Duane Daman

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

Well, I see that some things just never change around here . Jack ... I can't believe that you are still wasting your valuable time posting on a forum where those who defend Apollo play such ridiculous games . You remember that old expression don't you ? .... "Never argue with an idiot . They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ."

"NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars." Neil said they couldn't see any stars from the lunar surface by eye , from the daylight side of the moon, unless they were looking through the optics ... So I guess that he , Buzz Lightyear and the Space Cadet were lying .

NASA did land men on the moon !!! An Apollo astronaut was stranded on the moon and NASA sent another mission up to rescue him !!... Click onto this link to watch this exciting video showing this daring rescue mission ! http://www.dangertheater.com/la-ep5.html

NASA warped our view of space When I complained to some people that NASA faked the moon landing, a few of them responded something to the effect: "Even if NASA faked Apollo, nobody was killed, so no harm was done. So why should I care?" First of all, there are accusations that NASA murdered a few people. Second, even if nobody was hurt, and even if there was no cost to the taxpayers, the Apollo moon hoax hurt the human race because it has given people a warped view of the universe. This in turn is causing other problems. An extreme example might help explain how a "harmless" scam can hurt a nation. Imagine that the U.S. Navy fakes a trip to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and claims to have discovered hundreds of technically advanced cities full of mermaids. Would you dismiss that scam as a harmless prank? That type of scam would do more then waste money. For example, it would cause millions of people around the world to fantasize about traveling to the bottom of the ocean to visit those cities. School textbooks would teach students about the incredible discovery of the mermaid cities. Private companies would look for investors to build submarines that can handle the intense pressure. And Americans would boast that only America has the technology to visit the mermaid cities. Let's now consider the effect of the Apollo moon hoax. Can astronauts see stars from the moon? My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon. If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds? If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space? Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows? NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars. How dangerous is the radiation in space? Prior to the 1950's nobody knew what outer space was. In the 1950's and 1960's NASA launched probes to investigate space. NASA discovered that the sunshine in outer space is full of X-rays, protons, and other atomic particles. The earth's magnetic field and atmosphere shield us from the X-rays and atomic particles. A lot of ultraviolet light is also blocked by the atmosphere, especially the high frequency ultraviolet light. NASA also discovered gamma radiation in space. However, not much of it was coming from our sun. Instead, the gamma rays were coming from every direction of the universe. More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays. You can see this effect in particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, and X-ray machines. In an X-ray machine, a metal target is bombarded by high speed electrons. The atoms of the metal react by emitting X-rays. The faster the electrons are traveling when they hit the target, the more powerful the X-rays. The surface of the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that come from outer space. However, the particles that hit the moon are traveling at a much higher speed than the electrons in an X-ray machine. The result is that the moon emits powerful gamma rays, not weak X-rays. The moon is a spherical target in a "cosmic gamma ray machine". If gamma rays appeared purple to our eyes, and if we could travel beyond our atmosphere, we would find that the moon is glowing purple, and that it is much more purple than the sun. Outer space is a horrible environment, similar to the inside of a nuclear reactor, although the radiation in space is not as concentrated as in nuclear reactor. How did NASA protect the astronauts from all the x-rays, gamma rays, and atomic particles? NASA claims the radiation is insignficant, so not much protection is needed. The truth about radiation in space will never be known until the world gets better governments. Low earth orbits are safer than deep space. John Glenn and other early astronauts did not need very much protection from radiation because: They spent only a few hours in space. Astronauts in a low orbit are protected from most of the protons and electrons that come from the sun because the earth's magnetic field deflects them. The earth is a shield to objects that are close to it, as shown in the drawing below. The black arrows show that a lot of radiation and meteors is blocked by the earth when an object is in low earth orbit. If an astronaut were to travel to the moon, he would first have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts. This is an area of high concentration of protons and electrons. If an astronaut travels beyond the radiation belts, he will be exposed to gamma rays, x-rays, atomic particles, and meteors from every direction. What happens to a living creature as it travels through the Van Allen radiation belts? How long can a creature survive inside those belts? And how long can it survive the radiation of deep space? There are also lots of tiny meteors flying from every direction at extremely high speeds. How long can an spacecraft survive bombardment by tiny meteors? How long can the space suit of an astronaut survive the bombardment? We will never know until we get better governments. The Auroras. There is less protection from the sun's atomic particles at the north and south poles because the earth's magnetic field diminishes at those locations. Some of the electrons and protons from the sun slam into the air molecules near the poles. This causes the atoms to glow, just like in a neon lamp. We refer to the glow as the "Auroras". The glow of the auroras is proof that space is deadly. The colorful auroras are fascinating, but they are proof that outer space is a very dangerous place. Since the atomic particles cause the atmosphere to glow, what would they do to astronauts? We will never know until we get better governments. Airplane trips expose us to radiation. The earth's atmosphere and magnetic field protect us from a lot of the radiation and particles from outer space. Therefore, when we fly in an airplane we are exposed to a slight increase in radiation. The higher the plane flies, the more radiation we experience. If we were to fly directly over the north or south poles, we would be exposed to even more radiation. Supposedly, all airlines know about this, so none of them fly over the poles. Airlines also alter their routes when the sun ejects large amounts of particles towards the earth. The airlines are more concerned about the atomic particles from outer space than the Apollo astronauts. NASA puts a monkey into space in 1969. Before sending people to the moon, NASA decided to conduct an experiment to determine the effect of a long space flight. On the 29th of June 1969 NASA put a monkey into orbit around the earth. The plan was to have the monkey circle the earth for 30 days, and then bring it back to earth for an analysis. NASA is secretive on how close to the Van Allen radiation belts this monkey reached, but they admit that the monkey's health began deteriorating after a few days in orbit. On the ninth day NASA decided to bring the spacecraft down. The monkey died eight hours after the spacecraft was recovered. Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon. The monkey may have died simply because of the way NASA confined it to a tiny spacecraft, but even so, I would consider its death to be a sign that NASA was not ready to send people to the moon. NASA puts frogs into space in 1971. In November 1970, 1½ years after claiming to have the technology to put people on the moon, NASA put two frogs into orbit for 7 days. Unlike the monkey, NASA had no intention of bringing the frogs back to earth. They simply wanted to observe the frogs. I suppose that the death of the monkey caused NASA to wonder if they can keep anything alive in outer space for more than a few days. De we need protection from ultraviolet light? Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly. However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor. You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site. Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he lower his tinted visor. Many visitors to Florida are more concerned about ultraviolet light than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous environment. Is weightlessness fun? NASA creates the impression that weightlessness is lots of fun, as if it is equivalent to floating in a pool of water. However, all the evidence suggests that it is more horrible than being on a small ship in rough water. Weightlessness causes serious problems with our digestive system and our sense of balance. The end result is that astronauts vomit. Furthermore, remaining weightless for long periods of time is bad for our health. Does every astronaut vomit in space? How often do the astronauts vomit? Do they have trouble sleeping? Is it difficult for them to swallow food? The truth about these issues will not be known until we get better governments. Do moon rocks have sharp edges? The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up. The astronauts were behaving as if they were in damp sand that was safe to fall down in. The damp sand would also explain why they were leaving footprints. The images from the surveyor spacecraft show the moon to be a dry mixture of crushed rock. If some moon rocks have sharp edges, falling down could tear a hole in the space suit. We will never know what the moon's surface is like until we get better governments. .............................................................. Source: For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

Craig ... Your hatred of Jack couldn't be jealously could it ? ... I mean after all , he is famous , even among the untruthful game players on the clavius forum , and nobody here or even there for that matter , ever discusses any of your work . Me thinks thou dost protest too much ... again . Sorry, I'm just sick of him stating things as facts when there is absolutely no evidence it ever happened Kevin ... I don't state things as facts when they're not ...That would be your job , as a defender of nasa and their bogus Apollo photography . The video in question and under discussion was PRE-RECORDED FOR PLAYBACK LATER FOR THE TV PROGRAM , where only a few minutes of it was shown to the unsuspecting public ..... Even Armstrong admitted as much in the video .. and if you bothered to watch it , you would know this . It was faked from LEO , the position the Apollo astronot's were in space , on July 16, 17 and 18 of 1969 , the date of this pre-recorded video .

Bump for Craig .... I rest my case ... You're wrong and I'm right .... Get over it .

Here's another article which proves that nasa intentionally altered the color of the Mars photos ... This is NOT a conspiracy site , and I even included the hateful insults directed to conspiracy therorists to prove this point and show that at least I have nothing to hide . This blows your nonsense right out of the water Craig .... Everyone , including Evan , knows that the nasa deliberately screwed with the Martian photos to make them look more 'alien' in appearence and conform to the "Red Planet " myth .... God fobid we would be allowed to see the truth about the color of Mars ... Or the truth of anything , for that matter .... But you know what they say N A S A stands for ... NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER ! ........................................................ What Color is Mars? Tungsten points to a discussion that has been going on in several threads here on Martian Soil, lead by Barry Kearns about the true color of the Martian surface and skies, as humans would experience it through their own eyes. Barry contends that comparing various calibration shots and some of the earliest Spirit images released by NASA suggest that we would see Mars not in shades of red and orange as it's been romantisized by the phrase The Red Planet, but it would contain a lot more earthly colors, including specs of blue and green. The charges aren't new, similar discussions were raised about Viking images in the past. Barry is certainly very passionate about the topic and has gone to great lengths to discuss it. Personally though, I'm not clear what NASA's agenda could be for altering the color of images released to the public. Does a redder Mars help them meet the public's expectations of what the planet should look like better? Would the mission seem less credible in their eyes if it looked more like pictures taken here on Earth and thus gain them less support for future missions? Perhaps there are technical reasons at the root of this that required a compromise in how the images are presented. I'd love to hear from our readers here what they think might be behind this. I'm also attempting to elicit a response from someone on the Athena team on the subject (Jim Bell, who is in charge of the cameras on the Mars rovers comes to mind). Posted by jschuur in Mars Exploration Rover | Home Previous: Maestro Data package #2 Released Next: Spirit Shows Its Empty Nest Related NASA Unveils Color Snapshot of Mars (Jan 6, 2004) Mars Color Imager and Context Camera (Oct 19, 2006) NASA Rover Finds Earth in Martian Sky; Deploys High Gain Antenna; Color Pictures Expected Monday (Jan 5, 2004) Fram In Color (May 27, 2004) Comments I've thought about this before and come to the conclusion that NASA is reproducing the colors as faithfully as they know how. Now that isn't to say NASA is above milking something to generate some excitement (think "Possible Evidence of Life Found in Martian Meteorite" headline), but that doesn't really apply here. I mean, if the colors were more earthy then I think that would generate MORE excitement about a manned mission. I also don't think the NASA scientists would participate in such a blatant lie, sounds too conspiracy theory to me. If we accept that then we have to start listening to the crackpots that say we never went to the moon. They have a color calibration chart onboard, I'm sure they are using it. Posted by: skantman at January 21, 2004 08:47 AM It seemed obvious to me that they would be using the color calibration tool as well... it just makes sense. But if you look at the image of the tool as included in the January 8th mosaic (bottom center), I don't see how they *COULD BE* calibrating the images properly. The tool in that picture looks almost nothing like the actual tool. Blue should not be shown as hot pink in a properly calibrated image. If they are unable to properly calibrate the images, they have no business claiming that the images actually *are* calibrated to anything close to true color. The pictures of the tool for the MarsDail project, the Lego figure "Biff Starlight", the US Flag... all show at reasonably close to true colors. The mosaic photos clearly are NOT. The two different versions of PIA05015 should be enough to show that there's some serious explaining to do regarding color... the press release photos are ridiculously over-red. People keep insisting on wanting to speculate on motivations. I've heard a variety of them, and frankly don't care which of them might be the underlying cause *IF* this is deliberate. (Note the "if"). None of these are *my* offerings for motivations, but I'll offer some that I've heard others mention. Please don't ask me to defend any of them, these are NOT my speculations on motivations. I don't particularly believe that any of these have to be the "real" reason... motivations are irrelevant to me: 1) Funding concerns. The current exploration team that is getting funded now is populated heavily by geologists and robotics experts. So long as Mars continues to be portrayed as "dead", their cash cow is safe... they keep getting funded. Seeing strong evidence of life shifts funding towards biologists and manned missions instead. No one wants to lose funding. 2) Dodging conspiracy theorists. If the terrain and sky look remarkably Earth-like, that provides fodder for conspiracy nuts to say that the probes aren't actually on Mars. Adjusting colors to make it look alien keeps the noise from the kooks down to a dull roar. 3) Dodging long-term accountability / maintaining credibility. If the Mars exploration teams have been showing Mars as "too red" all along, revealing the truth now opens up a can of worms regarding how long the deception has been going on. Very pointed questions start getting asked, and jobs might be on the line. 4) Preconception. If current team members are driving what the pictures "should look like" based off of previous data (which may have been suspect), then they might simply be making adjustments that are "obvious" to them, without being scientifically justifiable. 5) Pressure to meet deadlines / poor planning. Expediency may be driving the actual data gathered, as opposed to gathering the data necessary to present the images as originally represented ("you'll see Mars in its true colors"). If they didn't plan to take L4 images and they are required, they might just be slapping together whatever they have and just hoping that folks don't notice. 6) Pandering to ignorance. If the public has been "taught" already what the surface is supposed to look like, they might be unsatisfied with pictures that are nowhere close to that expectation ("These don't look like Mars... OK, where are the REAL pictures?"). Ironically, this could lead to exactly the same sort of conspiratorial chatter that they might have been seeking to avoid. I'm sure there are plenty of others, and I won't include the more ridiculously whacked-out ones that I'd heard offered. My point is that their actual motivation would be largely MOOT so long as they know that they are putting out mis-representative picture. If they know that, I don't care what caused them to do it... I just want it stopped. Posted by: Barry Kearns at January 21, 2004 10:01 AM The sadness (or hilarity, depending on your perspective at the moment) continues with the Jan 21st press release image: "Data from the panoramic camera's green, blue and infrared filters were combined to create this approximate true color image." Approximate true color? Definitely... just look at the image yourself. Quite convincing. We all know that hot pink is "approximately" blue. It's all over that picture. Everyone should just learn to accept that the NASA logo has an "approximately" dark brown background (lower right corner of platform). That much is definitely clear. We should alert the NASA webmasters and have them fix their copies. And of course, for you trivia buffs who want to zoom in on the picture at the upper right of the platform, you can verify what we were all no-doubt taught in school: That the United States flag is made up of (approximately) brown and light tan stripes, with light tan stars set in a field of dark brown. There's no cause for concern here, it's all easy to reconcile. All it takes is the realization that "false" is approximately the same as "true". What's next? A booming voice telling us to "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE LENSES BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"? Posted by: Barry Kearns at January 21, 2004 04:43 PM Found several more webpages discussing this issue today: http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_ima...calibration.htm http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html (very technical!) Enjoy. I know I did! Posted by: Tungsten at January 21, 2004 07:28 PM More links: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/30805#613967 http://www.xfacts.com/spirit2004/ Posted by: Peter Uwira at January 22, 2004 03:11 AM I am afraid that in many respects that the Martian landscape and sky are too pink,too orange. I would allow that sometimes we might see a more blue sky when the dust in the atmosphere diminishes. Astronomical artist Don Davis (who worked for USGS in times past) has prepared some studies of color on Mars (he has his own web site). My very limited experience with the Davis work, plus other impressions, suggest that Mars might have bluer skies and perhaps browner soil than we are being shown in the Spirit and other Martian surface photos, except when dust storms are occurring, and their aftereffects are present. I write as someone who studied the colors of Mars myself over the years. I made 30 hand-painted globes of Mars for NASA, JPL, and some universities and planetaria 1961-1967 based on the observations of Dr. Gerard de Vaucouleurs (deceased, with his name given to a large crater fragment near the crater Gusev in which Spirit has landed; the de Vaucouleurs feature is shown on both versions of the Sky and telescope Mars globes currently available). I was also cartographer for de Vaucouleurs' Mars Map Project 1968-1974 at the University of Texas at Austin in the Department of Astronomy, in which we made maps of Mars which utilized groundbased telescopic data consisting of de Vaucouleurs' observations, Lowell Observatory photgraphic data, and Pic du Midi, France photographic data (and later, photographs from Mariner 9 Mars spacecraft photography) to create a variety of Mars maps. I think the problem of color on Mars is an interesting one which should be pursued by those able to work scientifically on it. Posted by: James Roth at January 22, 2004 07:57 PM Re James Roth Here's the link to Don Davis' website: http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/MARSCLRS.html Great site! Posted by: Peter Uwira at January 24, 2004 03:08 AM Well, the first color mosaic is in from Opportunity (congratulations on the near-perfect landing, NASA! Only 2-3 g on the first bounce... that's awesome!) And, of course, the pictures put out are a self-described "bizarre" landscape. The took the shots with the wholly inappropriate (when trying to show humna-like colors) L2, L5 and L6 lenses. When they were making larger panoramas, which included stereo pictures, it was at least understandable why the would include lens L2... there was a complementary R2 lens. In this sequence, no R2 frames were taken. It would have taken exactly as long to take the pictures using L4, L5 and L6 as it did with the shots they chose, and we would have received the benefit of something close to what a human sees. So long as NASA persists in using the L2-L5-L6 scheme, we will continue to see "color" pictures that can NEVER be adjusted to something like what humans would see... the L2 lens contaminates the human-vision red domain by producing very strong 'red channel' signals from predominantly blue fields, and likewise swamps out green pigments. An L2-L5-L6 picture cannot be separated back out and remixed, because there's no way to distinguish if an L2 pixel is bright because it is blue or red. This leads to the (IMO) fatal flaw in trying to use L2 as the red channel for color images approximating what a human would see. NASA has yet to produce a single picture which include the L4, L5 and L6 filters in a picture which simulatneously shows the color calibration tool and the landscape. There have been quite a few opportunities to do so (no pun intended). The color pictures that they took of the calibration tool (with L4, L5 and L6) could have done precisely that... the mosaic of Jan 8th shows that a single EFF frame easily holds the tool in the lower-left and a LOT of landscape in the top half of the image. Instead of capitalizing on that chance, they chose to shoot the pictures of the calibration tool as "ESF" (sub-frame) pictures, meaning the Rover pre-crops the image down to a particular size before transmitting it. Having the color tool in the same shot as the terrain (using USEFUL color filters) is the obvious means by which we can determine what the landscape would look like... to a human. Since human eye color receptors do NOT receive large signals in the 750 nm range, we are left with "color" pictures as the might be seen by something utterly non-human. If non-humans were funding the mission, that would be fine. But since it is HUMANS that are paying for this mission, I think it's only fair that the mission team make a simple change/addtion in their filter choices, and show us the L4, L5, L6 terrain data with the calibration tool in the same single EFF frame. Doing so would completely end any speculation about what color the terrain looks like to humans. I see no good reason at all that they CAN'T do this... they are simply choosing NOT TO DO IT. Posted by: Barry Kearns at January 25, 2004 09:59 AM http://www.martiansoil.com/archives/001683.php

Translated from Craigspeak : I'm going to have the last word about this even though I have been proven to be wrong .... again . You know for an older fellow Craig , you sure do act immature about all of this ... Is it because you always have to have the last word , or because you are trying to convince everyone that you are always right , even when you're not ?.. Or is it maybe because you just can't stand seeing my name as having posted last on any of these threads ? You really do seem to have a problem with anyone who exposes nasa's many deceptions .... Maybe you should consider getting some counseling for this.

Like my grannie always used to say Craig ... "The proof is in the pudding" ... Or in nasa's sad case , the proof is in their phony , altered photographs ... Does Martian dust get kicked up higher than moon dust does ? .... You mean to say that little bit of atmosphere on Mars can kick that 'RED' dust all the way up into that BLUE sky ?? Don't be such a sore loser Craig ... The whole world knows that nasa altered the colors of the Mars photos... and one day , hopefully soon , they will also know that they faked the Apollo photography too ...

Lamson ... You wouldn't know the truth about nasa if it jumped up and slapped you on your closed minded , opinionated face . The color of MARS was ALTERED two hours after the first color images came in showing the TRUE color of Mars , which looks like the Arizona desert .... Hey , do you think it's possible ?? .... Naw , they wouldn't be so stupid to fake another mission , would they ? And here is all the proof that you or I or anyone else should need that nasa changed the color of Mars . Craig's and nasa's American flag ... Red , white and blue ? .... Nope ... try maroon , off white and purple .

Dave ... On the thread you linked me to , you made the claim that the lunar day was.. "Lunar daytime = 14 earth days = 336 hours" Yet this web site says the lunar day is ... Earth ... 24 hours .. Moon ... 29.5 earth-days .. http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/bcp/zodiacal/moon/lab.htm So if this is the right number , then your calculations are wrong . Yes, I have the Apollo 17 photos in question, showing the differences in distance perception and mountain size , but before I post them I was hoping to get some professional feedback, so I would know if I was right about this or not . If I do into this one completely cold , then Lamson will just play games with it ... but if my suspicions are right , then this will be some of the best proof yet that the photos were faked . So give me a few days and let me see what I can find out .

The answer is obviously number 2 . 2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke. It's NOT an artefact that was mistakingly created in the moon set dirt ... It was put in the photo later, during the editing process as a JOKE ! You know what a joke is don't you Dave ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos .

The sad facts of the color being ordered altered , are in both articles I posted here ... I don't make this stuff up to bust out nasa's lies and trickery ... Other people , who are qualified to do this , bust them out . If you really can't understand that nasa ordered the images of Mars changed to show the planet is red , when it isn't , then you would be the one who is acting ignorant , not me . Attacking everything I post is just a silly game you play on this forum ... and saying that I am ignorant about everything I post is another game you play . Read the articles ... It's very clear that nasa ordered the color changed in the Mars photos ... and if you don't believe these articles , then I will be very happy to post dozens of others which state the same tragic facts . Like I said before Lamson ... you lost this one .

Who cares whether the camera was close to the window or not ? I really don't have the time to engage in this current misinformation from the two of you, but the position of the camera has EVERYTHING to do with how nasa faked the image of Earth from LEO .. and Sibrel's footage PROVED it was not "filling up the window " , as Armstrong was coached to say it was .... If you look at the video you will see that the entire shoot was taped from the rear of the CSM ... and that the image of Earth was faked using the window ( round or not ) and a transparency .... BTW .. The hatch window is ROUND Dave , and right next to the rectangular window .... Just in case you forgot about that little fact . Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up? Yes, Kevin .... The proof is in the audio track of this bogus video .... A little friend at mission control whisperd ... "TALK"... into Armstrong's ear at one point , when he forgot to deliver his lines after being asked a question . The whole thing was a set up for the TV program of the boys 'half way to the moon' , when they were really only in LEO ... Nothing about it was live and nothing about it was real either .

Poor Craig , you never can admit it when you are wrong and nasa has been deceptive . Regardless of which sites post this information the FACTS remain the same .... nasa altered the color of Mars ... and no mind games you play here , with which are nasa sites and which are not nasa sites , is going to change that fact . Mars is not red .... The first photos that came in were changed from the true colors ... The real color of the American flag was the dead givaway .... So now the whole world knows how deceptive and untruthful nasa really is ... As if pretending to land manned missions on the moon was not bad enough , they have even changed the color of the stars and stripes !! Give it up Lamson ... You lost this one .

I may well be wrong with some of my interpretations (although noone has really challenged them), but the more I look at them in detail, the more I realise they must have been taken on the scale suggested, not in the confines of a studio with painted backdrops. I have done the same but obviously came to much different conclusions than you did . One of the reasons nasa got away with faking the Apollo photos is because they did it in many different ways .... The use of indoor moon sets being only one of them . Some photos were taken outdoors , so the sun may have created changes in the shadows ... but Jack brought up a valid point which no one seemed to properly address ... Would the sun have changed so drastically from one photo to the next , in only a matter of moments , with the lunar day being the equivalent of 29.5 Earth days ? I have studied many of the mountains in the Apollo photos and they look very much like painted backdrops ... and then there is the question of distance perception and the change of mountain size from one photo to the next ... If everything photograhed in a vacuum loses distance and depth perception , then why do some photos show distance and others don't , of the same scene ? There are Apollo 17 photos of the same mountains, taken behind the LM .. and depending on where the photo was taken , the distance to the mountains behind the LM shows in one , where the mountains look huge , but then in most of the other photos from the same scene , the mountains behind the LM look like small hills , very close to the LM . So how could this have occured if everything photographed in a vacuum does not show correct distance or depth perception ? ... How could these changes of distance and mountain size be accounted for ?

Bill ..... I didn't know that about Castro's beard , but it figures ... Whatever it takes to make the "bad guy " look bad , right ?

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE? No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Correction Lamson ... I proved you wrong and you can't stand it ... So now you use some more of your typical distraction tactics . The correct color of Mars would be the FIRST photos which came in BEFORE nasa ordered one of their unfortunate employees to CHANGE IT . What is nasa hiding about Mars by altering it's real color ? Maybe that scientists have been WRONG all these years and Mars is not so red after all ? At this point I'm beginning to wonder what nasa hasn't lied about .

A scanning flaw ? .... Oh that one's a beaut !! You can take whatever explanation you want to but it's clearly a single tire track placed in the photo as a joke . You know what a joke is don't you Craig ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos .

This is one of the nasa links in the Above Top Secret article you posted here .... http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit.html Among all of these below . Photoshop-only explanation here. Download these 2 sets of 3 images. Series 1. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2899L4M1.JPG http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2899L5M1.JPG http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2899L6M1.JPG Series 2. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2095L2M1.JPG http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2095L5M1.JPG http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P2095L6M1.JPG THESE ARE ALL NASA SITES !!! ( hint ... nasa is written in the http addy ) I have posted facts here ... They are just not the facts you like because they show up nasa for what they really are .... DISHONEST ! No matter what kind of mind games you play on this forum with all of my posts , there is one thing you can not refute with a thousand nasa disinformation articles .... They CHANGED THE COLOR OF THE MARS PHOTOS .... and in my book , this is proof of clear DECEPTION .

nasa's time is over with .... They have wasted many years and many billions of dollars accomplishing nothing of importance .... It's time to take space exploration out of their incompetant hands and turn future space exploration over to real civilian organizations which are privately funded , not government funded , and who do not have the military agenda of global control from space ...

The point I was making is that the original photo I posted here shows no tire tracks behind the buggy ( which it doesn't ) ... that it shows a a donut shaped tire track around a pile of rocks ( which it does ) ... that the mountain backdrop appears to be some distance from the foreground for a change ( better artist for this photo perhaps , or the use of small scale models to achieve more depth perception maybe ? ) and that the dividing line between the forground and the backdrop is clearly a few painted lines drawn by an artist .... Can I prove this ? ... No ... but can you prove it's a real photo taken on the moon ? I doubt it .

Did you guys know that mockery , ad homs , disinformation, ridicule and personal insults are the many ways in which nasa and the US government covers up their many deceptions and conspiracies ? ... and they use the gullible public and disinformation agents to promote this program ?