Duane Daman

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 .

What I meant was, are the Hubble Telescope photos the real thing, since Duane believes we don't know what space looks like?

Kathy

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.

I'm getting bored of repeating that I'm not playing games Duane, just stating my on opinion and posting evidence that I believe supports my position. Given that we both post on several different moon hoax forums it's hardly surprising that we bump into each other, so it's churlish of you to suggest I followed you there. I'm also a member of several forums you don't post on, feel free to join if you wish - don't worry, I won't accuse you of "following me". PM me if you want the site names.

Do I really care that some CTers on Youtube comments boards can't interpret photos? Not in the slightest. I just agree to disagree.

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 .

Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

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 .

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 .

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 .

Duane, if someone disagrees with you and provides evidence so support their position, that is not called "mind games", nor is it a failure to admit when wrong about something. It's called a difference of opinion. Jack has been asked to defend or retract his claims that certain Apollo photos show anomalies which suggest they were faked. It's unfortunate that he chooses not to do neither, and this no doubt leads members and caual observers of the relevant threads to come to their own conclusions why.

Feel free to post any Apollo pictures here that I've altered, and why you think it is dishonest. Perhaps you could also provide a link to the relevant thread the picture was in, so it can be viewed in context? I invariably state what kind of photoshop-style manipulation I do to any images. IIRC I even giving you quite detailed instructions on how to stretch a particular image so you could prove for yourself that I hadn't "bent" it as you kept insisting.

Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to "out" me as someone playing dishonest games simply because I use photoshop as a tool for investigating images, when the OP of this thread, JW, in his initial post, provided an image which he admitted he had manipulated? Was JW playing dishonest games too? Personally I don't think he was, since he stated what he had done to the image (although I think he should have provided the mission roll and frame number at the same time). The main issue I have with JW on this and other threads is that he doesn't defend or retract his claims about them.

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 !

Games? Nobody here is playing games, Duane, and Jack doesn't need you to defend him.

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 .

What hoax?

Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

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 .

The museum's explanations were enough to convince Janet Rosengarten, who drove from nearby Sidney to see the exhibit.

"I've never had any question about it," she told local newspaper The Lima News. "I saw Armstrong land on the moon when I was 7 and I have no doubt it happened. But it's still fun to see the things people say who doubt it all."

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.

You know people are killed in automobile accidents - does that stop you travelling in them?

On learning of Bonnie's death, they may well have questioned the circumstances - was it equipment? Environmental? Why did this happen? They would have been told that it was due to dehydration. They may have questioned further about any relevance of those circumstances to the risks they faced, but ultimately they were confident that there were no additional risks.

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.

"If any of the posted fantasy were true it would be frighting. However, it is so wrong its laughable."

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

Here is part of an article addressing some of the questions and answers concerning Apollo , from conpiracy researcher Bart Sibrel ... ( the guy who ex astronaut Buzz Aldren knocked to the ground ).... When Mr. Sibrel asked questions which Mr. Aldren refused to answer , and then made statements which Mr. Aldren did not aprove of, Aldren's response was to punch him out , insteading of answering his questions , or standing up to his accusations .

Here are some questions which have been asked of Mr. Sibrel , and his answers ...

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program. If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us. Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles. We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch. They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

With Cold War tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool the Soviets that we had technological superiority.

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

Q: What about the moon rocks?

A: NASA chief scientist James Garvin recently appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.) A viewer called in for the live, audience response, program. He stated that his father worked for the Defense Department and told him that we never went to the moon, that the technology didn't exist back then, and that Apollo was a Hollywood-type production. The caller asked NASA chief scientist Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Garvin said the proof is in the statements made by the astronauts, and also in the moon rocks.

While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs on the planet), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)

Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?

A: No. This is folklore. No Earth-based telescope is powerful enough to see manmade materials on the lunar surface. The newly released photos of the moon taken by the Hubble telescope cannot discern any objects on the moon's surface that are smaller than a football field in length.

Japan, however, sent a probe to the moon several years ago that did have this capability. Unfortunately, as soon as it entered lunar orbit all five of its cameras simultaneously malfunctioned. Further disappointment is in the fact that the most recent European lunar probe cannot see the moon's surface in enough detail to answer this persistent question.

Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?

A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone’s mind that it isn’t even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.

Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?

A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.

Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?

A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel.

The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?

Q: If the evidence you have is so compelling, what hasn't CNN picked it up?

A: In reality, news media organizations are in the entertainment business. They figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers.

Q: What about Apollo 13?

A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit. After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound orbiting vehicle.

Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me. (The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)

http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8