Duane Daman

Wade ... I have been reading your UFO/ET articles and I think your work is very well researched and well presented ... I have read dozens of maticulously researched books on this subject throughout the years and have no doubt that the ET presense on our planet is very real ... I also have no doubt that there has been a massive government cover-up in place, at least since the mid 1940's, to suppress all alien evidence. We might not agree about the Apollo conspiracy and cover-up, but we do agree about this issue .... I also believe that NASA can not be trusted to tell the truth about many things, as you pointed out in your article . "There is plenty to be disturbed about regarding NASA. Most Americans do not know it, but NASA has privatized the images coming back from Mars, giving the rights to Michael Malin’s company. NASA has been less than forthright regarding the Face on Mars issue. Malin and the Face on Mars crowd played cat and mouse over the data for years. Recently a full image of the face was released, and NASA says that it is a natural formation because it is asymmetrical. I still wonder. There are strikingly geometric aspects of the face and head. It could be ancient and eroded. Whatever the case may be, privatizing the Mars images not only is contrary to NASA’s charter, but also ridiculous. Imagine if NASA gave the rights to the moon rocks to the contractor who built the LM. Giving Malin rights to the Mars images, because his company provided the camera, amounts to the same thing. It is outrageous, but passes in silence. If the NASA defenders want more credibility with those who are skeptical of NASA, taking on that issue might give them some, instead of the standard apologetics. Oberg recently wrote an Op Ed in USA Today (April 24, 2001) where he complained about NASA’s increasing penchant for secrecy. If even Oberg is making that observation, it is difficult to deny." I couldn't agree more. I also believe this could be true as well . "Brian then followed a trail of other evidence, such as the astronauts' experiences on the moon, the evidence of a lunar atmosphere and other anomalies, and Brian made the case that NASA probably used non-rocket technology to land on the moon and take off from it, which means that if we have anti-gravity technology, we also have free energy technology. I was impressed with Brian's reasoning, and for years I threw down his work in front of the "skeptics," challenging somebody to show me where Brian was wrong. For years, nobody ever did. I have seen Brian called a "kook" (see Donna Kossy's Kooks, pp. 65-66) and other names. Nobody, however, ever showed me where Brian was wrong; they would just smile. " If the Apollo Program was just the dummy project paraded in front of the world, while the real secret space missions (using anti-gravity stealth technology) took place behind the scenes, then this could be a possible explaination as to why NASA faked the Apollo photography.

It looks like you're wrong about that statement ... If it had no substance , then a moderator wouldn't have removed it and replaced it with this ... "BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. " Oh, and thanks for correcting my spelling of "ad hominem" ... A term I never even knew existed until I started "discussing " the Moon hoax on discussion forums with people like you. Using semantics again I see ..." Blew up" means the same thing as "explosion"... Your "rebuttals" are getting weaker all the time. And exactly where would this "verifiable data" come from ? ... Another self serving NASA site ? ....Thanks, but no thanks. Now look who's telling tall tales, as he munches his popcorn .... I don't remember ever saying that Haise's back was to the camera ... I said that his back was to the rest of the crew, and because he was facing away from them, he couldn't possibly have filmed them properly .... His arm was not the correct position to be operating the camera and neither was his body, that was facing away from his crew mates and towards the window, located to the left of the camera.... This is what we see at time stamp :34.

Like I stated before ... It's a lame excuse ... Actually, after reading this new detailed "explaination", it's not really lame but more like ... ABSURD ! I don't have to prove that a 4th person is filming this part of the A13 "mission" because the film itself (showing the position of Haise as Swiggert , the middle astro-actor, is being panned ) has already proven that .. As to exactly where they were when they staged this ridiculous drama, is quite another matter ... One which would be extremely difficult to prove , if not impossible. Matthew ... This is an ad homuim attack . So is calling me a xxxx ... Your post has been reported . Look who's really tellng tall tales here .... Haise's back is to the camera and his arm is down by his side in NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING THE CAMERA BACKWARDS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SWIGGERT IS SEEN IN THE FRAME ..... Time stamp :34 .... Do I need to post a frame grab of that scene to show this fact , or are you capable of stopping the film at that point to see the truth about your "heros" ? There is absolutely NO WAY that Haise was filming that STAGED "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM " SCENE.

You attacked Jack and me most recently on the Contrails thread for no other reason than Jack posted this .. "My rule of thumb is THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION, THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE BULLSEYE." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Either remove the accusation that I have lied or I will have to report your post for breaking the forum's rules. I have looked at other footage of the Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem" mission , and it is obvious that Haise is doing the filming in certain parts of the footage ... However , that is definately NOT the case in this part of the footage .... Haise is not in the correct position to even be holdiong the camera, much less getting his crew mates in the frame properly as the camera scans pasts them ... Even if the man were a contortionist or a magician , I doubt he could have been holding the camera, considering how his body was positioned in that clip. Haise was facing AWAY from his companions with his BACK to them ... and this postition can be very clearly observed at time stamp :34, where the middle astronot is still in the frame as Haise has his back to him, with his arm straight down by his side, while gazing out the " LM " window with that contrived, worried expression on his face. The film was STAGED ... and so far nobody, including you and Dave , have proven otherwise.

If you don't care, then why continue to insult me with your transparent flame baiting tactics ? ...I rarely read any of your posts here where you just post information ... Instead, they contain attacks on those you disagree with ... Like I have said twice now ... You are a hypocrite. If you would like to link any of my comments here where I have insulted any of the members without any previous provocation, then I will be happy to apologise to them. Now, if you would like to discuss how NASA might have staged their self serving Apollo 13 documentary, I am all ears. Or of you can offer any reasonable explaination as to how none of the three A13 crew members were operating the 16MM DAC that caught them on tape, I would be happy to consider your opinion.... But if you are just going to repeat the same lame excuse that Dave posted above, then don't bother, because his explaination just doesn't cut it for this one .

Oh sorry Matthew ... I didn't notice your post before and I know how it feels to have your posts either completely ignored or constantly ridiculed. I'm not sure why you have such a personal dislike for Jack and me, but it's obvious from reading your constant flame baiting attacks to both of us, that you feel a lot of animosity towards us . What I don't understand however, is your constant accusation that Jack and I are the one's doing the insulting on this forum ... I understand that this "projection" tactic is used quite often on discussion forums in hopes of angering your opponent ... but after I pointed out the fact that both of us only bite back after being continuously insulted by certain members here, I thought you would have gotten the message .... So why is it okay for you and your friends to ridicule and insult Jack and me, yet it's not okay for us to respond in our own defense ? .... If you answer that question honestly, then I think you will understand why I called you a hypocrite .

Like Jack stated before .... "My rule of thumb is THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION, THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE BULLSEYE." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Yep, that pretty much sums up what you're all about Evan . I don't presume to know for certain exactly how NASA staged the Apollo 13 footage that we see in this clip ... but it is definately staged, whether you can accept that fact or not. I believe that the entire Apollo 13 mission was staged and that NASA's story about the the CM blowing up was all part of the plan to get people interested in the "Moon landings" again ... There was a lot a stake , especially financially, to keep the myth alive that Apollo was landing manned missions on the Moon ... So what better way to get the world's attention than to pretend that our "heros" were about to die in deep space, 240,000 miles away from home ? .. When you really think about it , the number 13 mission was quite ridiculous on many levels .... If the CM had really "blown up" that far away from Earth, there probably would have been no getting the crew home alive. So the most logical explaination I can think of, is that NASA staged their Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem " documentary in the vomit comet ... The same place they staged the Apollo 13 fictitious Hollywood movie.

Here is the excellent documentary called 'SECRET SPACE' ... It shows how, where and why the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed by NASA's Nazi's... It also discusses the UFO cover-up by NASA and the US government . Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVbR6BtY8Ts Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcI5UadyNA Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_3pP44A97Y Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grdlREs-Q Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro_OcrXlmvo Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufFwVEhVjQo Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKMSHOLRIQQ Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5fTS3zb9Dg Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGs3P6GpltI Part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr7ZAJzrCiY Part 11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtjAu2p7YZ8

That was a very impressive reply Dave, but like I told you on the YouTube comments ... Look at Haise's body and arm position at time stamp :34 .. One of the other members of the crew is still in the frame and the camera is still panning while Haise is facing AWAY from them with his arm down and in no position to be holding a camera backwards to get the shot . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY Your "mundane" explaination was a nice try, but it's just not gonna fly for this one. I agree with you about one thing though ... If the crew were really in the LM while this "Houston, we have a problem " moment was being filmed, there would have been little room for a 4th person in that tiny space ... but if you remember how the Apollo 13 movie was made , it's not to difficult to figure out how this film footage could have been staged, either before or after the fact ... If there ever was the fact . Just like with the actors in the movie, it could have very easily been filmed in the vomit comet, so NASA would have one more self serving "documentary " to present to the world .... and when you really think about it, why would any of the crew be spending their valuable time filming anything after the CM allegedly blew up, when their very lives hung in the balance and they were trying to figure out how to fix their disabled craft to return home 240,000 miles away ? ... If I thought I was about to die in deep space, I would not be wasting my time with a camera, I would be trying to fix the problem. But whether NASA used the vomit comet or lied about the dimentions of the A13 LM and the crew number onboard, one thing is for certain ... THE "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM" FOOTAGE WAS STAGED.

That Apollo 11 press conference "anecdote" was a strangely dressed man walking around the conference room with one of NASA's big wigs, handling out documents to the press members which stated that Apollo 11 was a hoax ! .... Don't you think that's just a tad strange and is much more important than to just dismiss it as an " anecdote" ? A lot of people are disinfo specialists at this time, whether wittingly or not .... but most of them are on the pro- Apollo side of this debate . And then there are the very clever disinfo specialists, who pretend to have once been hoax believers until they saw one piece of evidence that convinced them the landings were real ... or one of Apollo's top watchdogs got a hold of them with the "science" to convince them that all was well with the Apollo Program. I agree with James about Windley's (dis) information ... I have never read anything on his clavius site where he agrees that NASA has not been truthful about anything , including the subject of aliens and UFO's. Wade, you addressed all of my questions except for this one ... If you could please answer it, then I will leave you alone about this subject, as you claim to no longer have much interest in it . Do you agree with Brian that some of the Apollo photography could have been faked on moonsets, while believing that the missions really happened ? Thanks for your replies to my other questions ... and I will post the links to the documentary 'Secret Space' here ... You may find Marcus Allen's evidence interesting ... and if I remember correctly, the subject of UFO's are discussed in it as well.

Well, that's a new tactic ... Usually when I post Apollo hoax evidence here it gets ripped to shreds by the Apollo apologists and then I get ripped to shreds for posting it . So if you didn't like the Apollo 13 video clip that proves the entire " Houston, we have a problem " scene was STAGED ... Maybe you will enjoy this Alan Bean interview clip from the documentary 'Astronauts Gone Wild', that proves Mr. Bean never went to the Moon in a Lunar Module that he didn't even know how to fly. The function of Apollo climate control http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_FyKuZHgY8M

David , I see you located a very rare and rarely seen F A K E Apollo photo . The Whistle-Blower who got this one past quaility control was a Flat Earther ... And as we can see from the photo he managed to get through , he was right ! Thanks for this terrific find !

Even docile "straydogs" eventually bite when being repeatedly kicked.

Speaking of Apollo 13 ... It's looks like ... "Houston, we now have another problem ." Man On The Moon? Part 5: Apollo 13 Stowaway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY

Nothing "went right over my head" ... I merely stated that Jack didn't mention your name as being a disinfo agent ... Nor was his post a personal "ad homium " attack against you. Where as some of your posts on other forums do mention names and are personal ad homium attacks ... And that's precisely why you are a H Y P O C R I T E . If you can't take it Matthew, then don't dish it out ..Regardless of the forum you dish it out on. You and your pals enjoy character assassinating and ridiculing certain people on forums where they can't defend themselves ... and the people being attacked have absolutley no interest in joining those forums, because of the constant ridicule and personal insults. Jack or I joining the clavius forum would be like joining a forum where all of the members conduct themselves like Craig Lamson does on this forum ....So thanks for the offer to join the Apollo Hoax board to post in my own defense ... but no thanks .

Well, my gut instinct tells me that Alan Bean never walked on the Moon. Then you agree with me that Alan Bean knows nothing about the true conditions of being on the lunar surface ?... Why would he think or say that the LM would have heated up to 250 degrees fahrenheit if the temperature control failed in the LM ? ... Don't you think NASA would have instructed him on exactly how hot or cold it would have gotten under those conditions and what to do in that type of emergency ? He also knows nothing about flying through the Van Allen radiation belts or where they are even located . He also knew nothing about how to fly the LM while he "looked at Conrad and wondered what he was doing. " ... Do you really believe that NASA would send two men to the lunar surface with only ONE of them knowing how to fly the craft that would get them off of it !?!? He also didn't know not to point the very important TV camera towards the Sun, even after NASA instructed him not to. He also didn't know that the descent engine was very loud ... Or was it Gene Cernan who didn't know that it was completely quiet ? ... I get a bit confused myself on that little contradiction. He also painted pictures of his "memories" of being on the Moon but his paintings were nothing but gaudy recreations of the fake looking Apollo photos... one of which was missing the LM that was allegedy located behind his pal Pete's left shoulder. Which brings us full circle around to the those faked Apollo 12 photos showing stage light reflections and missing LM's ! Yet we are suppossed to believe that this man flew to the Moon and walked on the lunar surface .... You can buy that story if you want to, but I don't.

Here's where I got Bean's quote from ...This is one of the videos where Alan Bean claims that without the climate control working in the LM, it would have become so hot that the astronauts would have cooked .. He stated .. "That temperature inside is going to go up to 250 degrees fahrenheit and you're not gonna make it , cuz you're gonna cook long before that." MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 3 ... Time stamp 1:56 is the interview with Bean. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nebxYU2PE6o This seems to contradict other information about space crafts getting cold in a vacuum, when the power is lost or turned off and it also seems to contradict the information that Peter posted here about a vacuum having no heat except for directly on the surface of the Moon.

Peter .... Thanks very much for all of that information ... I learned a lot that I didn't know before .... and thanks also for the offer to post a graph, but that won't be necessary . Dave ... Now that I have my address bar working properly again I will see if can find it .

Oh really ? ... Well, think again because the sites I opened were NASA and "scientific" sites , not conspiracy sites . As for taking precautions ... I certainly will now.

Like Jack said ... "THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION ... " I'm sorry but can you please show in Jack's post where your name was mentioned ? .... I'm sure he doesn't even give you a thought much less bother to reply to your attacks on every word he ever posted here . Try not to be such a hypocrite Matthew ... I have read your ad homium attacks on the Apollo Hoax forum , where you do mention names ... Like his and mine . Comparing Apollo Hoax CT's to Flat Earthers is an ad homium attack... but apparently it's okay for you to insult the people you disagree with .

I wish it had been as easy as "the dog ate my homework" .... I have been on the phone and online for many hours with my virus tech support four times in the past six nights trying to get this mess fixed ... and there is still a problem ... Now I know to check the security of certin web sites before opening them. As for the evidence I'm looking for, it may no longer exist except on conspiracy sites and of course no Apollo defenders, like you and Dave would ever accept any information from any of those type of web sites.

I thought the expression was "Bee up your bonnet" ... Maybe it's different in the UK from the States .... Either way, you did misquote that cute cliche'. No, I haven't withdraw the claim ... I just haven't been able to find any "empirical " figures yet that show how dangerous the belts really are ... And in trying to do so, I managed to open up a few web sites promising to supply that evidence, which sent some pretty nasty viruses into my PC .... 18 of them to be exact, and my virus protection server still can't figure out how to delete the remaining high alert trojan ... Those NASA boys sure do play rough, don't they ? But even if I never find the empirical evidence on the internet, about the dangers of the Van Allen belts, the subject of the intense dangers of deep space radiation is not needed to "prop up the hoax theory" ... The " hoax theory" is doing just fine with all of the other evidence that has been discovered and uncovered ... Some of it uncovered very recently, in fact . The radiation showstopper will be quite evident with the planned future manned missions, unless NASA can figure out a way to develope the proper shielding to go "back to the Moon" by 2020.

As you can see from my reply to Evan , that the "bee up my bonnet" ( cute expression ) is not the radiation issue, which NASA appears to have covered very nicely on almost every web site on the internet ( or as Bush calls them , "the internets ") but rather the subject of Whistle-Blower Tom Baron's highly suspicious and untimely death, one week after testifying before NASA's commitee that the Apollo Program didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever safely landing a manned lunar module on the Moon .

Peter ... Thanks for your information . So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ?

Yes .... This one is a tad difficult to "debunk" isn't it ? ... I'm happy to see that you finally agree with me about something though ... Or is your reason for dropping this subject maybe the hope that this thread will disappear to the back pages and be forgotten ? Out of sight, out of mind ... That tactic seems to work well on most discussion forums .