Duane Daman

And once again ... " Me thinks thou dost protest too much " ... You really do get nasty when your precious little myth of Apollo gets picked apart , don't you Craig ? ... Your only recourse is characater assassination ... First Jack , then me and now Jarrah ... Try not to be so obvious in your fear of those who can and will prove that Apollo was a monumental hoax on every level .

Go take a photo of yourself out in the sunlight Craig and see if you can get the same results that Dave's friend did with the astronot dummy and the artificial light .

Oh , and while you're doing this new little experiment , try not to bend yourself into a contortionist this time !

Good grief Craig , the only word you know how to use in defending your lost cause is "ignorant " ?

Just because you have taken it upon yourself to defend the bogus Apollo photography , doesn't mean that those who are able to expose it for the phony crap it really is , don't know anything about photography .

Jarrah exposed Dave's dishonest games in his video ... and if I get his permsion to post his rebuttal to Dave here , I will do so .

Oh, and the Hasslebald field of view and the Cannon field of view are not the same ... Thanks for clarifying that ... I do believe that was Jarrah's point all along .

GENTLEMEN!

Discussion about what happened on YouTube or elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion.

Discuss such matters via PM or off this board. First and final warning!

Duane,

1. Let me make sure I understand your position with absolute clarity: you claim that the images produced by Pericynthion and passed to Dave regarding the Apollo 15 shadow are faked? That it is not a true representation of the given conditions?

2. I'd encourage you to post your own photographic evidence here on the board. I'd request that you show the setup (e.g. what light angle, simulated equipment the subject wore, etc). If it is indeed as you say, then we can probably arrange a more accurate recreation of the event in order to determine what is actually happening.

My position is this ..

1. A friend of Dave's tried to bail him put of a jam concerning the A15 anomalous shadow discussion , which Dave was losing ... So to get the shadow to match the phony Apollo photo , he recreated the scene by using a small astronot doll and close up artificial lighting .

2. His shadow experiment came very close to the shadow in the A15 photo because nasa obviously created their photo by the same means .. They used a small scale astronot manikin on a moon set, with close up artificial lighting .

3. I don't need to make any photos of me standing in the sun because all anyone has to do is go outside on a sunny day , lean forward on any terrain they choose , and they will see that their shadow MATCHES their position .

Conclusion ... The experiment proved that nasa used a small scale moon set and an astronot manikin , with a close up artificial light source ... and that is the reason the shadow in the A15 photo matched the experiment ..

In other words , the experiment blew up in both of their faces because it proved my point instead of theirs .. which is ; The whistleblower A15 photo is a fake .

Oh , nice tap dancing Dave ... I do believe this would be one of your best performances yet .

I will very much enjoy watching Jarrah slice and dice your new dance into little tiny pieces .

*sigh* is right .

This article has nothing to do with my needing to " brush up on my reading comprehension "... I thought we were supossed to stop with the insults on this forum ... As a moderator you should be enforcing this rule , not breaking it ..

I understood the article just fine ... This NASA scientist wrote an article which just blew the entire Apollo myth of manned lunar landings apart ( whether he realized it or not ) ... If you read the article again , you will realize that any astronaut attempting to stroll around on the radioactive lunar surface, with the lack of protection the Apollo crews had , would have sizzled like a coackroach in a hot frying pan .

For someone who has always endorsed NASA sites , have you now changed your mind because this space scientist doesn't agree your opinion on this ?

And now instead of believing what this renowned NASA scientist has to say about the dangerous levels of radiation on the moon , you now want me to ignore his evidence and refer to some scientists in Europe ?

How ludicrous .

Peter ... With all due respect , you don't have a clue what you're talking about ... My information doesn't come from fly by night conspiracy central sites .. only some of it does ! .. LOL

Here is your question ;

"What makes the surface of the moon so full of radiation? Are you confusing radiation and contamination? The moon is not radioactive as your post states, but if some sort of radiation is emmitted in space, the surface of the moon may be subjected to this same radiation, to the same exposure, but it is not literally radioactive. Where does this theory come from?"

And here is my answer ;

I read mostly scientific sites , and the lunar surface is completely radioactive ... I know how everyone likes to object to my copying articles , but when I write something on my own , some of the members here choose not to believe what I write ... So here's where I got my information about the amount of radiation on the moon .

RADIOACTIVE MOON

"How much radiation awaits lunar colonists? A new NASA mission aims to find out.

September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.

Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

Above: The surface of the Moon is exposed to space radiation.

According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

To carefully measure and map the Moon's radiation environment, NASA is developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), this scout will pave the way for future human missions not only by measuring space radiation, but also by hunting for frozen water and mapping the Moon's surface in unprecedented detail. LRO is a key part of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration Program, managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center.

One of the instruments onboard LRO is the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER).

"Not only will we measure the radiation, we will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic particles penetrate and interact with the human body," says Spence, who is the Principal Investigator for CRaTER.

By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.

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."

Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

Right: The distribution of ground-level neutron radiation around the Moon's south pole. "Hot spots" are red; cool spots, blue. Credit: Lunar Prospector. [More]

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe. "

This damaging evidence against the reality of the Apollo manned missions came from a NASA site !!! .. How about that ?!?!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax?

It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity.

I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.

This is a forum for POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES .... Apollo was a POLITICAL CONSPIRACY .. Therefore it belongs here on this forum ...

Copying and pasting articles is NOT trolling , but what Len Colby does , IS !

When the only thing one adds to a discussion , are insults to the one who posted the topic , instead of discussing that topic , THAT would be considered TROLLING !

Peter ... If you are not interested in the Apollo moon hoax , then I would suggest you not read the threads which discuss it ... This forum is big enough for ALL conspiracy subjects ... There are many which don't interest me , so I don't read them and I don't criticize them either ... It's as simple as that .

Well I sure am glad to hear that you have some kind of social life Dave ... I was beginning to think that the only thing you ever did was to obsess about the imaginary Apollo moon landings and how to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ... LOL

Speakimg of buffoonery , you sure have posted quite a bit of that on YouTube lately ... Jarrah merely defended his reputation againt the untruthful things you were saying about him and your contact information with his photo analysis source , Jenny Heller .... Seems like her story didn't quite match yours ... Imagine that ?

It also seems that your little picture on the beach , which you have now also displayed on other forums , is not quite what you cracked it up to be ... Something about using a wide angle lens to get 90 degree shadows , all the while knowing that the Apollo Hasslebald cameras didn't have the same type of lens you used , and therefore could in no way have taken that photo with the 90 degree shadows ... Or that really cute double shadow either , for that matter ... I do believe only a secondary light source would have created that little faux pau ..

Oh , and good news too Dave .. No one "got bored " with my comments about you ... Apparently my comments were sent into a spam filter for posting URL's ... So I guess you didn't hit that spam feature after all ... You see , I DO admit it when I'm wrong .

Speaking of being wrong , that would seem to be your problem lately ... I'm NOT wrong about my shadow and the sun ... Try the experiment yourself if you don't believe me ... Go outside on a sunny day , bend over and look at your shadow to see what it does ... It will do exactly the same thing mine did ... MATCH your position !

But if you think you can duplicate your friend's experiment out in sunlight , then strap on a backpack , lean forward and snap a photo with that little wide angle lens digital camera of yours, to see if you can duplicate the A15 Scott shadow ... After all , you 'duplicated' the A17 90 degree shadow photo right ? ... So do it with this one too ... I would really like to see you get a shadow to match the one your friend got using his astronot doll and an artificial light source !! ... Like what was used for the A15 Apollo photo .

As far as the photos I posted here of the visor reflections , I'm so thankful that you didn't make that ridiculous claim again that it was a "smudge" on the visor ... That is so absurd it's laughable ... Like so many of your claims are .

And speaking of sliced and diced ... Jarrah did a fine job of carving up you with your false information about Jenny recanting her opinion , and your silly beach photo, taken with a lens NOT used by the Apollo astronots .

Since you're so pleased that he made a video dedicated just to you , then here it is for everyone to enjoy .. I promised to post the evidence here which would destroy your photo rebuttal and also your alleged correspondence with Jarrah's source .

I know you're already seen the show .. but thought you might like to share it with your friends here ..

So who exactly sliced and diced whom ? .. You better believe I will stay tuned ... I love watching tap dancing , spinning plates and rabbits appearing out of thin air !! LOL

Apollo XVII Teachers and Cameras Part 1 .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu6n8xxJ-vk...ted&search=

Apollo XVII Teachers and Cameras Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9NJqPqH04

NASA's scientists .... and actually they're looking to see just exactly how did that antiquated Apollo equipment fly to and land men on the lunar surface , when no one can figure how that can even be done today !

You really need to read more of space.com insteady of nasa's Apollo fairy tale sites Dave ... Then you will be more informed as to what a quandry today's rocket scientists are really involved in at the present time .

You see, the closer they all look at technical Apollo evidence , or perhaps I should say the closer they all look at the LACK of Apollo technical evidence , the more obvious it becomes that the official version of the Apollo Program never really happened .

Now that's just silly is right ... especially if you consider this nonsense you posted here a proper rebuttal .

It woud seem you need to return for a few more months of lessons at the clavius moon base school of pick and choose your hoax evidence rebuttals out of your mentor Jay's big hat ! ... LOL

Okay , I proved it to myself .... I went outside this morning in the bright sunlight with my backpack ( which is approximately the same size of the astronot's PLSS ) strapped to my back ... Then I leaned forward in the same position as that of the astronot in the A15 photo ... and guess what ?!?

MY SHADOW MATCHED MY FORWARD POSITION EXACTLY ! .... My shadow leaned over at the same exact angle I did and it showed my backpack to be on my back , not my stomach !

So your friends 'proof' has only proven one thing ... Either he messed with the shadow image in his photo study in an attempt to have it match the bogus A15 shadow ( which he has now made into a YouTube video ) or he has proven that the anomalous shadow in the A15 shadow was not really caused by a real astronot standing in the bright sunlight on the moon , but was caused by a minature astronot manikin standing on a moonset , using an artificial light source , like a big , bright SPOTLIGHT !

The same type of spotlight that shows up very clearly in this reflection of Gene Cernan's visor in the A17 photo shoot .

You're the only one who would consider my post comments on YouTube to be spam and even posted as much .

Speaking of YouTube ... Did you seen Jarrah's new video yet ? ... It cleared up all those 'misunderstandings' between your photo 'evidence ' , and Jarrah's evidence which proved that the A17 photo is a fake .

This quote from Nixon is ludricrous considering what atrocities were taking place in the world at the time of the alleged manned lunar landings .. All perpetrated by the United States of America .

"This is the greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation."

—President Richard Nixon, July 1969, in the middle of the genocidal wars against our allies in Vietnams, and the genocidal secret wars in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

"Fire-till-touchdown not feasible for the Apollo LEM Preliminary results of the "fire-till-touchdown" study by Grumman indicated that this maneuver was not feasible. The engine might be exploded by driving the shock wave into the nozzles. The base heatshield temperature would exceed 1,789K (5,000 degrees F), which was high enough to melt portions of the structure, possibly causing destruction of the foot pads. The allowable pressure on the nonstructural elements of the base heatshield would be exceeded; and the descent engine flow field would tend to cause a "POGO" effect which would cause landing instability and could prevent engine cutoff.

—NASA Special Publication-4009, astronautix.com, 1965 December 9-16

"The Secretary of Defense announced the assignment of Lt. Gen. Samuel C. Phillips (USAF), who had been serving as Apollo Program Director in the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, to be Commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) in Los Angeles.... NASA named Rocco A. Petrone, Director of Launch Operations at KSC, to succeed Samuel C. Phillips as Director of the Apollo Program effective September 1."

—NASA Special Publication-4009, astronautix.com, "DOD Announcement of General Phillips' Air Force Assignment," July 31, 1969; NASA News Release 69-124, "Petrone Named Apollo Director," Aug. 22, 1969

"Grumman built a full-scale cardboard model of the LEM to aid in studying problems of cockpit geometry, specifically the arrangement of display panels. This mockup was reviewed by MSC astronauts and the layout of the cockpit was revised according to some of their suggestions. Also Grumman reported that a preliminary analysis showed the reaction control system plume heating of the LEM landing gear was not a severe problem (31 August 1963).

In honor of the late President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated six days earlier, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that LOC and Station No. 1 of the Atlantic Missile Range would be designated the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (28 November 1963).

Grumman conducted manned drop tests to determine the LEM crew's ability to land the spacecraft from a standing position (17 April 1964).

All tests were run with the subject in an unpressurized suit in a "hands off" standing position with no restraint system or arm rests. A LEM ascent engine exploded during altitude firings at Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC - 1 Sept. 1965).

A LM test failed in the Grumman ascent stage manufacturing plant December 17. A window in LM-5 shattered during its initial cabin pressurization test, designed to pressurize the cabin to 3.9 newtons per square centimeter (5.65 pounds per square inch). Both inner and outer windows and the plexiglass cover of the right-hand window shattered when the pressure reached 3.5 newtons per sq cm (5.1 psi - 17 December 1967).

ASPO Manager George M. Low and others from MSC met with Grumman's LM engineering staff, headed by Thomas J. Kelly, to discuss the descent stage heatshield and thermal blanket problems associated with reduced thrust decay of the descent engine at lunar touchdown. Grumman would begin design studies of a jettisonable descent engine skirt. (7 June 1968).

The Allison descent-stage propellant tank, being redesigned at Airite Division of Sargent Industries to a "lidless" configuration, blew up during qualification test at Airite. The crew noticed loss of pressure and therefore tightened fittings and repressurized. As the pressure went up, the tank blew into several pieces (27 September 1968). 'During this period, however, there occurred a successful unmanned test of the Lunar Module and two unmanned tests of the Saturn V vehicle.' The possibility of an unmanned LM landing was discussed at NASA Hq. (11 February 1969).

The additional direct cost to the Apollo research and development program from the January 27, 1967, Apollo 1 fire was estimated at $410 million, principally for spacecraft modifications, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller testified in congressional hearings. The accident delayed the first manned flight of the spacecraft by about 18 months (11 March 1969).

Russian Luna 15 unmanned soil return mission launched coincident with Apollo 11 mission in last ditch attempt to return lunar soil to earth before United States. After completing 86 communications sessions and 52 orbits of the Moon at various inclinations and altitudes, crashed on the moon on 20 July in an attempted landing. Altitude data used in programming inaccurate or guidance system unable to cope with effect of lunar mascons (gravitational mass concentrations on Moon - 13 July 1969).

During the Apollo 11 management debriefing, the ASPO Manager noted a number of items requiring investigation. During separation from the S-IVB stage, the CSM autopilot apparently had difficulty determining direction of rotation. After the CSM hatch removal, there was a strong odor of burnt material in the tunnel. The temperature in the lunar module was too cold during sleep periods. The biological isolation garment was uncomfortably hot and its visor fogged. The crew observed flashes at the rate of about one per minute in the command module at night."

—Program: Apollo, Astronautics.com - Encyclopedia Astronautica

"The Universe is home to numerous exotic and beautiful phenomena, some of which can generate almost inconceivable amounts of energy. Supermassive black holes, merging neutron stars, streams of hot gas moving close to the speed of light ... these are but a few of the marvels that generate gamma-ray radiation, the most energetic form of radiation, billions of times more energetic than the type of light visible to our eyes."

—Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), NASA launch date 2006

http://www.geocities.com/nasa_fraud_capricorn_1/

All your friend proved with his silly experiment is that he is as good at faking photos as nasa is... Like , not very .

If all your pro Apollo arguments were "winnable" , then you wouldn't still be debating this subject with conspiracy researchers ...

I might not be able to post comments on that other site at the moment , but I can still read the comments .. and from what I've seen recently , you are losing the arguments , bigtime ... I guess you haven't receiced any PM's yet from your think tank buddies as how to try to refute them ?

My favorites so far , that you have no answers for , is why was the Apollo 11 flag facing the opposite direction in the pan accross the lunar surface footage ? ... How did it get moved , since Neal and Buzz never went anywhere near it again ?

I also like the one about why were the Apollo 11 lunar landing videos dated July 7th and 11th , when that footage of the boys landing on the moon was allegedly being filmed on July 20th ? ... It's called SIMULATION , in case you were wondering what the correct answer is .

Got the wrong guy do I ? ... You are the one who accused me of "SPAMMING the boards with lies about you " , and the day after you made that accusation , I could no longer post comments because of them being sent through a SPAM filter ... Coinicidence ? ... I doubt it .

I read your 'rebuttal ' , so perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension and read what I wrote again ... Plus my rebuttal ... This was in reply to what you first posted . .. I didn't mean that you didn't try to rebutt the first statment of the article , but that you couldn't properly rebutt it ... I guess you didn't understand what I meant .

Yours ... "That's a pretty big call from Mr Rattigan - who is a naturopath, not an aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, etc. Perhaps he is unaware that as well as the US space programme, the USSR also had a lunar landing programme. The spacecraft were built (a modified Soyuz and a one-man lunar lander) but the launcher (N-1) was never successfully test flown. Mr Rattigan should also take a look at the Chinese, who have not only put their own taikonaut into space but are planning their own lunar landing."

Mine ... "Russia NEVER claimed to have landed men on the moon ... only the American's pretended to do that impossible feat , six times ! ... and China will NEVER land manned missions on the moon , until the monumental problem of how to technically soft land a manned craft can be resolved , and then how to sheild their astronauts against the deadly cosmic rays and solar radiation of deep space . "

And you can believe anything you want to also ... You're right Dave .. the internet IS filled with all sorts of quicksand arguments and bogus information .... Most of it coming from nasa 's own self serving web sites .... So if you're looking for snake oil salesmen , you are sure to find plenty of them still defending the lost Apollo cause .

You don't have to believe any of the hoax evidence , because today's scientists are already questioning how the manned trips to the moon could have ever been technically feasable ... They are studying the old Apollo LM's and equipment , to see just exactly how they were designed to fly to, then soft land on the lunar surface , and then launch without the help of a ground crew , almost 40 years ago, with the computing power of a cheap wristwatch !

Sceintists today also realize that manned space flight is a technical imposibility for many reasons , the lack of proper radiation shielding being only one of the problems ... So it shouldn't be too much longer until all of them will figure out that no men have ever gone to the moon and lived to tell about it .. and that the Apollo Program was nothing more than a COLD WAR , SPACE RACE BLUFF and POLITICAL PUBLICITY STUNT !

The tracks in the crater " theroy" ? .... Are you completley blind ? ... The moon buggy tracks go right though the middle of the crater , which of course would have been completely impossible had the buggy really done that in 1/6 g. on the moon .... and for anyone who is not wearing pro Apollo blinders , it is obvious that the shadow in no way matches the object allegedly causing it .

The A15 Scott photo is a complete fake , so don't lecture me about having my head in the sand about this .. It's quite a clever game that you and your friends play on these forums , trying to constanly turn the tables with your psychological projection .... The only one who can't see the truth about Apollo would be you and the one's who defend the crudely faked Apollo photographs .

I don't give a rip where your friend got the miniture Apollo astronot ... The only thing that he proved with his ridiculous experiment is that he either altered the shadow to try to match the original phony photo, or the original phony photo was taken using a small scale astronot model on a moon set with artificial lighting .

I have known for quite some time now that you will do whatever it takes to 'win' the argument ... Including running to your pro Apollo , think tank friends for help when you can't prove your side of the argument .

Oh , and speaking of clever games ... I contacted the YouTube management to find out why I can no longer post comments on their web site ... I received their answer this morning ... Apparently a member of that site hit the spam feature repeatedly on my comments , to where my account went into their spam filter and stopped my ability to post comments there ... Funny how I didn't have any problems with anything on that forum until you showed up , isn't it ?

I don't consider this new information to be empirical evidence or to be correct .... I consider it to be contrived trickery to protect nasa's phony Apollo photos .... Like Jack , I wonder where he got the mini Apollo astronot manikin ? ... Off of one of nasa's old small scale moon sets probably ... This is just another game played by those who will do anything to 'win' this game.

The Apolo 15 anomalous , whistleblowing photograph is not one of my "theories" ... It happens to be one of the best examples of photo fakery ...From the lunar buggy tracks going right through the middle of that fake crater , to the upright , backwards ridiculous looking shadow ... It is as fake as they come and no amount of photo trickery , provided by one of nasa best trickster's will change that .

Being unable to do something is not the same thing as not having the time or interest ... I have debated this subject long enough to know that it's a losing battle and a waste of valuable time to try to refute every single point made by those who obviously have nothing more to do with their time than defend the faked Apollo moon landings .

I don't need to rebutt every one of your points because the most important one wasn't and can't be rebutted by you or anyone else for that matter ...

"At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely."

You didn't rebutt that statement , or did you think perhaps I wouldn't notice ?

Russia NEVER claimed to have landed men on the moon ... only the American's pretended to do that impossible feat , six times ! ... and China will NEVER land manned missions on the moon , until the monumental problem of how to technically soft land a manned craft can be resolved , and then how to sheild their astronauts against the deadly cosmic rays and solar radiation of deep space .

Evan ... I don't see what you think you have proven with your post ... Today's scientists are finally admitting that the cosmic ray radiation of deep space is deadly to humans ... and so far no one at nasa has managed to come up with the proper shielding to protect their astronauts against it , either going to Mars or the moon .

Manned deep space flight is the myth here ... The reality of the manned lunar landings are the myth ... Not the fact that it was a hoax .

The entire lunar surface is hot with all kinds of radiation ... and no pristine perfect color photographs could have ever been taken in such an enviornment either ... and that's why the photos were faked ... Some even with backwards shadows , missing buggy tracks , spotlights and huge arc light reflections in the astronot's visors .

Wow ... That's quite some 'evidence' that Pericynthion image shacked together here ... He used to come to postbaguk Dave's rescue on the UM also when he got into jams .

Other people might fall for your tag team , think tank BS , but not me ... If I remember correctly Pericynthion is the same Apollo propagandist that image shacked some scratches on Cernan's visor to 'win' the argument about the reflected lights in his visor also.

I don't know how you got the shadow to be such a close match to that phony A15 anomalous Scott shadow , but congrats on being one of the best when it comes to the ... "let's do whatever it takes to prove all the hoax evidence wrong" gang .

So why not become a member here Pericynthion ? ... Don't want anyone to know your real identity perhaps ? ... I guess you're just like some of the other propagandist members of nasa's think tank when it comes to that .

Typical Bad Astronomy and clavius claptrap ...

Do you really expect everyone to fall for you disecting every line of every post I put here as a real rebuttal ? ... You didn't post one bit of information here that I haven't seen before ... You are only quoting what you have brought here from nasa defending sources, whose sole purpose is to defend the Apollo myth , by attempting to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ..

What are Cosmic Rays?

In 1912, Victor Hess, an Austrian physicist discovered cosmic rays during a balloon flight. As he rose in altitude, he found that the residual level of radiation recorded on his meters at ground level ... first decreased, and then steadily increased with altitude. He declared that there was a need ...

"to have recourse to a new hypothesis; either invoking the assumption of the presence at great altitudes of unknown matter or the assumption of an extraterrestrial source of penetrating radiation."

In 1936, after 24 years of denial by the scientific community, Hess won the Nobel prize acknowledging his discovery as somewhat important. In 1999, their origin is still only theoretical, a series of best guesses.

The Earth's surface, and lifeforms like humans, are shielded from the influence of cosmic rays by the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic field associated with the solar wind --- which flows like a river from the Sun to, around, and beyond the Earth.

Patrick M. Hurley has written that the energy of most cosmic ray particles exceed a billion electron volts. Entering the Earth's atmosphere they smash into atoms and knock out electrons and protons thereby changing the atmospheric elements by ionization. Most of these secondary radiations and particles are held in the atmosphere at various elevations by a combination of the Earth's gravitation, magnetic field, and other factors.

Cosmic rays are extremely penetrating micro-matter (atomic nuclei) which travel through space at speeds approaching that of light. These rays have far more energy (impact, destructiveness) than the alpha, beta, and gamma rays emitted by radioactive atoms, and, are that much more fatal. Cosmic rays - particles are strongly affected by magnetic fields.

There is no known technically available, economical, and lightweight portable or human designed barrier to cosmic rays. They can penetrate many feet of soil, rock, and metal. After penetrating through and interacting with a 10,000 mile protective magnetosphere of the Earth, AND, 600 miles of atmospheric molecules, cosmic rays are still powerful enough to penetrate up to 10 or 20 feet of rock or concrete or many floors of a tall building. Striking the molecules of dense physical objects often results in the destruction of those molecules and the generation of secondary particles --- which may then represent a greater density of less penetrating though dangerous radiations.

Hydrogen has been suggested as a possible barrier in a National Research Council press release, quoting Brookhaven National Laboratory Senior Biologist Richard B. Setlow --- who acknowledged the impracticality of it for humans. Galactic microwave radiation, also dangerous to terrestrial life, is also believed to interact with cosmic rays. Essentially, beyond the protection of the Earth's larger environment, humanity has no protection.

http://www.earthtym.net/spacemyth.htm#hazards

Which shadow ? ... The original backwards, upright faked shadow by nasa whistleblowers , or the altered bent faked shadow by your friend postbaguk ?

Dave made the claim that the shadow wasn't really put in the photo backwards ... I just didn't know how to interpret this photo properly .. But if that's really true , then Astronot Scott is wearing his PLSS on his stomach ...

The whole point being is that the shadow is obviously backwards .. and in Dave's version , he made that fact even more obvious by stretching it , in an attempt to disguise the fact that the shadow doesn't match the object it's suppossed to belong to .

It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ?

I agree that it was regretable that Dave's e-mail debacle was ever brought to this forum by him ... and I look forward to it being resolved on the forum it originated from.... So instead of posting any further information about this here , I will take your advise as a moderator Evan , and be happy to send PM's to everyone here of the final results .

Okay , back on topic then .... Can anyone tell me how the PLSS ended up on astronot Dave Scott's stomach , in this photo where his shadow has been stretched to allow us all to see more clearly that all is not well with this particular Apollo picture .

APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX

At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely. When NASA realised that President Kennedy's 1961 call, for a man on the moon and back alive before the end of the decade, was totally impossible, they decided, rather than lose face, to hoax the whole thing. With $40 billion – at 1961 rates – available, the scope for deception was endless.

The major problem was the impossibility of overcoming the cosmic radiation threat within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts and on the moon’s surface. At least 5 feet of lead would be needed in all directions to protect the voyagers : for one man, in a telephone kiosk, this would involve a thousand tons of lead. 30-plus years later, the unprotected Apollo travellers, all of whom would have been fried, have shown no signs of radiation sickness.

Another problem was the inability of NASA to produce a stable craft which was intended to be the lunar landing module. “Lunar astronaut”, Neil Amstrong, almost lost his life when one of the prototype flying-bedstead LMs crashed and disintegrated. The problems were never even close to being solved.

The highly secret Area 51, in the Nevada Desert, is believed to be the location for the film studios – still visible from satellite photographs – which produced the television programmes – “live from the Moon”, whilst the astronauts merely sat out their time 200 miles above the Earth’s surface.

The official NASA record of the six Apollo excursions is so full of basic mistakes that various observers believe that some NASA personnel, very unhappy at being forced to be part of the hoax, deliberately left what would become obvious flaws in the record. The American flag flapping in the atmosphere-free, windless conditions ; the school-boy-level fake "moon photographs" and their difference from the live (film studio) transmissions ; the miracle of the standard Kodak film which withstood the X-rays and the extremes of heat and cold - 250 to minus-250 degrees ; the chest-mounted cameras which, without a viewfinder, produced hundreds of clear, well-framed photographs ; the multiple light sources ; the clear, uninterrupted voices of the astronauts as they sat above 10,000 lb-thrust, 140-decibel rockets ; the lack of any crater beneath the LMs; the lack of any exhaust smoke from the LM rockets (as it was pulled upwards, Thunderbird-style, by puppet strings in the studio) ; the lack of any stars in the lunar sky ; … and so on.

The impression that the men and vehicles were moving in a less dense gravity was created by simply slowing down the film to half-speed.

One of the "whistle-blowers" Bill Kaysing, former analyst and engineer with Rocketdyne, the Apollo rocket designers estimated that “.. there were 85 completely separate manoeuvres involved in a lunar landing. Statisticians have calculated that the chances of completing this set of manoeuvres six times, without a single failure, were totally beyond the realms of possibility".

Kaysing also reckoned that the chances of a successful, manned return trip to the moon were .0017%.

Other informants have not been so lucky. The outstanding critic of America’s chances of lunar success, Gus Grissom was one of ten astronauts who had “freak fatal accidents” between 1964 & 67. Apollo 1 safety inspector, Thomas Baron, produced a 500-page report. He stated that “The Apollo 1 programme was in such disarray that America would never make it to the moon.” One week later Baron and his family were killed in a road crash : the report disappeared.

Although the Americans recruited over 120 Nazi space scientists for their use, the Apollo scam is well beyond anything in the Joseph Goebbels Manual of Public Relations. Channels 4 and 5 TV have broadcast programmes exposing the fraud, but the Establishment media, led by -who else?- the BBC, have taken every opportunity to reinforce the hoax, with very good reason. If it were generally accepted that The Scientists have told us a pack of lies on "Man's Greatest Achievement" - and they have -even the most trusting of punter is likely to ask on what else would they deceive us : answer - everything.

Pat Rattigan

http://patrattigan.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page2.html

Kevin .. If you prefer the truth , then do some investigating on your own , outside of all those self serving nasa sites and pro Apollo discussion forums ... That way maybe you will stop swallowing every piece of moon landing fiction that nasa has shoved down your gullible throat .