Duane Daman

On the rock in the phony A17 photo .... It's called the "double dasher" ... and so far , not even Dave's games has managed to reproduce it .

bump

If you haven't seen any hoax evidence that's convincing , it only means that you are either blind or haven't looked at the evidence with an open mind .

The Apollo myth is unraveling right in front of everyone's eyes .... At least those who aren't too afraid to look at the truth of it ..

You spend way too much time hanging out with your back slapping buddies , on misleading forums like clavius and Bad Astronomy , to understand this ...The guys who run those sites only have one weapon left in their arsenal , and that would be character assassination of those who are busy exposing the Apollo fraud .

I was only kidding when I said I would return to the conspiracy sites ... but then subtle humor always did seem to go right over your thick skull .

In fact , I have discovered in researching Apollo , that the best proof of it being faked was supplied by nasa themselves .... I just got finished watching a couple of nasa's new DVD collections ..... 'The Apollo Collection ' and 'Men on the Moon' ... and after watching this nasa footage of the alleged moon landings , I am even more convinced than ever , that the entire Apollo Program was a total scam ..

I compared the real space missions , such as John Glen's Friendship 7 flight in LEO , to the bogus and embarrassing footage of the Apollo missions , with their faked still photography ... and the difference was astounding !

One thing I noticed right away was that the audio transmissions between Glen and mission control were filled with static and also a delay ... Two things which were completely missing from all of the Apollo voice transmissions ... And as Glen orbited the Earth , many different tracking stations located around the world , picked up his voice as others were losing it , as it faded out of range .... I don't remember this being the case with Apollo as they orbited the Earth and then allegedy went into a trans lunar trajectory ..

Apollo 1 couldn't even get their radios to work correctly between two buildings , yet we are suppossed to believe that Houston was able to communicate with an Apollo space craft , 240,000 miles out into the cosmic radiation of deep space , on the radioactive lunar surface , with NO DELAYS , NO STATIC , NO INTERFERENCE and CRYSTAL CLEAR , INSTANTANEOUS REPLIES every time they talked !?!? .... Right .... But you want everyone to believe this is just hand waving and conjecture.

If you ask me , it looks like the pro Apollo evidence is based on rank bad science .

LOL ... And you claim to be an expert in what ? .. Debunking the faked Apollo photography by pretending it's real ?

Even when the sun is not being eclipsed , it doesn't look like a close up artificial spotlight ...That only occurs on the Apollo moon sets .

Why don't we wait for Jarrah's next video to come out before we decide who has destroyed what ?

All Dave has proven is that he knows how to put sticks in the sand and operate a video camera ... This latest little demonstration looks nothing like the A17 Apollo photo in any respect ... I don't see any stick , or anything else for that matter , casting a double shadow , like the rock did in the Apollo photo .

It's not my problem that you don't realize they were faked ... Most people go along with the status quo or follow a huge lie because they don't have the ability to think outside the box or even think for themselves .

The only reason you believe the Apollo moon landings were real is because the powers that be have led you to believe so ... and the only reason more people in the scientific communtiy haven't come forward to blow the whistle on nasa's Apollo debacle , is fear of the obvious repercussions that would inevitably occur if they did .

Oh good grief ... Not more silly looking diagrams !

Why don't we make this real simple for everybody concerned ?... Jack is right and you are also .

When Jack made the claim that an astronot , or photographer could not stand next to his own shadow , that was correct if the photographer was facing directly forward and the camera was mounted to his chest ... but what Jack failed to take into consideration was that the astonot's ( in a few of the studies anyway ) were turned to the side , as evident by the shadow , with their elbows bent , and therefore were holding the camera ... That would allow for an off center shadow ... But probably not as off center as evident in some of those phony Apollo photos .. So the extreme degree of off centered shadows , could possibly be accounted for by cropping the image as well .

So in this case, Jack is correct in theory , but didn't allow for the fact that the camera was removed from the chest mount and the astronot had turned his body .

If Jack reads this and agrees with me , then I hope he will say so ... If not, then maybe all of you jerks will stop beating a dead horse and find something else to focus on , in your obsessive rantings .

Yes I do ... and you do realize that Nixon was president when nasa faked the Apollo moon landings , right ?

And that has to be one of the most non funny and lame rebuttals coming from you yet .

If I sound "self serving" then I must be hanging around too many of nasa's self serving sites and BS pro Apollo forums .

I guess I better get back to the conspiracy sites then , where at least I can read the truth about how and why nasa faked the moon landings.

I will send your reply on to Jarrah ... but I think you might have to wait for his next video for all of this to be properly answered .

Then all of you "gentlemen" can perform a new tap dance for that one too !

I am going to ask Bernice to post an image here from an Apollo photo,

showing a large piece of lighting equipment, consisting of a large reflector

pan, bulb, and likely a scrim, which softens the detail.

File number? You figure it out. You guys never do any research, so why

should I help you? There are plenty of clues in the image to help you.

Have fun.

Jack

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

I KNOW what to expect of you. Same old xxxx.

And I don't expect you to do anything. Do as you please. I don't give a damn what you do.

Just ignore me, I don't care.

Or just go away.

Or tell us what kind of lighting setup is shown...what reflector...what bulb...what size?

Jack

Jack ...Unfortunately things like Craig Lamson never go away , as their only purpose and joy in life is attempting to make people they don't like as miserable as they are .

"Since there are clear differences, a far more likely proposition is lens flare caused by a very bright light source. The sun maybe? "

Yeah , or maybe caused by a huge arc light on the moon set , pretending to be the sun .

I was just having some fun here with the joke pictures ... but I agree that there is no reason to copy my entire post to reply .

Craig ... Even though you have never posted your age here , I assumed by looking at your personal profile picture that you would have been old enough to have voted for "Ticky Dick " ... but if not , then I guess that just leaves the dummy Bush that got your vote .

I have admitted that I don't know the technical aspects of photography but Jarrah White does and so does Jack White ... So I would assume the only reason the Apollo propangandists continue to character assassinate both of these gentlemen, is because they fear their ability to expose the Apollo photography was the fraud it so obviously is .

I sent this thread to Jarrah so could see what was being said about him here ... Here is his reply .

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

Accusation :

"Well Duane, Jarrah has had ample opportunity on his Youtube forum to admit his error ( which is substantial and has been proven wrong with uninpeachable evidence) and yet all he has done is to attempt to shift the argument AWAY from his error. The only honesty in question at this point is his."

Reply :

Tell these gentlemen that I will address these issues come MoonFaker Exhibit C, in the mean time, they can address the issues as to why I can't get the shadows to converge at a near right angle with Greer's camera.

And once again spoken like a ... oh nevermind .

Refusing to answer my question I see ... So that must mean you did vote for that paranoid , delusional freak ... Well, you know what they say about birds of a feather and all that ...

Hey , since you voted for ole' '' Tricky Dick " , I just bet you voted for that dangerous dummy Bush too ! ... I do believe I have found a picture of you watching him give one of his 'brilliant' off the cuff speeches on TV ....

Say , since that dummy thinks that nasa is going to 'return to the moon' in 2020 , I found a super duper astroNOT spacesuit that he can wear to make the trip along with our new 'heros' to be ... I think he looks great in it , don't you ?

Of course if he and the new nasaNOTS really do try to get anywhere near the real Moon , they will end up glowing like a Las Vegas neon sign , when they land on the radioactive lunar surface ...That is if they somehow manage to stay alive traveling through the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts .

Oh , to answer your question about that studio fake A17 photo ... I guess it would be that weird 90 degree shadow angle on one rock and the double dasher shadow on another rock , which makes it look as though a second light source was used for that particular photo shoot .

And once AGAIN spoken like a true narcissist ! ... You people just have no sense of humor at all , do you ? ... Especially when you are the joke .

Oh, and speaking of narcissists , I bet you voted for ole' "Tricky Dick" Nixon too didn't you ? ... You remember him don't you ? .. He's the criminal who gave the go ahead for nasa to fake the moon landings ... Then he made that famous self serving phone call from the White House to the moonset ! ... And he got to speak to our heros , Buzz Lightyear and George Jetson !

A researcher has enhanced some Apollo photos and

come up with images of the huge distinctive light bulbs

used in the moonset fixtures. Maybe Mr. Light will

recognize the type of bulb from its shape. Bet he won't

tell us though.

Jack

Jack ... I'm glad to hear that you will have some new studies up on Aulis soom .. I'm looking forward to that .... Maybe I can use them in my next YouTube video ...

Meanwhile , here's a new little game for all of those are still living in the land of geekdom by the river called denial .

I just posted this on another thread here, but for some reason Mr. Light didn't seem to want to play .

(Image removed by Evan Burton; Reason: not relevant, also posted on another thread)

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

Cliffs opinion is simply not grounded in fact, like most of what you post Duane.

Spoken once again like a true narcissist , like most of what you post Craig .

My opinions are grounded in fact ... It's a fact that Apollo was a hoax and that the Apollo photography is fradulent .

Just not in your fantasy photo world , Mr. Photo God !

I agree with any of nasa's positions which provide evidence that the Apollo Program was a hoax .

Bravo boys ! ... That little performance would have to be some of your best tap dancing yet !

Jarrah is very busy at the moment but if he has made a mistake with any of his analysis , he will admit it because he is an honest person , unlike most of you .

So while we are all waiting for Jarrah's reply , and since you are all so fond of playing games so much ( especially the character assassination one ) I thought I would bring this new game to your attention ... I do believe it was made for people just like you ! ... Oh , and it comes with sound effects too ... Every 30 seconds you will hear ....

" Bhaaaaaa " !

Jarrah's rebuttal .

"Because of the recent flame wars, as well as Greer's retraction of his original story that his camera was zoomed out, I thought about getting access to the very camera he used and see what results I could come up with. Unfortunately, the F10 was no longer available, but luckily the newer model has the same 8-24mm lens as its older brother.

And so, our old friend the ice cream bucket returns for its second photo shoot. As well as some various other test photos with my and other peoples shadows.

And here the results:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0007.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0008.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0009.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0010.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0011.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0012.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0013.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0014.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0015.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0016.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0017.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0018.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0019.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0020.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0022.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0023.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0024.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0025.jpg

Please note, that all these pictures were taken with the lens zoomed out, except for numbers 0015 and 0016, which were slightly zoomed in. And in the driveway photos, the registration plate on my car has been censored.

These were taken using the exact same lens used on the Fuji F10, I'm sure you're familiar with Greer's beach photo, so let's hear what Greer has to say about my photography. "

Jarrah

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

I did agree that the shadow experiment made with the astronot doll was a close match for the phony A15 photo .

I also made the claim that the shadow looked backwards in the A15 photo , as it didn't match the subject it was suppossed to belong to .. Therefore the A15 photo was most likely taken for Apollo using a similar small scale model set up .

Then I made the claim that if the photo had really been taken on the moon in the sunlight on a flat surface as was the case in this particular photo ( nice try with the wavy shadows Evan ) , then the shadow would have matched that of the astronot , and not appear to be upright and backwards , while he was leaning forwards in the opposite direction ... As for posting proof of what a real person in sunlight would look like here , I wouldn't waste my time , as you all would just play a game with that also .

I do find it really funny though , that everyone else who has seen this particular photo , can see that the shadow is anomalous ... It's only the game playing Apollo defenders on this forum and of course the game playing Apollo defenders on the UM , who refuse to acknowledge that the shadow doesn't match the astronot and that the photo screams of whistleblowing .

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

Here are Jarrah's rebuttals to Dave and his photo analysis.

"When I put my MoonFaker series up on Youtube, Greer and Windley's friends griped about whether or not I had the same focal length as the astronauts (I did). I knew from day one when I uploaded "Teachers & Cameras" that they'd try and pull something out of their hat to save face, it seems I was right: that's why I was sure to include Jay Windley's Hasselblad image.

Windley's photo appears right in the middle of Part 2.

It was taken using the same photographic equipment used during Lunar EVA, interestingly, Greer makes no mention of it in his latest tap dance. The reason is obvious, Greer's Fuji F10 angle-of-view is clearly considerably more wide than Windley's Hasselblad image. For obvious reasons svector refuses to discuss this, and it seems Greer wont touch it either.

Why don't you ask him yourself: if Greer's angle-of-view is the same as that of the Hasselblad, why is it clearly wider than Windley's angle-of-view? Remember, Windley's shot was taken using the said Hasselblad."

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

"Another thing that they refuse to comment on, aside from the inconsistencies between the two angles of view, is the fact that when complaining about me interviewing a visual art teacher they won't comment on the fact that their best friend chooses to compare the angle of view of Apollo photographs, with that seen in Raphael's School of Athens. Both Greer and svector loved shoving Jenny Heller's position as an art teacher in my face, until they realized their best friend Windley compared photography with art.

Neither of them mentioned visual art teachers again."

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

"I think for me, Windley's photograph is a rebuttal enough.

Ralph Rene once said, the trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling. Initially, Greer claimed his angle-of-view was the same as that of the Hasselblad, now he's claiming it was narrower. It's easy to prove both claims wrong when comparing it to an actual Hasselblad image, such as Windley's which I've used in my newest film. Windley took it in the hopes of disproving the converging shadows argument, but in doing so failed to reproduce the converge in AS17-136-20744. It's no wonder Zig Zag Productions refused to show the original Apollo 17 photo.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...yHasselblad.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ws/shadow01.jpg

Compare the Hasselblad image Windley feebly used to try and disprove the shadows evidence, with the photo Greer now wants us to believe was taken using a narrower angle-of-view. With Greer's claim's in mind, why does the angle-of-view seen in Greer's photograph appear wider than that seen in Windley's Hasselblad image?

Ironically, in their efforts to disprove the evidence, they have ultimately confirmed it. Understandably, this is the one subject that both Greer and his friend svector hate to discuss, when up against that brick wall.

That's my rebuttal, short and sweet. Feel free to use it."

Jarrah

The point the author was making in that part of the article I posted here , was that the Apollo lunar modules could not possibly have technically done what nasa claimed they did in July of 1969 ... It would have been highly unlikely that nasa engineers could have corrected the numerous technical problems in so short amount of time .

I guess Peter either missed that point , or didn't bother to read the entire article from the link provided .

Since there is so little room for all of the various political conspiracies , then maybe having one just for the Apollo Hoax would be a good idea ... That way , it won't bump the more important , current topics off of the front page ... and those who aren't interested in this subject won't have to be annoyed by it anymore .

Maybe one of you can take this suggestion to John Simkin to see what he might suggest ....Or , if he wants me to stop posting about Apollo on the Education Forum , that will be fine also .

This article made these claims ...

"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. THE LUNAR SURFACE ITSELF IS RADIOACTIVE !

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "BOTH ARE WORSE ."

Thus ... Cockroach , sizzle , frying pan ... That was an analogy, not a direct quote from the article .... So go brush up on your comprehension skills Matt and Evan ...

As for Dave , it's too bad you don't moderate all of your posts ... Especially since so little of what you post is the truth .