Duane Daman

Duane You've really let yourself down here. One minute you're emailing me music and spoof videos, coming across all chummy-chummy, the next minute you're libelling me on a public forum. There's no need. We should all be capable of discussing the evidence in a civil manner, and agreeing to disagree where necessary. By all means, attack with gusto any evidence that is presented (you don't seem to be doing that), but is there really any need to resort to these tactics? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (we all have bad hair days), but if this is how you truly feel about me, then don't bother pretending to be friendly in future. Dave, My calling you one of the EF tag team was not meant as an insult, but rather as a fact.. What you do here, or on any other forum for that matter, doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree in a polite manner.. It's also no reason why I can't share music videos with you on YouTube, since we are both fans of Neil Young, or share humorous videos with you either, since I also know you have a sense of humor. I sent you those videos not to be "all chummy-chummy" but to just be friendly .. I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt over my calling you one of the disingenuous tag team members here, but hey, if the shoe fits... Cheers

I still don't understand why that explanation is wrong. I've presented evidence supporting the claim, surely if I'm wrong you can show me why the evidence I've supplied is flawed, and why Jack's theory of a poorly lit back-drop fits the evidence better, rather than mundane dust on lens? Hopefully this will demonstrate what I mean. (In the lower set of images, the grey area indicates the location of where the lighter area would be, obviously it wouldn't be solid grey). If you disagree, what exactly do you disagree with? That dust can't get on the lens? That it wouldn't affect the image in the way seen (if so, why?) Or something else? I'm just seeking clarification as to why you think dust on the lens doesn't explain the smudge artefact, but a poorly lit backdrop does. Cheers When Jack adjusted the contrast on this photo, stars should have been visible in the "lunar" sky, instead of a round spot of light, similar to that of a spotlight on a set. If "dust on the lens" were really causing this photographic anomaly, then that same "dust" would be evident on more than just this one ( or possibly a few other) photo .. Since dust (whether lunar or simulated by NASA ) seemed to be covering everything, then all of the Apollo photos would show the "dust on the lens" problem, instead of just this one, or posibly a few others, where this particular anomaly has occured. That's why your typical Apollogists excuses of "dust on the lens", or "compression artifacts", or "pixel size", or "cropped images" or "smudges on the visors" are nothing but lame attempts to explain away the MULTITUDE of ANOMALIES found in the official Apollo photographic record. Cheers

Like I said before .. NOTHING will ever change on this forum.. Not even your TYPICAL flame baiting one liners. I didn't "attack the posters".. I merely pointed out what type of silly "one up" games are played here, in an attempt to suppress the truth. So thanks for proving my point.

Your accusation of one of the "conspiracy theorists" photoshopping that cheesy looking Apollo photo is just one of the disingenuous mind games I was reffering to on another thread here. What proof do you have that anyone else photoshopped that phony Apollo photo, besides NASA?

Duane If you think I'm wrong about the "dust on the lens" issue, please explain why I've been disingenuous. I've shown evidence that supports my claim (several photos from the same pan showing the "artefact" in the same place relative to the frame, which is consistent with it being dust on the lens, but inconsistent with it being a light shining on a backdrop. I'll ask you nicely to please address the actual evidence I've presented, and show why that is wrong. Thanks Dave, Your "dust on the lens" excuse has been used for almost every single anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.. I thought you would have been able to come up with a better mundane excuse than that, considering all the time you spend pretending to disprove all of the Apollo Hoax evidence on every forum where this subject is discussed.

Oh I agree! Anyone who believes everything all politicians says is indeed very naive. Why you would say that when I clearly said or inferred no such thing (about myself) is beyond me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't just trying a cheap slur, but mis-read or mis-understood what I wrote. It's on the record that Obama proposed that NASA and the Dept of Defence space programme should effectively merge: that infers that at present they are separate entities in terms of management structure and budget allocation(that doesn't preclude them working together). Either you know more than him, or he is lying for some reason, and only pretending he wants them to merge for reasons that are unclear. I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.. Nor was I making a cheap slur.. You quoted President Obama about the merging of NASA with the DoD, so naturally I assumed you agreed with him. As for him lying, I doubt it .. More like he's been misinformed by the powers that be in NASA / DoD, which, as I stated before, are joined at the hip, and always have been. Maybe I need to send you the documents, proving that most of NASA's "civilian" space missions were performed to place DoD spy sattelites into low earth orbit.

I just read some of the replies to the latest evidence I posted and unfortunately it's the same old excuses the Apollogists have made hundreds of times before .. "Dust on the lens" to Jack's photo fakery evidence, and a myriad of typical, mudane excuses used to pretend to disprove the image tampering and compositing evidence I posted, along with the evidence proving that the A17 "earth" was pasted into the "lunar" sky. It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography. Unfortunately the Apollo debates here are nothing but an obsessive "one up" game that the Apollogists are determined to "win", no matter what they have to do to "win" it. What a shame we live in a country where the truth of almost everything, from the JFK assassination, to the 911 attacks, to the Apollo fraud, is suppressed by people who feel its more important to "win" a silly game than to admit the truth. Okay, enough of my disappointment in realizing that nothing will ever change on this forum, and onto more evidence of the Apollo Hoax. "Evidence of Hoax: Grissom and the Lemon In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, a NASA Astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission. Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom hung a lemon attached to a coat-hanger in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to any cameras present, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme. Three Astronauts died in 1967 On 27 January 1967, Grissom, Chaffee and White died by a horrific pressurized oxygen fire, while locked in the capsule at the top of a Saturn V rocket, thus proving Grimson’s point that the technology was not on the required level. A 500 Page Report and a Death Thomas Baron was a safety inspector during Apollo 1 construction. After the fire Baron testified before congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon. His claim and his opinions made him the target. As part of his testimony Baron submitted the 500 page report detailing his findings Then exactly one week after he testified Baron's car was hit by a train. Baron, his wife and his step daughter were killed instantly. The First Astronauts Didn't See the Stars During their first interview, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, did not know if they saw the stars from the Moon (while Buzz Aldrin looks down nervously). Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, the sky is black, and the stars are very bright. Later Astronauts (obviously better informed) sad they saw the stars and they were bright. Lift offs With Infinite Acceleration Apollo 15,16,17 lift offs start with sudden velocity, this violates Newton’s law of acceleration. Lift off Without Dust and Flame Apollo 15,16,17 Lift off: Lack of blowing dust and lack of flame. NASA believers claim that there should not have been a flame, dust etc… For the Apollo lunar ascent and descent module single main engine and sixteen attitude control thrusters, the fuel and oxidizer were, respectively, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. The space shuttle orbiter also uses hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Manoeuvring Subsystem and Reaction Control System, and the flame was visible on many NASA videos. Lack of Craters under the LEMs All 6 landings: Lack of a crater under the Landing Modules. Again, the exhaust does not dissipate as fast as not to create at least a small crater. The Photos are Fake Almost all NASA Photos are fake, all you have to do is to examine them with a good photo enhancement program. Although, some photos are genuine from orbiting position and on the Moon surface, these were taken most likely by the Surveyor spacecrafts that landed on the Moon. No Legitimate Photos with the Earth in the Sky from the Moon's surface The most brilliant object seen from the Moon is the blue Earth. Anybody would have taken many pictures of it, but not the NASA Astronauts. I counted only EIGHT pictures with the Earth in the sky that were taken from the Moon's surface. As shown on the picture to the right (AS14-64-9190HR), the Earth was clearly inserted into the pictures (when the Astronauts or the Landing Module are also on the photo). Lack of Earth shine effects According to NASA the Earth shine is 50 times brighter than a full Moon. Therefore, in the shady and very dark places on the Moon the Earth will lighten up objects when the Earth and object are in the right position. Indeed we have many NASA images with completely black shade, but not a single one showing the effect of the Earth shine. Problems with Hasselblad 500 EL -The 160 Kodak film used is not sensitive enough to take pictures with large illumination difference between shadow and bright spots on the Moon -With the high ultraviolet radiation on Moon they could not take the color photos with as perfect colors as shown on many NASA photos -Camera fixed on the chest -No camera seeker -Astronauts without long experience in making photos -With radiation which has a negative influence on the films Circumstantial Evidence The Disney Connection In the 1950s W. von Braun worked as technical director at Disney Studio on three space-related television films. Therefore, von Braun had the best experience to be in charge of faking the photos and videos. He also had the personality, as a former Nazi, to stage the fake Moon Landing. Richard Nixon's Character During the Apollo Moon Landings Richard Nixon was the President. We know his character from the Water-Gate scandal. Radio Signals Not Picked Up NASA believers claim that the signals should have been picked up from the Apollo mission in many countries. But, nobody has ever testified picking up signals from Apollo Spacecrafts, not even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian Scenario Some Russian scientists claim that NASA has made it to the Moon, was orbiting it for a while, and returned without landing. This scenario would explain the radio signals from the Moon (if there were any picked up). Moon Rocks Moon Rocks do not prove manned mission, they can be brought back in unmanned mission. Moon Rock Verification The minimum requirement is to compare NASA Moon rock with Moon rock originating from the Antarctic. There should be difference due to the Antarctic rock being recrystallized going through Earth’s atmosphere. We do not have such laboratory results, therefore the NASA Moon rocks do not even prove a possible unmanned mission. According to a Voice of America article: "The vesicles are not cleanly [smoothly] spherical. They're spherical, but they have fairly rough outlines. They look as if there's been some recrystallization." If recrystallization was proven, it would render the NASA Moon rocks fake, because the recrystallization could have occured only by going through Earth's atmosphere. Also, this would prove that the NASA rocks are from the Antarctic. Buzz Aldrin Punches Bart Sibrel A New Mexico documentary movie director, Bart Sibrel, wanted Aldrin the swear on the Bible that Aldrin had been on the Moon. Instead, Aldrin punched him. European Space Agency’s Smart 1 Spacecraft On USA Today:"We shall search for them (i.e.:landing sites), with measurements not only in black and white, but also in three colors...." They found nothing. Japanese Aeronautical Agency’s Kaguya-Selene From 10 kms above surface the "visible" camera resolution was 1m. They found nothing. Lost Items: -NASA lost Armstrong’s audio tape with his famous first sentence on the “Moon”. -NASA lost Apollo 11’s video tapes. Neil Armstrong on the 25th Anniversary: -“The only bird that can talk is the parrot, but, he cant fly very well” -"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers." Epilogue: I believed until 2001, just like many of you do, that the Moon landings did happen. We all have been mesmerized for many years by NASA and political propaganda. It was in the year of 2001, that I walked into a friend’s office, who was an IT and animation specialist. The day previous Fox aired the hoax documentary (I did not see it.). He showed me the Apollo lift offs from the Moon, then he showed two other animations: one with sudden start (infinite acceleration) and the other with gradual start (with realistic acceleration). I immediately knew what the problem was: The Apollo lift offs videos were with instant velocity, therefore the NASA videos were/are fake." http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/ I will post more photos of image composting and tampering when time allows.

Like I said, a purely semantic argument at best , borderline disingenuous at worst. Well, at least you're right about one thing. "Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave. Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to. But then that does comes with age.

As naive as President Obama, since it was he that suggested they merge! Which seems to support the notion that they have at least some degree of seperation. Operation Paperclip took place in 1945. NASA was created in 1958. Von Braun worked for the US Army in the intervening period, before joining NASA. I suppose by extension you could say that NASA was created indirectly by the recruitment policies of Operation Paperclip. Clearly there is a degree "cross-pollination" between NASA and the military, but in terms of its present structure, you must be privy to better knowledge than your president, since he is the one who wants NASA and the Dept of Defence space programmes to merge to save money! If you believe anything any politician says, then you're more naive than anyone on the freaking planet! NASA and the DoD are connected at the hip and always have been .. Anyone who believes differently doesn't know the truth. Department of Defense Manned Space Flight Support Office "Chartered in 1958 by the Secretary of Defense, DDMS was originally formed with the express purpose of providing much needed DoD support to our initial manned space flight effort ... putting people into space and returning them safely to Earth. Since those early days, the support office has continued to be the focal point for all DoD contingency support to Project Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Apollo/Soyuz Test Project and Space Shuttle. This support included astronaut and space capsule recovery, worldwide communications, tracking and data relay, public affairs, and medical support." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense_Manned_Space_Flight_Support_Office#Operations

Manipulation of Images around Objects while the Sky is the Background AS11-40-5944 AS17-137-20891 Click on the link to see more examples of photo tampering and fakery. http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

And from that same site, here are some more examples of image tampering. Manipulation of the Horizon Edge AS15-92-12451 AS17-147-22514 "The most manipulated part of NASA images is the edge between the sky and the land or objects (LM, rover, radar). These two pictures (left) have step-like edge at the horizon, this is an obvious proof that the image has been tampered with, almost for sure digitally. The sky was a primary concern for NASA, they kept adding and wiping out the stars from the images."

Okay, getting back to the Apollo photos, here are some examples from the Apollo 17 photo shoot that have been proven to be fake. "On some internet sites (Nitecatty and others) the authenticity of Apollo photos is challenged when the Earth is visible on the photos. Two problems are pointed out: the angle view of Earth is to small (should be 1.93o) and the angle of the Earth above the horizon is varying on the photos (should be constant, ~54o from Apollo 17 landing site). My calculation fully supports both claims, however I discovered an even larger discrepancy. The camera lens used had a 38o*38o (up-down*left-right) field of view, the Earth was 54o above the horizon, therefore the camera COULD NOT take pictures of the Earth and the Moon's horizon simultaneously. Pro NASA people believe that NASA could not have faked the images because it would have involved thousands, and some even suggest that hundreds of thousands of people. But these images prove that they did not even have one good astronomer or physicist to help making the fake images. Therefore they made huge mistakes. Calculating the angle of Earth above Moon's horizon Apollo 17 Landing Site Coordinates: - 20.19080 degrees North Latitude - 30.77168 degrees East Longitude If u are standing in the center of Moon's Near (visible) Side, then ur coordinates are zero degrees Latitude and zero degrees Longitude, in that point the Earth will be 90 degrees above the horizon all the time. In any given position or even on any circle around the center point, the Earth's angle above the horizon will never change in time. We can calculate that angle for the above given coordinates as ~54 degrees for Apollo17's alleged landing site. (If taken the center as the Pole, the landing site is on 54o of Latitude.) NASA had three lenses for the Haselblad 500 EL, with lens focal length: 80mm, 250mm and 500mm. Most of the time they used the 80mm lens, coincidentally this has the widest field of view: 38o*38o. We can calculate the diagonal angle: alpha=2*arcsin{sin(37.9/2)*sqrt(2)/2}=51.5o On the left image ( above) I'm showing why NASA could not have taken the images on Apollo 17 landing site with even the widest view angle lens they had for the camera. The Hasselblad 500 EL camera had three lenses, the widest: with 200mm focal length, had 38 (precisely 37.9) degrees angle view (both up-down & left-right). If the astronaut kept the camera parallel with the horizon then the Earth and the Moon's horizon would NOT fit into one picture. If the Astronaut turned the camera sideways by 45o, the diagonal field of view being 51.5o the Astronaut still would not have been able to get the horizon and the Earth (54o) in the picture. However, NASA Astronauts had taken pictures with Moon's horizon and the Earth in it, therefore NASA faked all of the Apollo 17 images where the Earth is visible. (This argument doesn't apply to pictures taken from the Command Module which was well above the surface.) The following NASA images were used for the analysis: AS17-134-20384 ; AS17-134-20387 ; AS17-134-20463 ; AS17-134-20464 ; AS17-134-20465 ; AS17-134-20466 ; AS17-134-20471 ; AS17-134-20473 ; AS17-137-20910 ; AS17-137-20911 ; AS17-137-20957" http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

Duane Neither of us will convince the other on this point, and it's impossible to prove either way. You see a guilty man, I see someone full of humility. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Men full of humility don't make speeches with cryptic messages in them.. Nor do they squirm and gulp and scratch their necks when asked simple questions about their alleged achievements.. Nor do they run away like cowards and hide behind their handlers when asked to set the record straight, put an end to the debate and swear on the Bible that they walked on the Moon. Armstong's guilt is obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Good luck with ever seeing that post again Jack .. Especially since it exposed moderator Burton as not being quite honest about that ridiculous desert photo .. I knew the minute I read your post, exposing his dishonest game, along with the attached photo in question, that Burton would use it as an excuse to have your entire post removed/deleted/made invisible. Like I said earlier, some things never change.

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA and the US military have been involved to some degree in several projects. I don't know enough of the structure of either organisation to form a definite opinion as to whether NASA falls under the jurisdiction of the military, but I think it's unlikely, since Obama proposed that NASA and the Dept of Defense space programme should effectively merge. "President-elect Barack Obama will probably remove barriers between the U.S. civilian and military space programs once he takes office, according to one report. Bloomberg News reported late Thursday that Obama's transition team was exploring collaboration between NASA and the Pentagon in order to get America's next generation of spacecraft into orbit before the scheduled date of 2015." Source There have obviously been big spin-offs for the military from much of NASAs research (see link as example). http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/381584main_Military_Contributions.pdf As an outsider looking in, I hope NASA and the Dept of Defense stay separate, but as I don't pay any tax dollars I have absolutely no say in the matter! "As an outsider looking in, I hope NASA and the Dept of Defense stay separate, but as I don't pay any tax dollars I have absolutely no say in the matter!" I can't believe you're actually naive enough to believe that NASA and the Department of Defence have ever been seperate.. Especially considering the fact that NASA was established through Operation Paperclip, a CIA / military operation that hired Nazi rocket scientists to work for NASA. The Apollo Program's own Wernher von Braun was even an ardent Nazi .. So not only was that when pure evil entered America, as the "the spoils of war", but it was also when pure evil went to work for that "civilian" space agency known as NASA, ie; Never A Straight Answer. "Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II (193945). It was executed by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning SovietAmerican Cold War (194591), one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR[1] and the UK.[2]" "The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was a United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was the wartime intelligence agency, and it was the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This agency was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States military." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

"Duane The site you linked to had a link to the Apollo image on the ALSJ, but that's not the one that shows the effect in the sky that they've highlighted (when processed). That's what I'm after, the actual image they used (i.e. the link to the image on whatever site they got it from, not just the ref number), and also what processing was used to highlight the effect shown." Dave, If you're so curious as to what processing was used by those researchers, then I suggest you contact them to see where they obtained the photo and how they went about uncovering the image compositing that was used to fake that A17 photo

The "Neil Armstrong is so shy" excuse has been used ad nauseum. His "shyness" is because of his guilt, or possibly embarrassment, over his involvement with the Apollo scam. His behavior might not be obvious to those who are too closed minded to see or admit that Apollo did not happen as advertised, but it's obvious to people who are not wearing Apollogist blinders. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfGZ4k9-fw&NR=1

And here's me thinking the Military had to pay for Military missions. Although, I suppose if NASA are using civilian funds for military projects, I guess that's why they don't have enough to also go around disproving every crackpot "theory" about previous missions, eh? Steve, I know this isn't common knowledge, but NASA has been working for the US military and the Department of Defence for quite some time now. NASA never was a "civilian" space agency and never will be.. Their claim of being that is just a cover story for what their missions to low earth orbit are really all about. I have many of the DoD / NASA documents saved in my YouTube account and will happy to send you the proof of my claims, though it may take me awhile to find them, as these documents were sent to me a couple of years ago and therefore are buried many pages back in my account. Meanwhile, may I suggest you Google any info you can find about NASA's involvement with the military.

And I have already told you that it is inappropriate for me to investigate it and that I asked Gary to investigate - publicly. Ask Gary or Antti to answer your question, not me, since I should not be involved. Jim, Unfortunately, every time moderator Burton's dishonesty is exposed, he has the power to delete any evidence of it. I was hoping when I returned to this forum that these type of disingenuous mind games would still not be taking place. I see now that was just wishful thinking on my part, as some things never change.

The guy sells stock, he earns his money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to images he has produced. Jack and Jim had no valid rights to use that image in question. As a photographer he has every right to title his work as he sees fit and to allow usage as he sees fit. He also has the right to collect damages for unlawful usage, which can be three times the usage rate plus costs. Seems a fitting course of action... BTW Duane, I was looking for the link to your bio at the bottom of your post and can't seem to find it????? You can defend that clown until the cows come home, but I stiil find it a hoot that he titled his picture as being Tracks of a Moon Rover in the Sahara Desert, when it was neither. Seems kinda dishonest to me. Since you're so interested in my mising bio, maybe you can help me find it. Whats dishonest? He titled an ARTISTIC image. He titled and keyworded to image to GENERATE SALES. In case you missed it he earn money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to his artistinc efforts. He has every right to title his artwork anything he pleases. He is not producing historical material nor is he recording the news. He is creating ART. That implies ARTISTIC LICENCE. And YOU are calling HIM a clown? Yeah, I guess it wasn't very kind of me to call that photographer a clown, even if his letter to Burton was a scream! btw, Craig, I was very sorry to read about your need to declare bankruptcy .. It must have been quite a blow to a hot shot, egotistical photographer like yourself, to know that your financial assets are only worth a fraction of your debts.

Evan, I didn't say that Armstrong never talked publicly .. I said he didn't talk often, and was reluctant to talk about Apollo, as was evident in his 40th Anniversary of Apollo 11 speech, which only lasted 11 minutes.. With only 11 SECONDS of that 11 minutes, devoted to his alleged Apollo stunt. I'm glad you posted that still shot from this TV interview though, as that was what I wanted to discuss next. Not only is Neil Armstrong "shy" but he is also extremely uncomfortable, as can be seen by his stammering, squirming, gulping and scratching his neck when asked by this interviewer how many people walked on the Moon. If you pay close attention to time stamp :44 , you will witness his "shy" behavior, along with his hesitation to answer exactly how many people suppossedly walked on the Moon.. In fact, the interviewer actually answered that question for him. Sorry, but the entire interview shows the mannerisms of a guilty man with much to hide.

The composited A17 photo came from this site, with a detailed explanation of how two different researchers discovered the exact same image tampering. http://www.theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9995 I already posted the link with that composited photo. You may be able to persuade John Dolva into believing the Apollo photos were not faked.. especially since he has already admitted to not knowing much about this subject, and apparently has already made up his mind who to believe.. But your tap dancing routine won't quite cut it this time Dave, since I have many other Apollo photos to present here which show the same type of image compositing that was used to fake the A17 photo. I also have the BellCom evidence, showing exactly how "mountains" were composited into the backgrounds of the Apollo photos, and also how small scale cement models were used to fake certain "landing sites", including the A15 "Mt. Hadley" photos. I don't have as much time to post here as some of the Apollo defenders do, but since moderator Evan Burton has so graciously allowed me to return to this forum without moderation, I will be providing the proof of this Apollo photo fakery in the weeks to come.

There's nothing to address. It was created using a still from the Apollo 15 lift-off footage. I'm still waiting for proof that LRO images were faked, rather than conjecture. If that faked photo was created from a still of the alleged A15 lift off footage, then NASA could have easily done the same, considering the FACT that all of their LRO photos are processed through Adobe Photoshop. If NASA actually cared to provide the definitive proof that the Apollo debris is on the Moon, they would have used the same technology they use to image beachball size objects on Mars, instead of presenting lame photos that anyone can easily photoshop. Even the close up, narrower view of the A12 site, failed to place in the "footpaths" from the "LM" speck to the "Suryeyor" speck.. Yet remembered to place them in the A12 LRO photo, taken from a higher distance above the Moon. You might not find the LRO photos suspicious, or lacking in proving the Apollo debris is on the Moon, but millions of other people do.

Did I make some claim somewhere where that everything on yt was nonsense? I must have missed that. Perhaps you can share. What you have not encountered is someone who knows how things work photographically and is willing to show you the errors (as well as those of your ill informed buds). Its also the case that you lack the skillset in the subject and are unable to mount a sucessful counter argument to the truth. It's really funny you think I have no understading of front projection. I've used it many times. It was all the rage in commercial photography many years ago. You on the other hand have listened to a silly Apollo CT and now you are the expert. Like pretty much all of of your photographic "expertise". My YT moniker is perfect and did exactly as I planned....your reply here illustrates that perfectly. Now back to that thorny subject for you..photographic DOF. Can you explain how you got it totally backwards and why we should believe your claims of front projection given this fact? It's not a thorny subject for me at all.. In fact it's one of my favorite subjects, especially when discussing how much of the Apollo photography was faked using this type of special effects. Here'a quote from researcher Jay Weidner, that "crazy" guy who's helping to expose the Apollo photo fakery. DEPTH OF FIELD: MORE EVIDENCE "Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye. While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio. It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are on a small confined set. According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001. The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus. I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters. When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer."

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers" -Neil Armstrong Neil Armstrong made that cryptic statement during one of his college speeches, discussing Apollo and future manned space flight. If Apollo was really the transparent, public space program that NASA and it's defenders would have us believe it was, then Mr. Armstrong's speech would have been very different.. So would his reluctance to speak publicly about his participation in The Apollo Program.