Duane Daman

Just as I thought ... You can't refute the evidence that Jack and I posted here about the APOLLO 'SUN' really being a BIG SPOTLIGHT WITH A LIGHT BULB IN THE MIDDLE OF IT , so you resort to your typical "handwaving " claims about the off side shadows ...

Jack's new study explained it and proved it .. and it's not his problem or mine that you refuse to accept it .

How about looking at the photos of the FAKE APOLLO SUN ... and then , close your blind eyes, put your fingers in your deaf ears , and continue to pretend that the ridiculous Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon .

Emperical proof means scientific proof ... Jack has provided it in his study and David Percy agrees with him completely.

Here is David's answer to you , via e-mail to me .

..............................

Duane,

You may most certainly use the article and/or info elsewhere.

I have looked briefly at the forum links. Personally, I have no time for these people, but I think you will find that the point about the photographers’ shadows now been well and truly dealt with in the last study at:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html

Sorry about the typo – now fixed.

Best wishes,

David

......................

So there's your reply ... Not only does David agree with Jack , but he has seen these posts on the EF before and wouldn't waste his time defending his work with dishonest , nasty game players like you .

I don't have the time to cipher through those ridiculous audio transmissions on the ALSJ ... If you want to hear the bogus , overlapping , no delay transmissions , then buy nasa's DVD's ' Men on the Moon and the 'Apollo Collection ' ...

Dave ... I think you completely missed my point ... In the audio transmissions I heard , which were taken directly from the original nasa recordings , with NO editing done , there was not even a two second delay ... The astronots answered Houston , immediately .... And like I stated before ... there are more delays heard on the news , coming from Bagdad , than there was allegedly coming from 240,000 miles away in deep space ...

There was no static , no delay and the transmissions were crystal clear ... Completelty unlike the audio transmissions that came from nasa's other missions , which all took place in low earth orbit !

Why would the transmissions coming from the nearness of LEO be filled with static and delays , while those allegedly coming from the moon , have no static or delay at all ? ...

It's a real simple answer ... because they were not really coming from the moon , they were coming from much closer ... Like a moon set right here on Earth .

Lamson ... You can pretend to laugh all you want , but yes ... you are very much afraid of men like Jack White and David Percy because not only do they have millons of people who agree with their photo analysis , they have both proven beyond any doubt , that the Apollo photography was faked .

Kevin .... The only thing your video proved is that like Greer , you kow how to operate a video camera .

Evan ... The YouTube video you posted here has not refuted any of David Percy's photographic evidence , which has proven that the Apollo photos and videos are studio fakes ...

svector's Lunar Legacy series is nothing more than a bunch of nasa's cobbled together faked footage of a missons that never got anywhere near the moon .

This has been proven by Bart Sibrel and David Percy , and no amount of nasa's new smoke and mirrors routine is going to change the fact that the Apollo photography was forged .

Lamson ... Your opinion of David Percy , Jack White and Jarrah White is not only typical coming from someone with your pro Apollo agenda , but predictable ... Don't feel sorry for those who know the truth about the Apollo hoax ... Feel sorry for yourself and those who have been duped like you have, by nasa ... You are so blinded by your own narrow minded mind set , that you are incapable of seeing the truth , even when it is right in front of your blind eyes .

If you didn't hear any then you didn't go the the ALSJ , because every video there has examples of faked audio transmissions , with no proper delay time between Houston and the astronots .

Or you can buy nasa's DVD collection , 'Men on the Moon' ( teehee ) and the 'Apollo Collection' and listen to the audio transmissions with no delay in them at all .

You can also view the cheesy looking special effects where nasa was trying to make it look as though the LM was flying over the lunar surface ... I literally laughed out loud when I saw that blue screen imaging silliness !

I am arguing my position and your video proves nothing ... Or maybe I missed the off side astronot shadows in it ...

Jack proved his point ... You and Lamson haven't ... Though I suspect we are all going to see some of his contortionist photos posted here very soon ! ... LOL

The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here .

Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos .

Great, just make sure you use a nice Hasselblad camera, 60mm lens, mounted on your chest, ... and make sure there is a reseau plate in front of the flim gate.

Your men Jack White and David Percy say this is the only way to test these sorts of things, so make sure you follow thier instructions....you don't want your debunking, "debunked" by Jack White now do you?

You obviously have confused the offside shadow studies , with the fake sun studies ... No Hassie with a chest mount is needed to take a photo of the sun and a spotlight .... Any camera can prove that the Apollo 'sun' was a spotlight ... and can prove that the real sun never made an appearence in any of the phony Apollo moon set piccys .

AS12-46-6765

Kazimierz Ozóg noticed an interesting aspect of this photo from the Apollo 12 record. He considers that this is unlikely to be the sun, as surely it would be so bright as to burn out totally white. After darkening the image it appeared to him to be an artificial light source. See his enhanced study below.

AS12-46-6765 enhanced close up

This recent finding has very serious implications. It again suggests that the 'sun' in the Apollo photographs may not have been the sun at all, but a large, artificial light source. This possibility was first postulated in DARK MOON and the video production What Happened on the Moon?

And as a Post Script, Jack White has enhanced a further version (see below) from another image taken during the same Apollo mission.

Jack ... I know he's a very busy man and probably not the kind to want to have to waste any of his time mixing it up with lowlifes like Lamson ... but I felt he should know what was being posted here about him anyway .

I hope you don't mind me posting your studies here ... I know it doesn't do any good , but at least you try to enlighten the closed minded fools who continue to defend the faked Apollo photography .

David just posted one of my quotes on his web site and is helping me with a project I have been working on about the faked Apollo photos ... He also gave me his permission to use his new ' Dust to Dust' evidence in my new video on YouTube ...He is a throughly nice fellow and I am very grateful that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to work with me .

Wasting more bandwidth I see ... You don't have to copy my posts to post your hateful replies... I will know who you're addressing by the despicable words you use ... Either Jack or me .

Speaking of u-tubers and learning things .. you should watch some of the Apollo hoax videos there ... The CT guys are doing a bang up job exposing nasa's scam there ... Millions of people visit that site , so it's the best place to expose the Apollo hoax ....

David Percy has his hoax evidence on videos there as well , and I haven't seen anyone yet who was able to refute it ... They pretend to , like you do ... but then what they post is nothing bluster and bulls*it ,... just like what you post here .

Go to the ALSJ and listen to the videos of the astro-actors pretending to be on the moon ... You will find plenty of examples there .

I posted my opinion about this yesterday , in case you missed it ... and after reading Jack's emperical evidence , I agree with him ... and please stop with the "handwaving" crap ... That expression is what the Bad Astronomy geeks use when they can't refute the hoax evidence and don't have a real argument .

As for David Percy , I highly doubt he would post Jack's photographic evidence on his web site unless he agreed with it .

I sent him these links with your challenge here ... We will have to see if he has the time or interest in posting his own evidence here .. I warned him how ugly it got here because of you , but then he will be able to see that for himself .

Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ?

You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true .

I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana .

OH PLEASE GET PERCY HERE! He's the guy who ran away from the debate at his own website when the going got rough! Percy does not have the balls to debate in an open forum!

As to you Duane, we all know for you its about belief, which is all you have considering your ignorance. The problem is this is NOT about belief, its about cold hard facts grounded in science. You are the perfect mark for hucksters like Percy....

I don't make claims Duane, I present uninpeachable emperical evidence...just like I have in the offset shadow case. WHite and Percy are trying to spin their way out of being wrong by posting red herrings. That will all be exposed very soon, along with White and Percy!

So again...please get Percy here. Lets see if he can stand on his own two feet and debate in the open. I'm not holding my breath.

Lamson ... You need to understand that not everyone enjoys debating closed minded , aggressive , hateful , rude , dishonest , people like you ... The real reason you get so nasty about all of this and treat conspiracy researchers like Jack White and David Percy with so little respect , is because men like them frighten you ... and the reason they frighten you is because they have toppled your little world of make believe and your little national pride fantasy of Americans ever having walked on the moon ...

He is not a huckster and I am not ignorant .... and you character assassination of everyone you disagree with is quite pathetic .

Oh , and Kevin ... Your little pitiful "phunkadelic" video proves nothing ... Jack is not wrong , you are and so is your pal Lamson .

Jack has already presented his evidence in his new study I posted here .

As for Dr. David Groves , I don't know him but I could ask him about this ... as for David Percy , I just e-mailed him to see if he is interested in debating this with you .

Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ?

You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true .

I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana .

Oh , I almost forgot Mr. PhotoGod ... Silly me , what was I thinking ? ... You're the ONLY photographer on the freakin planet ! .. Or at least that's what you believe , in your delusional , narcissistic mind .

I will be happy to post all of their evidence here which proves that Apollo was a photographic fraud ... Thank you for the offer .... I will post it tomorrow .

The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here .

Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos .

Sorry Dave , but in the voice recordings I just listened to , there isn't even a two second delay ... In fact , they even talked over each other at times .

There was noise , static and loads of delays in the Mercury and Gemini missions ... Yet NONE in Apollo ones ... Landing on the moon with the rocket thrust engines right beneath where they were standing , would have generated tons of noise and vibration in the astronots voices , yet there was never any sound at all .

Even Cernan and Bean couldn't manage to get their stories straight about the noise or lack of , when they allegedly landed the same type of craft on the lunar surface ... Bean went along with the voice recordings , obviously done in simulation, and told Sibrel it was completely QUIET ...While Cernan forgot about those bogus recordings done in the sims , and claimed it was VERY LOUD .

Why don't you face the facts ? ... There is NO WAY the voice transmissions from Apollo could have been coming from the moon ... There is more delay in a TV news broadcast today, coming from the middle east , than there ever was during the Apollo debacle .

Well I might have a "lack of knowledge " about photography but David Percy , Dr. David Groves and Jack White don't ... and they all have empirically proven that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes , regardless of what you choose to believe , and inspite of the character assassinations hurled at them by those who continue to defend the bogus official Apollo record .

Attempting to minimize the hoax evidence and discredit those who have exposed the hoax with your insults , is just part of the game the Apollo propangandists play .

I have said this before, but the future of manned space flight will prove once and for all that Apollo was a hoax .

I should have waited for Jack to explain this ... He has simplified this so hopefully all of you will understand it now and then LET IT GO .

I don't think Jack minds me posting this here ... I expect Lamson , Greer , and West to play a new game with this , but what else is new ?

Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved.

We thank Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification.

Of course it's not the edge of the sun itself ... It's perfectly round and smooth because it's the edge of a huge spotlight ... If being over exposed is your rebuttal , then you both need to return to the "Bad Astronomy School of how to Debunk the Moon Hoax Evidence" , cuz you are both doing a lousy job of it .

The 'sun' looks like that in ALL of the faked Apollo photos ... and even when it does look smaller , it's only because they used a different size spotlight on the moon set .

Multiple light sources used in the Apollo photography is not a "theory" , but rather a fact ... and this fact has been proven to be the case in many of the phony studio photos .

I just watched the DVD's and I listened to every word the Apollo actors spoke to Houston ... Plus I have listened to numerous bogus Apollo voice recordings before , and there is absolutely no delay or static in any of them .

In fact , the audio trnasmissions from each mission of them 'landing on the moon' , are so clear that you could have heard a pin drop .... and with all that rocket engine thrust right underneath their feet too !!!

Nope , not even a vibration in the asto-actors voices as they ascended onto the moon ball simulator .

You restrict yourself to the bootprint study , because just as your mentors Phil Plait and Jay Windley do , you only bother to answer selective questions with selective answers ... Who do you people think you're fooling , besides yourselves ?

How about addressing the rest of Jack's new findings ? ... Or hasn't Phil and Jay dreamed up any good 'rebuttals' for them yet ? ... I guess the old nasa think tank is a little slow to react lately , with all of the numerous hoax evidence to attempt to 'debunk' .

Would you like to try these ?

.................................

A familiar Apollo 17 image

AS17-134-20384

However, the version shown below, enhanced by Kazimierz Ozóg, is not the image located in the Apollo Archive and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but can be found at http://grin.hq.nasa.gov, it is catalogued there as GPN-2000-001137.jpg.

AS17-137-20384

For some reason the black area immediately surrounding the astronaut is a full, rich black, whereas the background to the flag and the earth has a much noisier, grainier black ‘sky’ – graduated in density.

In What happened on the Moon? it was suggested that it would have been difficult for a photographer to take the above picture. This conclusion was reached because in the Apollo 17 TV recording of the EVA, the astronaut appears unable to get down low enough to take this picture at such an upwards angle.

So is AS17-134-20384 a composite image? Was the flag superimposed over a picture of an astronaut, or an astronaut combined with a shot of a flag and its reflection? Jack White has also investigated this image – please see http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.html

Another example of ‘blacking out’, in this case crude black retouching around an object in an Apollo photo is shown below:

AS11-44-6581 LM supposedly in flight (enhanced)

Retouching any black regions (as in the above example) means making an area solid black. This is done sometimes to conceal the fact that different blacks might show up in a montage. It is also a technique deployed when unwanted objects in the background need to be concealed that may be faintly visible 'through' the black.

If done correctly, the technician should follow the edge of an object exactly. But if the subject contains fine detail, including flares and contact probes attached to the feet, as in the case above, it is easier and simpler to just ‘skirt around’ a section.

See also studies by Jack White at http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_14a.html.

You mean you don't even know what the real sun looks like when it's photographed ? ... Tell you what then ... Why don't you go out and take some photos of the real sun and see if you can get any to look like the one's in the Apollo photos ?

Maybe Dave will even loan you his camera to take the shots .... Then you can post them here and let's see if you can recreate that double shadow .. Oops , I mean that 'real' Apollo 'sun' .