STRIKE THE VISOR>>>IT MUST LEAVE A SHADOW! I'm afraid you have been DEBUNKED! Smple scratches on the Cernan visor being struck at the correct angle to produce a specular highlight...and it looks EXACTLY like the SINGLE scratch in the Apollo 12 image....try again next time. Three images enclosed, the Cernan visor scratches on the left, the Apollo 12 SINGLE visor scratch on the right and finally a rv mirror with beveled recessed lines photographed by me as proof of concept.

Thank you Duane...I don't think I have laughed this hard for ages! Crater..small hole in the lunar surface...crater..small hole inthe lunar surface..ROFLMAO! And thanks for that wonderful dedscription on how an astronauts boot will react with a lunar crater. Your overwhelming experience in lunar soil mechanics leaves me speachless. Priceless!

Jack I really don't know where you're going with this one, I can't make head nor tail of the text you've put in the image. Here is the highest resolution version of this image I can find - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20482.JPG You can see that this is not a scan from a print, it's from the film roll itself. What you are trying to say with the "red-box crop"? Not knowing the provenance of the image you are claiming has been changed , it's difficult to comment, except to say that it's an ongoing project for NASA providing better quality scans of images. What the small dots you claim to be "nail heads" (!) could well be something as mundane as specks of dirt on a print the image was canned from. Like I say, impossible to be sure without seeing the image itself. What we do know is, it ain't on the scan of the film roll... so it's highly likely it was introduced accidentally when the image was reproduced. I showed the image I downloaded years ago. IT HAS MORE INFORMATION ON THE TOP EDGE than the one now posted. I did not invent the extra area at the top; the new image crops it out. Do you deny that? Jack WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR IMAGES? Its been two years and this image is posted MANY places on the web. Not all the images are the same (duh). You need to pony up all the information....

Jack, if you're accusing Craig of what I think you are, you really are making yourself look silly. Anyway, I'm sure Craig is more than capable of defending himself against such ridiculous insinuations. Dave, its just Jack being silly again, just like the time he stated that I and a few others were accessories after the fact to the murder of JFK, just becuase we, based on the evidence, believe the Zapruder film has not been altered. Jack does this stuff quite often when he finds himself behind the 8 ball and unable to respond. However it should be noted that I graduated from high school in 1971... ...and that I have never taken a photograph for any govermantal agency nor any photos that have been used by a governmental agency nor have I ever been employed by any governmental agency.... White's suggestion that the Apollo photos were taken by professionals is in part true. The Apollo astronauts WERE professionals and were trained in the craft of photography. That said the images they produced were not what any true professional photographer would care to own up to shooting. A great many were out of focus, poorly framed, over and under exposed or suffering from camera movement. The batting average for good photos, for all the missions combined is pretty low. NASA made it pretty easy for the astronauts. Focusing was done via zone focusing and those zones were easy to find since the focus lever had detents to mark position. Exposure data was taped to the camera, and all the astronaut had to do was know which way they were pointing and then set the exposure per the provided data. And still they made some really stinky images.

I think what is being refered to here is the leather covering of the Hasselblad. Apparently, 'Dark Moon' makes this claim and Dave has flummoxed it up. It might be true that leather would 'outgas' (though leather has been used in 100% O2 aviation environments without incident), but this would not apply to Apollo - the cameras did not have any outer covering on the camera body: Hey Evan, why not just let everyone read Jay Widleys debunking of this drivel and then they can read the forum exchanges with Cosmic Dave. I can't imagine Jack White will have anything else to add to this thread. http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php?t-1354.html