Duane Daman

The real reason you stretched that photo to alter the shape of the shadow , has nothing to do with your repetitive lame explaination, which makes no sense whatsoever ... Trying to prove my position on this forum has nothing to do with luck , but everything to do with being out numbered by the Apollo police . This Apollo 15 Scott shadow photo is the biggest scam you have run so far Dave ... and because of the games you played with this one , you are now the laughing stock of YouTube , where the CT's outnumber the bullies !

LAUGH OUT LOUD !! .. Talk about comedic entertainment ... Lamson has supplied it yet again !! Imagine that , indeed ! ... ROFLMAO !!! You obviously know as little about the JFK conspiracy as you do about the Apollo one ... In other words , you are completely clueless on both subjects .

Kathy ... I never said we don't know what deep space looks like or that the Hubble hasn't photographed deep space ... Unmanned missions can and have traveled through and beyond the Van Allen radiation belts ... It's the MANNED missions which haven't gone a half a million miles out into deep space to land on the radioactive lunar surface with 40 year old technology. Cosmic rays are deadly ... No human can survive them ... The Apollo space craft did NOT have adequit radiation shielding to protect the astronots .... Even today nasa doesn't have the answer or the technology yet , to protect manned missions into deep space ... The Apollo photos and vidoes were shot on moon sets ... and this sad fact has been proven by many photographic experts and conspiracy reserarchers, such as Jack White , David Percy and Dr. David Groves , to name just a few . But this is something you will have to decide for yourself , if you're interested ... People either accept the authenticity of the official Apollo record , or they don't ... I have personally researched enough evidence to where I have no doubt the official Apollo record is bogus .

bump

The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up . You can tap dance really well Dave ... In fact , you're one of the fastest I've ever encountered , when it comes to trying to explain away the numerous anomalies in the official Apollo photographic record . Stick around YouTube postbaguk Dave ... You might just learn something about the phony Apollo photography ... Like the truth ... If you can even manage to remember what that is.

And I'm getting bored with you continuing to stalk me around the internet trying to pick a fight .. Correct me if I'm wrong , but when I left the UM ( the first time ), you followed me to the Moon Hoax forum , where you and your friends turned the discussions into so much of a brawl , that I decided to pull my posts and leave ... From there you followed me to this forum , and even PMed me announcing that you were MrChewbacca from the Moon Hoax forum ... Then from here you followed me to the World of the Strange , where you and your friend DogsHead , with the help of Poundland , turned it into such a brawl , that one of the moderators accused me of inviting you all there to disrupt the forum ... Then he asked me to leave if I didn't stop posting about Apollo ... Now from here , you have followed me to YouTube .. As for me joining any other forums where you post , I'm not interested ... As far as trying to have any meaningful discussion on the YouTube comment section , I agree with you ... Not only is it not set up for debates , half the time the comments don't even get posted ... Or some yahoo deletes them for whatever reason. As for this forum , I would be glad to post more of the Apollo hoax evidence here , but it is usually met with such distain and deliberate dishonesty , that it is hardly worth the bother anymore . As for the CT's on YouTube not being able to interpret the phony Apollo photos , you're wrong again ... They are doing a fine job of interpreting the bogus Apollo photography and presenting the hoax evidence for all the world to see . Like I have said many times before Dave ... Apollo was a hoax , the Apollo photos are studio fakes ... and you and your Apollo apologist friends will just have to accept that unhappy fact one day soon and then .... GET OVER IT .

The fact that both you and Dave refuse to admit that the A15 Scott shadow is backwards and in the wrong position ( upright instead of bent like the astronot ), speaks volumes as to your lack of credibility in this discussion , plus your lack of integrity, in not being honest about what is seen in this photo .. I haven't misidentified anything ... It's you who and everyone else who defends these ridiculous , phony photos , who won't admit it when even one Apollo photograph is a fake ...And in my book , that's playing games and being deliberately dishonest .

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed . I'm not so sure. I keep on seeing the "waving flag" argument being bandied about on various forums. I guess people who may have just heard about the alleged hoax, or perhaps someone who has seen one of the pro-hoax videos, may think it's a serious issue. IIRC you yourself made a comment on Youtube just recently on the flag-waving issue, tantamount to saying it showed there was an atmosphere. If it wasn't a serious comment, fair enough. If not, then why say it? Better to label it as misinformation and demonstrate why, so the real meat and bones of your argument gain more attention, surely? The point being, it is still raised on various forums as an issue, and it is a question that gets asked over and over again, so why not address it? As for "distorted shadows", you yourself have debated the authenticity of several Apollo photographs (based on what you perceive to be incorrect shadows) on this very forum. Many of Jack White's studies involve shadows. They receive plenty of attention on one of Percy's videos. As you well know, Jarrah White has produced a film on Youtube which spends a lot of time looking at shadows as well. I think the two questions they are addressing are very pertinent indeed. I do agree with you that they can be quite easily dismissed though. Problem is, the same questions keep on getting asked over and over - often by the same people. I'm glad you brought this up postbaguk Dave .... There are videos showing the flag is waving and no astro-actors hand is anywhere near it ... There are also videos posted there showing backwards perspective of mountain backdrops and impossible 90 degree shadow angles .... but then you know this because you have also followed me to YouTube ... Too bad you won't be able to play the same games there that you do here though ... Not only is the playing field in my favor this time , I have warned my CT friends there as to what you are all about ....Oh, and they all laughed their asses off at that silly little trick you pulled with the A15 Scott shadow .

But you were quite supportive "Dr Hawkins" claims - until they were proven quite wrong; you then reversed position and said that he may be a 'disinformation agent'. What if your current beliefs are proven equally inaccurate? Duane, perhaps it would be easier if you tell us which of the claims that have been posted on this Forum you now consider "dealt with" or debunked. This will allow others to consentrate on those you think still extant, outstanding, pending or simply unexplained. Steve. I supported Hawkins before I read his silly book of nasa dis..... Oops , we are not allowed to use the D word anymore ... Sorry . I should have read the book before giving it any credit ... A mistake I won't make again . As for the conspiracy evidence which has not been 'debunked ' by the Apollo defenders , I plan to post much of it here , in the form of videos made by those who are doing a fine job in exposing nasa's faked moon landings .

Okay , here's the thread link postbaguk Dave . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9235 Here's the original nasa whistleblower phony photo with it's backwards , upright shadow and it's ridiculous chitty chitty bang bang tire tracks going right slap dab through the middle of that stupid looking staged crater ... And here is your "stretched and skewed " version of the photo with your ridiculously lame attempt to have the shadow conform to the position of astro-actor Dave Scott ... In your pathetic effort to prove me wrong , you were dishonest .... Why would you or anyone else feel the need to ALTER THE SHADOW to conform to the object making the shadow , if something wasn't very wrong with this picture in the first place ? This Apollo 15 Dave Scott photo has to be one of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing the faked Apollo photographs , I have ever seen .... I have shared this photo with several other conspiracy researchers now and they couldn't believe what you did to bend the shadow ! .... In fact , what you did made it even more obvious that the astro-actors shadow is backwards !! And you people have the audacity to call Jack's work dishonest ?? ... UNBELIEVABLE !

Nobody is playing games ? .. You have got to be kidding ! .. That's all you and your Apollo apologist friends know how to do on these forums . Jack already posted his reply ... Whether you accept it or agree with it or not , is your problem ... Here it is again , in case you didn't bother to read it the first time. "My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet. His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple principle to understand." Jack And don't tell me who's defense I can or can't come to either ... You don't own this forum ... You brought up this subject again because you can't accept the fact that Jack White has exposed the Apollo photography for what it is .... STUDIO FAKES ! ... So instead of continuing to character assassinate him , why don't you just leave him alone .

Kevin ... It looks as though Jack may have had enough of the games being played on this thread , by you and your friends .... If he doesn't believe that he's wrong , then why should he do something which NONE of you who defend Apollo are ever capable of doing ? .... I have caught several of you being dishonest and incorrect about the Apollo photographic evidence , but instead of any of you admitting to it , you just continue to play the same dishonset games .... and if you don't know what I'm referring to , then I will post some pictures here which were altered by your friend postbaguk Dave , which will prove my point .

Hello Kathy ... I am the person who started this thread ...My name is Duane .. Glad to meet you . Maybe you should study this subject a bit more , especially from the hoax point of view ... You might just see what millions of other people do ... It was IMPOSSIBLE for nine manned missions , carrying 27 astronots , over 38 years ago , to travel almost one half millions miles each into the deadly cosmic ray radiaiton of deep space , to land on the radioactive moon , and then relaunch again from the lunar surface with untested technology which had the computing capacity of a Wallmart watch ... The monkey may have died for many reasons , but the boys who have made it their mission in life to defend the official Apollo record , didn't even know about this dead monkey until I mentioned it here ... and the reason was because this is just one of many problems which nasa has managed to keep under wraps , until now ... There is NO WAY that the US military industrial complex which controls nasa , would have allowed our national heros to take the chance of dying on the way to the moon and back ... Not only would the Russians have beaten the US in the race to the moon but it would have been a national tragedy ... and America already had the tragedy of the immoral and illegal Viet Nam war to contend with .. Apollo was a poitical public relations stunt created for many reasons ... One of them being money .... nasa and their outsourced companies made billions of dollars on each mission allegedy launched for the moon ... So since they didn't have the proper technology or adequit enough radiation shielding in place to traverse the Van Allen belts and venture into deep space , nasa faked it to the moon ....That way they saved face , won the cold war , beat the evil Russians in the space race , and also kept the billions of dollars of funding coming in .

THE APOLLO HOAX. These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed . Well if Janet actually " saw Armstrong land on the moon when she was 7 ", then she must have had a front row seat that the rest of the world was not privy to .... I have read some pretty uninformed and naive' comments made by those who blindly defend the unprovable official Apollo record , but this one has to be one of the silliest yet.

Comparing automobile accidents to the manned moon missions that were shown on " live TV ", which would "win the space race " and thus put an end to the cold war , is beyond ludicrous . There were too many risks to even list , much less announce to the world ... The fact that none of the Apollo missions killed any of the astronots is completely unbelievable ... Especially since there was no way to test the LM being launched from the lunar surface ( which is completely radioactive by the way ) ... So except for the alleged technical problems on Apollo 13 , which also never harmed any of the astronots , no other major problems occured . So was Apollo blessed or hoaxed ? ... I have no doubt it was the latter.

You're wrong Steve , as the really frightening thing here would be your complete inability to read, and then repost anything except the same dreary misleading information from the same self serving nasa web sites and from those sites who support their bogus manned moon missions .

Have no fear Kathy ... The members on this forum who defend Apollo, will have you convinced that nasa really did fly nine manned missions , a half a million miles each , into the deadly radiation of deep space , to return them all home alive and well again , using antiquated technology , very little radiation shielding , and a craft that wasn't even properly tested ... The space monkey died and a week later Apollo 11 launched for the moon on live TV ... Right . Then they will convince you that the millions of people who believe Apollo was a hoax , are just a bunch of "ignornant , crackpot, conspiracly nuts " , who fell for some untrue stuff about nasa in books , written by some crazy guys just trying to make a buck.... In other words .... THINK FOR YOURSELF instead of allowing those who's job it is to think for you .

If wikipedia and a self serving nasa book are the best you guys can do , then you are both losing your touch ... The Apollo LM's were never properly tested .... Give me a couple of days and I will find the info to prove it . Meanwhile , I will bump forward my article on the Van Allen Engima, so hopefully Don Jeffries can jump off of that fence ... On my side of course !

"Quite incorrect. A check was done each time an astronaut had a 'tumble'; it was only common sense. There was concern about an astronaut puncturing their suit, so they were made tough (the suits!) for a lunar environment." Have you even watched the Apollo videos ? .... Charlie Duke alone fell down more times than the comedian Chevy Chase ever did on any Saturday Night Live episode , and nobody ever even took a peek at his spacesuit for any rips ... And you didn't know that the monkey died either ... I will post the article explaining his untimely death right before the Apollo 11 launch .. Your other objections don't even seem worth bothering with .

Thanks but I don't have any need for a bridge ... Three long posts just for Bart ! ... I'm sure he would be honored ... and they're so interesting too ... zzzzzzz . I don't really have the time or interest in reading your 'rebuttals' to Bart, but when I do have some extra time I will be sure to send a letter of recomendation off to NASA on your behalf ... I think you not only deserve a pay raise but also some extra brownie points or possibly even a new merit badge, for all of your diligent and time consuming hard work in continuing to help suppress the Apollo hoax evidence . I kind of figured when you became a moderator here that you would start locking my topic articles ... I guess the photo of the car frightened you because it shows how easy was and still is, to fake the Apollo moon photos .... But why did you have to lock the Moon Song ? ... I was hoping we could all get poetic and even make up our own song lyrics on that one .. LOL

Thanks for the welcome back .... I'm glad to see that at least one of the Apollo defenders here has a sense of humor .... I laughed my ass off when I watched the Lonely Astronot series ... Yes, there are more where this one came from , if you're interested in seeing rescues 1 thru 4 .. I think there might be a 6 and 7 also . I have been very busy and was away on business for a couple of weeks , so I am just now getting around to having the Apollo 17 photos looked at by a pro photographer who lives in Australia ... He sent me some info today but I am still waiting for some more evidence .... If he reaches the conclusions I think he will , I will post the results here as soon as he gets back to me.

In this TV interview conspiracy researcher Bart Sibrel explains in detail why and how the Apollo moon missions were faked ... This video includes clips from his excellent documentary called 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.' ... Listen to the man the Apollo defenders call a "conspiracy nut" and decide for yourself if he really fits that character assassination description of him. ... This interview goes into technical details of the broadcasting procedures of the Apollo missions , the "lost" telemetry tapes from all the missions , and discusses why so many people were fooled by NASA's televised hoax of the century . Drag your mouse across the bar at the bottom of the clip window to fast forward through the commercials . http://www.lvitv.com/OutThereTV/playflash....amp;state=flash

Anybody up for a sing along ? Go this link for some fun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkuEbQ57o3g THE MOON SONG by Dave Hook Well, "It's one small step for man And one giant leap for mankind" Those were the scripted words for Neil Armstrong, On July 20th, 1969 That grainy footage shown on TV At one time actually convinced me But how do we really know? Because Walter Cronkite told us so? I say: No man has ever walked on the moon Now before you dismiss me as a loon Listen to the facts and you may even find A story that just might change your mind ** ( Song starts here ) ** Now it all started back in '62 JFK told the people what he would do Put a man on the moon by the decade's end Land, and bring them safely home again He was a great speaker we all know And he even banged Marilyn Monroe, But he was also just a politician, But Jack "knew Jack" about any space mission Now NASA had to get their ass in gear And suddenly their hearts were full of fear Cuz they were way behind in the space race Now big mouth Kennedy was setting them all up for disgrace And their funding stood at about a couple BILL So they would not admit defeat, and never will So they said: If we can't make it, then we'll fake it If we can't do it, then screw it We'll shoot it in the desert on a sound stage Put it on the TV and the front page We'll shoot it all in black and white Even though we got a color camera on the flight We'll bring jeeps, but take no telescopes? We'll shoot some golf balls all around, Then stick a flag into the ground That should be enough for the boob tube watching dopes Cuz there's facts about space travel most don't know That radiation gets more intense the farther out you go It starts at about 1,000 miles out Go farther than that and you will die, there's no doubt Unless you cover yourself with 4 feet of lead Any less than that, and brother you'd be dead But to build a ship like that, why even try? It would be far too heavy to ever fly Kennedy thought this was plausible But NASA knew it was impossible But they still wanted to get paid So they said to themselves: If we can't make it, then we'll fake it If we can't do it, then screw it We'll film it in the desert, or on a sound stage And put it on the TV and the front page We'll bring extra lighting just for fun Even though the only light source is the sun But we need them for the photos we're going to take No photos of stars or other stuff, Some young astronomer may call our bluff It never can come out it all was fake 'Cuz it's much too dangerous to really go, On live TV? I don't ******* think so We'll have to shoot the whole thing in advance For an unhappy ending we can't take the chance ( The astronauts are dead , here's Will with the sports ) We'll show them some meteors we found on earth if they want proof When you control the media , you control the truth Full body pictures of Neil on the moon, there are only two Do you realize he has never ever granted an interview ? But these facts don't leave me too surprised Ask him no questions, and he'll tell you no lies Cuz he knows They couldn't make it, so they had to fake it They couldn't do it, so just said, "Screw it" They shot it in the desert on a sound stage And put it on the TV and the front page Sent a satellite feed of their con To a few on the ground who knew what was going on Then beamed it out to all the excited folks They were never 250,000 miles away George Bush says we're going back some day: But the first time around it was a hoax They slowed the film, and hid the wires They were very very clever liars, But The first time around it was a hoax ...

Well maybe lunar buggys don't leave tracks on moon sets ... but real cars do !! And to think the nasa nutters think these photos are real ?!?!

Review by Marcus Allen, UK Publisher Nexus magazine Thirty years ago man landed on the Moon. Given public focus by the then US President John F Kennedy in May 1961, he challenged his nation to "...achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth ". The race was on. A great nation mobilised its industry, its talent and its energies to fulfil their, by then, dead President's dream. Not just once, but six times men landed on, walked and drove across, photographed, measured and returned with bits of the Moon. The greatest scientific achievement of this, or maybe any other century, had been accomplished; and the astronauts had 'gone in peace for all mankind.' The whole world acknowledged and applauded the bravery of those men, the scale of their project and the thrill of being included in each step of their mission. Because we saw the photographs, watched the films and videos, listened to the interviews, read the books, we knew it happened just the way we had been told. No! It probably did not happen that way at all. When we were young we were taught to tell the truth. We should not tell lies because we will eventually get found out. Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, is about being found out. It is a brave, timely and inevitable book. It is the book some will dread reading but one which many more will welcome: it exposes a monumental deception perpetrated on us all. We have been systematically lied to, deceived and misled by those who by their position and knowledge, we expect to trust-scientists. Where are the astronomers, astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists, designers, engineers, photographers, physicists and the editors and reporters who failed to speak out? If they really were all blind we are in deep trouble. That it took the determined and meticulous research of David Percy, and the eloquent and lucid writing of Mary Bennett to produce this magnificent book is testimony to their integrity. From the small boy who points out that 'The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes,' to the disintegration of the Empire is but a small step. So it is with the Apollo landings. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "An error can never become true however many times you repeat it. The truth can never be wrong, even if no one ever hears about it." Dark Moon tells of the truth discovered in a journey which began by looking at one of the most famous photographs ever taken: man on the Moon, allegedly shot by Neil Armstrong showing 'Buzz' Aldrin on the lunar surface. Knowing the equipment used and the extreme conditions of temperature and radiation present on the Moon, scientific analysis is used to demonstrate conclusively that this picture was taken on Earth with controlled, artificial lighting. Once you know what to look for, all the Apollo pictures are suspect. With over 400 pictures in Dark Moon the numerous flaws and inconsistencies soon become obvious. And you start to become angry, initially with the authors-this is understandable, they are the people who have darkened the dream-then with yourself for having been hoodwinked for so long. Eventually this too passes and your energy is redirected to ensuring that never again will you allow such a travesty to occur. In our modern world of visual communications we have a right not to be misled. Those who go out to record our world and its activities have a responsibility to ensure that we will see what they saw. When we are asked to look at a photograph or a film taken on the Moon, then that is where we must assume it was taken. Anything else is propaganda. Dark Moon, with over 500 pages, is in three parts. First is Foreground Action the 'how' of the Apollo records; interviews with Hasselblad and Kodak, whose products were used on the Apollo project, unwittingly revealing the inadequacies of their equipment to operate on the Moon as billed; details, clearly explained, about the 'show stopper' of man's exploration of space-radiation. Earth is protected, space is not, so a man on the Moon, as unprotected as the astronauts were, are highly vulnerable; and the extremes of temperature: as hot as an oven (+250°F) in sunlight and colder than anywhere on Earth (-250°F) in the shade. With no atmosphere in space to retain heat, the switch from hot to cold is immediate. The account of who was really behind the great rockets of both the American and Soviet space programmes is as surprising as it is comprehensive. In mid 1945 the Allies divided the spoils of war. Personnel, many originating from Peenemünde (birthplace of the German V-1 and V-2 rockets used against England during WW2), together with their research papers and equipment were transferred to the USA and the USSR. That these men were Nazis did not matter, they were needed for their knowledge. So began the German rocket scientists influence on both sides of the iron curtain. There never was a real 'space race'. How could there have been when everything was carefully planned in advance? Part two of Dark Moon Middle Distance looks at this planning, such as Project Horizon and the establishment of NASA, officially a civilian agency but financed by the US Government and acting as the public face of the Department of Defense's own extensive but secret space programme. Is it any wonder that it often lives up to its reputation of giving 'Never A Straight Answer'? As the authors found during their research, there was a great deal more going on behind the scenes than had previously been thought likely: "If it is of any consolation to the reader, we too, at first, could not believe what we were uncovering as our investigation proceeded. Yet as each new stone was turned over, it revealed a conspiracy of labyrinthine proportions". Dark Moon is not a conspiracy theory book. When the evidence is presented so clinically, with every fact double checked and confirmed, in some cases by initially sceptical specialists, then it is fact on which we can now base our decisions. Not propaganda. Yet we may choose to ignore such facts because they may lead us to a conclusion with which we are still uncomfortable. It is natural to want mankind to reach for the stars and to explore beyond each new frontier. So if we accept the evidence of Dark Moon, do those dreams die too? No. Quite the reverse. If you have ever wondered about the Apollo Moon landings and whether the stories about them being somehow faked or hoaxed may be true, then Dark Moon has the answers. This book is an essential reference for anyone who has ever wondered how a conspiracy is created and how the 'knowledge' filter works to keep it in place. Now we can move on. The future will not only be more exciting than we can imagine, but far, far more dramatic. For showing us a part of that future, we should thank the two authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. http://aulis.com/nasareviews.htm