Duane Daman

Here is how that composited photo appears on the Apollo Image Gallery. Image number: AS17-134-20382 "We didn't lie about some things, We lied about everything..." - Bellcom Employee

I found this example of how NASA used image compositing to fake some of their Apollo photos. "And here is another example of NASA image tampering. It was found by Researchers Easynow and Jose Escamilla and it shows a ridiculous amount of manipulation, which Easynow has highlighted for us. I don't think Easynow could believe what Jose had found - many of us could not, so the mad genius got the image and checked for himself This is what he found:" (This image is as fake as all get out. Most of it isn't even real): http://www.theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9995

Funny how you posted Mr. McCarthy's e-mail reply to you, but not your original e-mail to him .. Not that I would expect you to post what you really wrote to him anyway. So the only one making a big deal out that picture and hoping to cause trouble for Jack, is you. I take back what I said before .. The games you play here are not hilarious, they're pathetic.

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.

I see nobody wanted to address this "LRO" photoshopped photo, that was created before NASA created their own photoshopped LRO photos. It really is amazing what can be faked using Adobe Photoshop.. Not to mention front screen projection, composit imaging and smale scale models.

I forgot all about needing my bio link .. I'm not even sure if my bio is still on the forum, but I will see if I can find it. If I need your help, I will let you know. Thanks.

No you did "get it backwards" and this post by you once again proves this point perfectly. Lets go back in time shall we and review: In another post I correctly pointed out: You ascribed a condition to the first as being an artifact of front screen projection that should have shown more area in focus if, in your opinion, the photo had been real. This is totally backwards from reality and shows a decided lack of understanding on your part of the process of Depth of Fieid. In the second you ascribe the large area of focus as an artifact of shooting a small scale model. On again you get established photographic fact exactly backwards. This is not a new problem. You have a limited knowlege base as far as general photographic principle is concerned. Don't mean that as a put down, but rather as a proiven statement of fact. BTW, forum rules require a link to you bio. Yours is missing...... Front screen projection shows a smoother, much less detailed background than photos taken using small scale sets. Like for instance, the "mountains" in the "distant backgrounds" of the faked Apollo photos.. They all have a much smoother and even lighter appearance than the objects that are seen in the foreground, which are on the actual set. As a "professional" photographer, I thought that concept would be easy for you to understand. btw, I preferred your speedboat avatar to you current one... Maybe your pal Evan can bend the rules just for you, so you can put it back.

The sun angle in the second image is different to the first. It's almost directly above, which makes it virtually impossible to see shadows. It also affects contrast and the way differences in albedo. are represented. You can see this in many LRO images, including ones that don't include Apollo hardware. Dave, You must have missed my point .. In the enlarged, narrower view photo ( number one) of the A12 "landing" site, the "footpaths" can be seen leading from the "LM" to the "experiments", yet the "footpaths" to the "Surveyor" are missing. The "footpaths" in the wider view photo ( number 2 ) can be seen going to both the "experiments" and to the "Surveyor". So why would only some of the "footpaths" be missing in the first photo? .. This has nothing to do with the Sun angle difference between the two photos. I find it strange that only some of the "footpaths" are missing in one that photo, considering it has only one Sun angle.

On the 9th anniversary of the attacks on 911, I invite everyone to take another look at the evidence that proves the official story is a lie. I would also like to pay my respects to the thousands of victims who died that day. PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4

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? I didn't get anything backwards .. I presented two Apollo photos showing "distance" .. The smooth, featureless background was created using front screen projection, while the detailed background was accomplished by using a small scale set and models.. Sets and models that NASA has now admitted to creating for "simulation" purposes, during Project Apollo.. Models and sets which they have now also admited to destroying, for obvious reasons. It's good to know that you have also used front screen projection in your photography work.. That means you understand exactly how NASA staged much of their Apollo photography.

They don't refuse to, it's a matter of funding, and specific missions. I'm going to go out on a limb and say designing, developing, creating and launching one mission specifically for this purpose of debunking HB's, who won't even choose to examine its data with an open mind isn't going to be very high on their list of priorities. The recent LRO had a camera, but it's optical resolution wasn't that good - trade-offs between weight and size, and other science packages included. It was, however, good enough to resolve down to objects of around a couple of meters, when it reached its optimal orbital height, as has been linked to for you in this thread. Could we ask for better resolutions? Probably, but as long as other space is needed for multiple science experiments, it's unlikely we'll get them. What we did get, though, is good enough for anyone with an inquiring and open mind. It's fairly funny, too, to be asked why they can't use HST to image the landing sites. After all, it regularly images distant nebulae and galaxies. (IIRC, the smallest object it can resolve on the moon is around 30metres). And that's by far, better than anything we have on Earth. It will take a specific mission to do what you suggest, and they have other priorities, and a shrinking budget to do them with. NASA's "shrinking" budget has plenty of money for DoD black ops projects though. So I guess proving to millions of people, who have no doubt Apollo was some type of fraud, really isn't all that important to those who can pull off a stunt like pretending to send 24 humans to the Moon 40 years ago, using primitive, conventional technology, when that feat can't even be accomplished today using state of the art, computerized conventional tech. Getting back to NASA's photoshopped LRO photos, here's an example of a "LRO" photo that was created BEFORE NASA created their photoshopped LRO photos. This only goes to show how easy it is for NASA to fake yet more "Apollo" photos for the clueless masses. "That fascinating picture is the work of one of my image mage friends on unmannedspaceflight.com, AndyG. Andy (who gave me permission to use the image here, thanks Andy! ) very cleverly simulated LRO’s view of the Apollo 15 landing site by taking a frame from the 16mm camera’s footage of the Apollo 15 ascent module and giving it the same resolution as LRO’s camera, approx 15cm per pixel. Even at that resolution you can clearly see the boxy descent stage, its four legs, and dark trails on the surface where the light lunar dust was disturbed by the astronauts. How stunning is that?!? If LRO returns an image like that of Tranquility Base I might actually shed a tear…" http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/ Yeah, I might shed a tear too, but not for the same reason this guy would.. Mine would be because NASA not only simulated their 16 mm Apollo 15 "landing" footage ( to pass off as the real deal ) but has yet again gotten away with faking even more photos. What's so funny ( or not ) though, is that this guy's photoshopped "LRO" photo shows more detail than NASA's LRO fakes.

Copyright violation might not be a laughing matter, but his letter to Jim, via you, sure is. Especially this one sentence ... "Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James." Like I said before .. TOO FUNNY!

I don't know about stronger, but a bit neater might have looked a tad more professional. Like Bill pointed out... "why did they do it with posterboard and tape like it was a grammer school romper room project?" Why indeed, when NASA had billions of American taxpayer's dollars at their disposal? The Soviet Rover that landed on the Moon, soon after Apollo pretended to land there, made the lawn chair "moon" buggy look like something a bunch of drunk rednecks made in their backyard, to go joy riding in the woods. Apollo was nothing but a joke, on every level.

In that image? The crater and Surveyor 3 are out of frame to the lower right. See the 50m scale? 600 feet is 3.65 times that distance. Try a wider view: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html The wider view is a bigger joke than the narrower view. I see the "footpaths" leading away from the "LM" speck, to the "Surveyor" speck, in the wider view, but don't see them in the narrower view. But then NASA never was very consistent when faking, or in this case, photoshopping, their phony Apollo photos.

Craig, Your pretense of finding everything posted on YouTube as being nonsense, is what is nonsense. But then you always were good at presenting nonsense, while calling it "empirical evidence". I don't believe I've ever encounterd anyone before who could blow as much smoke as you do, while pretending to have the maket cornered on all there is to know about photography. Oh, and speaking of YouTube nonsense, your user name there, "MRphotogod", is quite a hoot! btw, I know you can take pretty pictures of boats and trucks and stuff, but maybe you should brush up on the type of front screen projection special effects that were used to fake the Apollo photography.. Especially since you obviously know nothing about the subject.

Evan, The games you play here are hilarious! I can only imagine what you must have said to that photographer to get him so riled up that he's threatening Jim and Jack with his lawyers. I've never seen such a big deal made over nothing. And what's even funnier, is that McCarthy's photo was titled "Tracks of the Moon Rover", and claimed to have been taken in the Sahara Desert, when it was neither .. Yet he's steamed up about it being used to promote a hoax!?!? TOO FUNNY!

I can't believe you think the LRO photos are adequate in showing the alleged Apollo debris on the Moon.. They are not only inadequate, but a ridiculous insult to everyone's intelligence. I'm glad you posted the Apollo 12 "landing site" photo, since that's the one I wanted to discuss next. In this case, it really does look like NASA saved their biggest joke for last. Where is the Surveyor? .. Where are the "footpaths" leading up to the Surveyor? .. And more importantly, where is that "huge crator" that the Surveyor was suppossedly hanging off of, that was allegedly located 600 feet away from where Al and Pete landed the A12 lunar module? You asked what it would take for me to accept that the LRO photos really show Apollo debris on the Moon? How about recognizable objects that don't look like blurry white photoshopped blobs. Since NASA has the technology to image cars on Earth and beachball sized objects on Mars, then why not put the Apollo Hoax debate to rest and use that same technology to image the Apollo objects they claim are on the Moon?

Jim, I wonder why Evan won't answer your question about your deleted post? It might be a good idea for you to back up every word you post here, just in case some of your other posts go "missing", for reasons yet to be explained by any of the moderators.

Lets review your recent claims here Duane. First you postulate that the LACK of sharpness in the far background in a mid field photograph is an indication of fakery. Then you contend that the SHARPNESS in the far background of a far field photo is the result of photographing a "small scale model". Interesting choices on your part and really quite telling as to your understanding or...rather the lack of it...of the photographic process. First your "front screen projection claim. Given the point of focus, and the distances found in that photo, an IN FOCUS background as you have suggested simply would not have been possible. Simple photo 101 DOF stuff. It's not rocket science. Here is a wonderful DOF calculator for you to play wiht...and maybe check your claims before making them. http://www.photosmith.ca/Library/Depth%20of%20Field%20Wheel.pdf And one for your Andriod phone, I love it on the evo... http://www.androlib.com/android.screenshot.app.qtFA-tmm.u.aspx Now when we look at your "small scale model" claim we find you have it all backwards once again. Photographing a small set requires a having the camera very close to the subject or using a very long lens. The problem..for you..is that both of these options produce the exact opposite in terms of DOF that what we see. In other words if the photo was created as you suggest the chances of that much sharpenss (DOF) over such a large are of the frame are near none. I was hoping, upon seeing your return, that you might have educated yourself in the subject matter, namely photography. Clearly that is not the csase. Thanks for the warm welcome back to the forum Craig.. I missed you too. As for educating myself on the subject matter, namely photography, actually I have. That's why I know, regardless of how you care to spin it, that the "distance" shots on the "moon" were mostly accomplished using not only small scale models, but also image compositing and front screen projection, which was state of the art technology during the time of Project Apollo, otherwise known as The Apollo Simulation Program. I'm not the only one who has discovered this evidence either, as you will see by watching these videos, explaining in detail how much of the Apollo photography was faked. 2/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation 3/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation SkullDefiler

Thanks for providing the newer LRO images, but they still don't provide any real evidence that the Apollo debris is on the lunar surface either. Like I stated before, NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon. As for processing the LRO photos through Adobe Photoshop, all I can say is that it was not a very wise thing for NASA to do, considering the fact that millions of people either don't believe Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon, or don't believe the Apollo photography was really taken on the Moon. We were all hoping that NASA would be able to provide the definative proof that Apollo craft really landed on the Moon. But so far, they have obviously fallen far short of that task.

Evan, So they did make a map of the Apollo 16 moonset .. Nice. I'm glad you posted the recent Apollo 16 LRO photo, as that was what I wanted to discuss with John next. I found several photos on this web site, showing the alleged landing sites of A11, A15, A16, A17 and A14, with special attention payed to number 14. There was no picture of the alleged A12 landing site, so I 'm assuming for whatever reason, that NASA was not able to image that site. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html My question is why does only the A14 site show "footpaths', when none of the other sites do? Also, where are the Rovers and the Rover tracks at the A15, A16 and A17 sites? .. In fact, where are the landers??? .. The alleged LM at the A14 site appears to be a small white square, where the LM's at the other sites look like tiny little dots. After all the hype from the NASA and their Apollo defenders, the people who doubt the authencity of Project Apollo (and I assume even those who defend it) were hoping to see better photos of the suppossed landing sites than these pathetic examples. NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon. Also, it has been proven that the LRO photos have all been processed through Adobe Photoshop. Considering the the fact millions of people believe Apollo was a fraud, I don't think was a very wise thing for NASA to do.

John, Here's an orbital view of the Apollo 16 "landing" site .. I believe that arrow is pointing to the imaginary LM sitting on the lunar surface.. You can see it, can't you? Did you know that NASA has the technology to resolve an image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, plus the technology to image objects as small as cars from satellites above the Earth, yet they've never bothered to use that same image resolving technology to photograph any of the alleged Apollo landing sites? Strange, huh? Oh and here's another photo of the Apollo 16 "landing" site. I believe that white spot is the crater dug by the LM as it touched down on the lunar surface. Oh, wait a minute .. There were no craters dug under any of the LM's upon touchdown. Nevermind.

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it. This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground. Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots. Or the difference could simply be distance. Or the difference could be image compositing.. That was another trick of the photofakers, when attempting to show "distance" in the faked Apollo photography.

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head. Yep, you never fail to disappoint. Sorry, but when dealing with your conspiracy theorist friends, they are usually serious when it seems like they must be kidding. Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious. So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev? http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-S70-53283HR.jpg I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust. Every post of mine has been serious, every one of yours has been a joke. Who's the xxxxx here? Well, considering the fact that you fit the description of a xxxxx to a T, with your confrontational one liners, I would have to say you are. Not everything I post here is a joke .. I only post jokes to people who aren't worth the bother of taking seriously.. Like you.

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head. Yep, you never fail to disappoint. Sorry, but when dealing with your conspiracy theorist friends, they are usually serious when it seems like they must be kidding. Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious. So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev? I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust.