Duane Daman

The person I sent my analysis to was Jarrah White , not David Percy .... Nothing was done in "hiding" as you put it .. In fact , Jarrah was nice enough to make a couple of YouTube videos showing different buildings perspectives for me and then he did his own analysis on the anomalous perspective of the A17 mountains ... but after the witch hunt against him here , started by you and Dave, and your typical obnoxious character assassination of him and his work , I decided to spare him the extra abuse , dropped the study and decided not to post it here .

So now you know the whole story .

Unlike you , I didn't run to my pals to get confirmation and back slaps of my work ... I sent the A17 photos to one of the top conspiracy researchers instead and now it's part of his Apollo investigation on his famous web site .

Oh so it's GAME TIME again I see. ... The brightness of the sky is not the problem with this photo ... It's building 6 that we are discussing here , and the fact that WTC 6 is almost as bright as the sky might very well be a problem .

Kevin posted the suspicious looking photo here so why doesn't he answer the question ?

dupe post

The above is phunk speak for I will take one single line from a very long list of reasons why 9/11 was a conspiracy and then pretend that I have debunked the all of the inside job evidence and hope that no one will notice that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about .

When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment .

If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped .

Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source .

When did sky and clouds cease being objects?

Photoshopped? Yea, right, you can tell all of this from a jpg artifact filled web image? Not in a million years.

Since when did the sky and clouds cease being objects ? ... Since the only OBJECTS in this photo that MATTER are the buildings and whether or not one of them has been ALTERED !

I see that neither you or phunk has supplied the source of this suspicious photo yet ... and yeah right , it looks photoshopped to me .

Like Jack said , he has collected every picture taken of 9/11 and has never seen this one before ... So I think it's very reasonable to ask where it came from .

I knew that the Apollo photography was faked long before I ever knew about Percy or White ... So once again , no matter how many times you repeat this lie , it will not make it true ... They are not my "masters" in any respect .

You have tapped danced around this one in your typical fashion ... You can't prove that the shadow in this photo is real , so you go off topic to attack David Percy again .

Neither you or Dave have proven anything , except that you have no real rebuttal to this faked shadow photo .. and that you both will use any desperate measures necessary to defend every single one of nasa's phony photos .

If you really believe the light source is coming from the FRONT , then I guess that means nasa not only got the shape of the shadow wrong , but also it's position on the moonset !

Looks like you shot yourself in your own foot with that little mistake craig ... Maybe you will be more careful the next time you decide to follow phunk's incorrect lead .

The first part of your post is such utter nonsense , that I won't even bother to address your ridiculous claims .

I can't wait! I'm sure it will be worth quite a laugh. Oh and make sure when you have it fact checked by your masters, you do it in the light of day so we can all see...don't go hiding now Duane. LOL!

I have no idea what you're talking about ... I haven't done any studies in 'hiding " and then sent them to Jack or David for their appproval ... You really are quite delusional . .. I sent some A17 photos to David for him to do his own study own , because it was obvious that nasa got the mountain perspective wrong in some of their silly Apollo photos .

Fisrt of all , neither Jack or David have seen the evidence I plan to post here ... Second of all , they will see it for the first time when you do ... Third of all , if they agree with me and want to use it for a study on Aulis , that would be great .

And finally , I can assure you that when you see this evidence you will NOT be laughing ... Tap dacing and inventing excuses maybe , but not laughing .

That is unless you think the proof that the Apollo photos are moonset studio fakes is a laughing matter !

When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment .

If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped .

Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source .

Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ??

Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him .

No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see !

Ok Duane, whatever, you and your masters know best....too bad none of you understand light and shadow....

Light is at his front, shadow is at his back...quibble until the cows come home, it still will not erase your ignorance of hte subject matter not the truth about White and Percy.

I understand that the light source is to his RIGHT front of the astronot and that the faked shadow is to his LEFT rear .... If you want to pretend that's being "ignorant of the subject matter ", then fine ... Continue to make a fool of yourself .

I am my own master ... No one thinks for me and no one ever will .. I make up my own mind as to what I perceive to be the truth .... On the other hand , it's quite evident who your "masters" are in this case ... The ones who faked Apollo .

Your lame , 'rebuttals' only prove one thing Lamson ... You can't refute Percy's evidence and you can't defend this phony Apollo photograph with it's faked shadow .

This is only a link to the suspicious photograph .

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC6roof.jpg

I do believe the fact that it was faked by the defenders of the official government LIE is in the link addy .. "wtc7LIES ".... "WTC6ROOF" .... Thank you .

And what web site can this picture be found on ?

I've read Aulis, it's a bunch of garbage that would only fool someone who knows nothing about apollo, space flight, and photography. Hrmm, who does that remind me of?

The last time I checked David Percy knew very much about Apollo , space flight and photography ... Hrmm , I can't imagine where you're getting your erroneous information from .

If you really believe what you say , then no wonder you think the Apollo photos are real ... You wouldn't recognize a scam if it jumped up and bit you on your unenlightened arse .

I doubt you have read anything but the nonsense posted on nasa disinformation sites such as clavius , etc ... So the real garbage is what is posted there by clowns like you and your pal Craig .

Anyone who has taken the time to read 'Dark Moon' has no doubt that the official Apollo record is a lie .

Don't pretend that photographs can't be altered or completely faked ... All you have to do is to look at the Apollo photos to see that .

Instead of continuing to bash Jack and his research , why don't you supply the source of where you got your suspicious photograph from ? ... Then we will all be able to better determine if it's real or not .

There are more if you would like to see them .... Or better yet , why not check out the Aulis site ?.... You might just learn something ... Like the TRUTH about the faked Apollo photography .

But then people like you don't really want to know the truth , do they ? ... It's much more fun to get with your closed minded pals and bash the crap out of the conspiracy "nutjobs" , right phunk ?

Yep, White and Percy have been exposed as dishonest and unable to understand even the most simple of photographic principals.

Right .... And that's why they get praise such as this ...

"A Masterclass in photo analysis."

Marcus Allen, UK Publisher Nexus magazine

"Absolutely fantastic! The best video on the Moon by far."

David Hatcher Childress author & publisher"

"I am sorry to say, I think that most of the book is true. I have friends here in Houston who work at NASA and some believe it [Dark Moon] to be true.

Fred Woods

HUFON Report"

"I have your documentary What Happened on the Moon and think it's by far the best one in exposing the Apollo hoax on every level. I have also read your book Dark Moon three times, and was amazed at the in-depth research you and your co-author Mary Bennett went into.

You both did an excellent job!

Duane Daman USA"

"I have bought both the video and book blowing the whistle on the potentially faked moon landings and am extremely impressed by both the evidence provided and the professional representation of the information. I found the video fascinating and have watched it several times. The more I do so the more I am convinced there is fact behind what you say and that in years to come the truth will be known. In addition, several of my friends have since purchased the tapes for their own viewing. A case well presented.

I. H. Hampshire UK "

"I was lucky enough to be sent a copy of your book DARK MOON. The book is in my view a masterpiece and everyone should really have the opportunity of reading this work. It succeeded, as far as I was concerned, in drawing together so many of the mysteries with which we are presented. Very well done.

S. Y. Portsmouth UK"

"Stunning! Blows apart the accepted version of Apollo"

Marcus Allen

UK Publisher

Nexus Magazine

Its pretty sad that their disinformation can spread and infect the minds of many innocents. Perhaps, in my small way I can direct those with open minds and a willingness to learn towards the path to the truth...and that path will never lead to White not Percy. Cling on to them for dear life Duane, and you can go down with their ship as well.

I hate to break the sad news to you craig , but the only people defending Apollo are nasa shills and a few gullible geeks on internet discussion forums , such as this one ... The rest of the world couldn't care less that nasa faked the Apollo photography .... So the only ship that's going down would be nasa's when the rest of the world finally does realize that they lied about where their 'moon' photos were really taken .

To those who actually UNDERSTAND the art and science of photography the Apollo photos do speak for themself....they speak the truth that they are genuine. Again, to those who actually have the capacity and knowlege to understand, the "anomalies" suggested by White, Percy and others have been proven wrong. That is a fact you will never be able to refute. All percy and WHite have proven is their total lack of photographic knowlege and the sad fact that they can fool the ignorant.

A pretty poor legacy if you ask me.

The anomalies in the Apollo photographs have not been proven wrong ... That's just the disinformation propaganda that is promoted on nasa shill sites , such as clavius and Bad Astronomy .

What Percy and White have proven is that the official Apollo photographic record is a fraud .... and the only one's ignorant of that fact are closed minded fools who can't see the truth of anything that goes against the majority , or what the government has brainwashed you to believe ..

Many of the Apollo photos speak the truth alright ... and what they say loud and clear is that they were faked on moonsets , using artificial lighting ..

So stay tuned craig because I have some new studies coming soon which will prove beyond a doubt that the Apollo 'Sun' was really a very big spotlight !

Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ??

Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him .

No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see !

It looks like the one's defending the official government version of 9/11 will do just about anything to pretend to win the argument .

Posted for Jack .

If the subject had been facing the light source his shadow would have been behind him , not to the left side of him .

The close up artificial light source is coming from his right front side and casting a shadow to his left rear side ...Look at the photo again ... and then try another rebuttal .

Falling debris ( no matter what time it did or didn't fall ) would not have caused explosions to go off in WTC 6 ( heard by witnesses on the scene ) , nor would it have created that massive crater and in the middle of the building either .

I rest my case .

And of course as a "professional " debunker of ALL Apollo hoax evidence , your main goal in life is to debunk the two biggest names involved in exposing the Apollo hoax , right Craig ?

These two conspiracy researchers are famous , " Mr. Light" from Jumpoff Place , Indiana and you're not ... Or as Jack likes to say , "you are a non-entity ".

The truth of all of this , is that you couldn't be more ridiculous if you tried ... You even had to run to the gullible Apollo defending geeks on shill Windley's disgrace of an Apollo Hoax forum , to get their approval of your silly study .

But the bottom line is this Lamson ... This ONE STUDY DOES NOT MAKE OR BREAK THE APOLLO HOAX EVIDENCE ... and you haven't stopped these gentlemen from exposiing nasa's lies by a long shot .

So stop claiming a victory you don't have and never will ... While it's true that most people fell for nasa's pretense of taking the Apollo photgraphs on the Moon , not everyone swallwed it ... We are millions and one day , God willing ..." THE TRUTH WILL OUT ", inspite of closed minded , game playing jerks like you .

White and Percy are not famous...imfamous is more like it. They are laughing stocks. Both have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be less than honest. That someone like you can be taken in by their disinformation is not suprising. Your blind faith speaks volumes about your ignorance and your inability to learn.

I had the foresight to have my work checked by my peers, and I did it in the light of day. You are a fine one to talk. Did you or did you not seek advice about some photo study you created from your masters ...hidden from pubic view...prior to publishing? Of course you did. Being a bit two-faced there Duane.

As to my study being 'silly" or not, neither you, White nor Percy has been able to attack it, nor will you be able. It is uninpeachable. You find it silly because it is beyond you.

What this one study will do is break White and Percy. In fact it already has. They are who this study has exposed. White is in tatters on the floor and Percy is in hiding. Who do they have left? Why only you of course and you are bumbling around in the dark...bouncing of walls because your eyes and mind are closed.

I hate to break this to you Duane for I fear it just might send you over the edge...the TRUTH IS OUT...Apollo was real.

With this one post of yours , you have finally shown everyone how trully delusional you really are ... You actually believe that with this ONE STUDY you have broken David Percy and Jack White's Apollo hoax evidence ??? ... Unbelievable !!

All your study has done is to show how obsessed and desperate you are to try to prove Jack White and David Percy wrong by any means possible .... <accusations removed by Moderator (Burton)>

The Apollo photos speak for themselves and they speak volumes ... They don't need Jack or David or me or any other hoax researcher to expose them for the fraud they are ... The anomalies in them are obvious and can not be refuted .... The official Apollo photographic record was faked , period ... and Percy and White , among others , have proven that sad fact .

News flash Lamson ... the only ones who are laughing stocks are nasa and the Apollo astro-NOTS for trying to pass off the phony Apollo photos as being taken on the Moon ... and of course the many fools like you , who defend them .

I never said the shadow in the snow picture may be faked .. I said without seeing the subject it would be impossible to tell if it was a match or not .

The whole point was to demonstrate the effect on shadows that a low sun angle can have (as well as perspective). There's a low sun angle in the Conrad photo - as well as the undeniable fact that the shadow is being cast onto a downslope, exaggerating the effect even more.

That's because it didn't match up with any part of the astronot's body .

You've yet to demonstrate that. I can't say for certain which parts of the body match up with which parts of the shadow, but that's due to lack of available information. IMO what we're seeing is the elongated shadow of part of the astronaut's boot. Drawing a straight line through the back of COnrad's right heel and the convergence point, and extending it towards the bottom right of the image, shows it comes close to intersecting the shadow, but not quite. That suggests the shadow of the heel is indeed outside the frame of the picture.

Oh brother ... I do believe I've heard everything now ... " IMO what we're seeing is the elongated shadow of part of the astronaut's boot "

Right ... and the reason there are no bootprints leading up to where Conrad is doing his little fly system dance is because he kicked over his own bootprints with moon dust !!

You can't 'win ' this one Dave , no matter how fast you tap dance around the fact that Conrad's shadow is NOT a match for the position of his body .

I took a walk tonight into the middle of the park in front of my house .. I used the light of a streetlamp on the sidewalk and went about 50 feet into the middle of the park , until my shadow was as elongated as the distance I travelled ... Then I turned sideways and bent my knee ... and guess what position my shadow was in ?

I don't think I have to tell you because you already know the answer ... It MATCHED THE POSITION OF MY BODY ... Just like Percy's corrected shadow matched the position of Conrad's body .

If you think I'm wrong , do that yourself ... or better yet , take a picture of a friend standing sideways to your camera on the beach with the Sun low in the sky and their shadow elongated , to see if you can match the shadow in the Apollo photo ... If you can match the Apollo shadow , then I will concede the argument .. If not , then you will need to admit ( if only to yourself ) that the shadow in the Apollo photo is a fake .

And of course as a "professional " debunker of ALL Apollo hoax evidence , your main goal in life is to debunk the two biggest names involved in exposing the Apollo hoax , right Craig ?

These two conspiracy researchers are famous , " Mr. Light" from Jumpoff Place , Indiana and you're not ... Or as Jack likes to say , "you are a non-entity ".

The truth of all of this , is that you couldn't be more ridiculous if you tried ... You even had to run to the gullible Apollo defending geeks on shill Windley's disgrace of an Apollo Hoax forum , to get their approval of your silly study .

But the bottom line is this Lamson ... This ONE STUDY DOES NOT MAKE OR BREAK THE APOLLO HOAX EVIDENCE ... and you haven't stopped these gentlemen from exposiing nasa's lies by a long shot .

So stop claiming a victory you don't have and never will ... While it's true that most people fell for nasa's pretense of taking the Apollo photgraphs on the Moon , not everyone swallwed it ... We are millions and one day , God willing ..." THE TRUTH WILL OUT ", inspite of closed minded , game playing jerks like you .

The photo was displayed on a photography forum thread under the title "Show Me Your Shadow" - you can see the photographer's comments in the thread itself. I see no reason to suspect why the photo may be faked. The photo shows that low shadow angles can make shadows of humans appear distorted.

I never said the shadow in the snow picture may be faked .. I said without seeing the subject it would be impossible to tell if it was a match or not .

Of course it is! If the shadow is elongated enough, then you won't see certain shadow features in the photo such as the angle of the knee etc.

Nice excuse, but I'm not buying it .

It was a "two for the price of one" - the yellow lines are from the original photo, the red ones correspond to Percy's added shadow. I couldn't say with any certainty which part of the shadow in the original matched up with a specific part of the astronaut's body -

That's because it didn't match up with any part of the astronot's body .

Some of the shadows were most likely pasted into the photos after the fact because it was obvious that the original shadows were produced using artificial lighting , would be my guess .... So they were covering their asses .

But inspite of all of nasa's hard work , some of the photo fakers turned out to be Whistle-Blowers and their photos slipped by nasa's quality control .

If the photo in the snow is suppossed to prove something , I'm afraid you missed the point ... Not seeing the subject creating the shadow , it would be impossible to tell if it is "correct" or not .

This is NOT a question of elongated shadow lengths ... It's a question of the shape and position of the shadow matching the subject ... and it doesn't in the Conrad photo .

I couldn't help but notice that you only did a vanishing point study on Percy's photo , but didn''t bother to do one on the Conrad Apollo photo ... Is there a reason for that ?

Back on topic then ... "Check my work please " on the Apollo hoax forum .

If Apollo hadn't been a hoax these clowns wouldn't have anything to do and possibly have nothing to live for eitherr .

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...5394&page=1

ROTF !!

Just as I thought ... Neither one of you can defend nasa's faked photo with it's incorrect shadow .

All Dave has done is to draw some lines on the photo as usual , and then pretend he has refuted Percy's corrected shadow analysis .

You fail to understand what the lines represent. Each line joins a point on a shadow and the corresponding point on an object that created the shadow. Since light travels in straight lines, we know that each line must pass through the location of the lightsource (if the photo is pointing downsun, they will intersect where the shadow of the camera lens is).

Percy's attempt at drawing in a shadow is refuted, regardless of your inability to understand the refutation.

And all you have done is to preach and give photography lessons .

You are the professional photographer , so this should be a piece of cake for you to prove ... All you have to do is to take your expensive camera out in the sunshine , find a person to stand in the position of Conrad on the moonset and then see if you can get a shadow to match the original Apollo one .

I've learnt quite a lot from Craig's photo analyses. I should do: he's a professional photographer and I'm not!

Like I told Dave ... What you will get is a shadow which will be a closer match to Percy's corrected version , than to the faked Apollo one .

But if you are too afraid to take the shot , then I will borrow my friends digital camera and take a picture that will prove you both wrong .

Make sure you have the sun angle correct (22 - 23 degrees), and cast the shadow onto a downslope of a similar angle to the one in the photo.

While you're there, you can take a photo to prove to yourself who is right about the "offset shadow" issue.

You do realize that your own study debunked the original Apollo shadow , don't you ? ... Percy's shadow was placed right over the original faked shadow ... So if he is wrong , then so were the photo fakers who were more interested in Whistle-Blowing than getting the vanishing point or the shape of the shadow correct .

Sounds like a job for a professional photographer like Craig ... I bet he could fake a shadow to match the phony Apollo piccy in a heart beat ... O then , maybe not , since he has refused the challenge .