Duane Daman

The photos you posted show that the image of Earth was photographed from the rear of the CSM cabin , not right up to the window , as nasa claimed .... This was nasa's first deception.

The images you posted are not the ones used by Sibrel in his documentary .... This is nasa's second deception .

If this were really a true photo of Earth , taken from 130,000 miles out in space , they would not have been photographing it from the rear wall of the the CSM .... The camera would have been right up against the window , like they claimed it was ... but as we could all see from the You Tube video you posted here , that is simply not the case .

If the camera was smack up against the window , nothing could have gotten in between the image of Earth and the camera ... This video clearly shows a situation of trickery being used with the camera position and the use of a transparency pasted to the window .... Just as Sibrel showed in his documentary ... He also proved that this was a staged and scriped event ... In other words , a show for the TV coverage to come later .

Whether this trickery was accomplished using a round window or a rectangular one , is irrelevant .

I see that you chose to post the one and only, NASA covers their own disception with more misinformation link .... Gee, what a surprise .

How about try reading the info from this link at the bottom of the article ?

"Three spacecrafts have successfully landed on the surface of Mars. There were two Viking landers in 1976 and the Pathfinder lander in 1997. These landers retrieved a great deal of valuable information about the Martian surface, including a large number of color images. In the 27 years since the Viking spacecraft landed and the 5 years since Pathfinder landed, there has been no consensus on the calibration of these color images. The coloration of the Martian sky and landscape has been the subject of numerous scientific papers.

The first color image (12A006/001) of the surface of Mars was taken July 21, 1976, at the Viking 1 site, one day after the landing. Immediately displayed on color monitors at JPL, as seen in Figure 1a, the landscape awed observers with its resemblance to that of Arizona. Typical desert colorations of soil and rock, ranging from umber sand to yellowish-brown and olivine-colored rocks stood out clearly under a blue sky. TWO HOURS LATER , HOWEVER , THE OFFICIAL IMAGE WAS CHANGED TO THE MONOTONE OF ORANGE-RED (NASA P-17164), Figure 1b, that, with few exceptions, has prevailed in NASA-published images of Mars ever since, as presented by Mutch et al.[1]. However, a spectral analysis of color images of the Viking 1 site reported[2] a broader palate. The paper made the first, and perhaps only, reported use of JPL’s Image Processing Laboratory to analyze digitally the red, green and blue color channels of the images taken by the Viking 1 lander camera. In addition to studying the color images, their RGB components were transformed into saturation, hue and intensity components to enhance subtle deviations. When these components were equally amplified to produce an equal average sensitivity over the spectral bandpass, the resulting “radiometric” (closest possible approach in appearance to a human observer) images very closely resembled the first color image (12A006/001). Among the range of colors, the paper reported that some of the rocks exhibited greenish patterns that apparently changed between images taken 301 sols apart. Radiometric images of lichen-bearing terrestrial rocks taken and processed through the same system as were the Viking images showed a close resemblance of the lichen colonies to the greenish patches on the Mars rocks. Inclusion in the analysis of three near-IR channels available on the Martian images enhanced the greenness of the patches that were, to the sensitivity of the method, virtually indistinguishable from the lichen colonies on the terrestrial rocks."

http://mars.spherix.com/spie2003/SPIE_2003_Color_Paper.htm

The two articles I posted here about nasa deliberately changing the color of Mars , are not conspiracy sites ... So you're wrong about that also ... Try reading this again and maybe you will understand what happened and why .

"Two hours after the first color image appeared on the monitors, a technician abruptly changed the image from the light-blue sky and Arizona-like landscape to a uniform orange-red sky and landscape [below]. Ron Levin looked in disbelief as the technician went from monitor to monitor making the change. Minutes later, Ron followed him, resetting the colors to their original appearance. Levin and Straat were interrupted when they heard someone being chastised.

It was Ron Levin being chewed out by the Viking Project Director himself, James S. Martin, Jr. Gil Levin went immediately and asked, "What is going on?" Martin had caught Ron changing all the color monitors back to their original settings. He warned Ron that if he tried something like that again, he’d be thrown out of JPL for good. The Director then asked a TRW engineer assisting the Biology team, Ron Gilje, to follow Ron Levin around to every color monitor and change it back to the red landscape.

"What Gil Levin, Ron and Patricia Straat did not know (even to this writing) is that the order to change the colors came directly from the NASA Administrator himself, Dr. James Fletcher. Months later, Gil Levin sought out the JPL Viking Imaging Team technician who actually made the changes and asked why it was done. The technician responded that he had instructions from the Viking Imaging Team that the Mars sky and landscape should be red and went around to all the monitors ‘tweaking’ them to make it so. Gil Levin said, ‘The new settings showed the American flag (painted on the Landers – below as having purple stripes. The technician said that the Mars atmosphere made the flag appear that way."

The color of the Martian images were CHANGED ON PURPOSE ... and no amount of nasa disinformation can refute that unhappy fact .

So which flag do you salute Craig ? .... NASA's phony one ?

Or the real one ?

Considering the junk you post here , my guess would be the one with the maroon stripes and the purple stars .

Evidence that NASA is altering the true colors of the pictures of Mars

Investigation shows that there are several indications that the NASA is tampering with the colours, and changes them from an Earth-like environment into a red inhospitable environment. But it seems that the young scientists at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are not convenient with this.

Changed colour tabs

Here is shown the first found evidence the NASA is altering the colours, in such a way, that blue is displayed as red:

The above images can be found on http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/pre.../20040108a.html (If they haven't changed the pictures meanwhile...)

(Update: Yes, they have now (Jan 16th) cut the GREEN tab out of the picture, and on the lastest 360 degrees panorama picture they cut out the whole calibration target!)

Please follow the hyperlink and investigate the page. Note that the color calibration target shown on the other pictures where you can't see the sky, does have the colour blue on Mars and Earth, but on the large panoramic picture on the top of the page, they have changed blue into red! What happened? The blue has changed into red. This also explains why the green tab has turned into orange, because green is a combination of blue and yellow. If you change the blue component into red, yellow + red will give orange, exactly what happened in the picture. This means: All green elements in the complete picture have changed into orange, and all blue elements have changed into red!

JPL has it right

At the press conference last saturday, the JPL-scientists showed the latest picture of the Martian landscape. It showed a salmon-coloured desert with a blue sky. It seems that they did it on purpose, since previous pictures were all extremely red. Below the pictures of the conference are shown:

The above pictures were taken from Associated Press

However, the people of the NASA have altered the colours into this

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

To see more of nasa's dishonest tampering with other Martian photos go here .

http://www.libertythink.com/totalinformation/BlueMars.htm

"[Armstrong - (Chuckling) "It may still be in that suit pocket, for all I know."]

Hmmmm .. Sounds vaguely familiar .

"I can only assume he's confusing the suit with the EVA gloves and the PLSS, which were left behind ..."

No confusion ... the book said suit and that the tube of soil sample was thrown away in it's zippered pocket .

"Of course, Sibrel is trying to lead viewers into believing that it was a round window"

In the clip I saw it looked exactly like a round window and even the two inch thickness of the rim at the botton of the round window showed the earthshine on it , which distorted the shape of Earth ....So if Sibral was trying to mislead anyone , then he did it by somehow altering the video footage by changing the shape of the window .

The hatch window was round and located right next to the rectangular window , so who's to say they didn't use both windows while faking the image of Earth ?

And being a diligent resercher, you did know about the configuration of the CSM windows anyway didn't you? Or at least how to confirm it for yourself?

Do I detect a just a tad of sarcasm in that question ? .... I remembered the CSM had a round window in it but didn't know the configuration of the other windows .... Did I know how to confirm it for myself ? Yes ... Did I have the time to do that ? .. NO ....That's why I asked Evan to confirm that the CSM ( I mistakingly called it the LM) had a round window in it , which it did and which you for some strange reason failed to mention .

There is much footage of the "smoking gun" scene ... and the footage in Sibrel's documenatary appears to be taken , from some point at least , from a round window .... but even if it wasn't , the transparency could have worked just as well on a rectangular window .

The photo you posted above is NOT the "smoking gun" footage from Sibrel's documentary ... but what a surprise that is ! .. You and nasa both being dishonest ...

What was that you were saying about intellectual dishonesty ? ... Sorry Dave , but you could write the book on that subject .

I agree with you that Sibrel's tactics leave a lot to be desired , but he didn't make the Apollo astronots look bad ... they did that all on their own .

If Sibrel was so off base and if the astronots had nothing to be guilty or ashamed of , or had nothing to hide , then all they had to do was to go along with his wishes , and then politely ask him to leave ... but that is not what happened .

Instead they sweated bullets telling conflicting stories , looked completely uncomfortable while while they struggled to answer questions they didn't have the answers to , and then got so ticked off with Sibrel that they shoved him , kicked him , cussed him out and then one of their sons threatened to have him waxed by the CIA , and he wasn't kidding ...

If each of the astronots had not acted so guilty in their own way , then Sibrel would have had no material with which to make this documentary .... but he did have material .. Plenty of it .. and whether you agree with his tactics or not , is besides the point ....because he proved his point .

nasa has royally screwed all of us , so maybe it's time to shut them down and turn over space exploration to private organizations who might know how to get the job done .... All this planet needs is to have a bunch of yahoos carrying nuclear bombs up to the moon in the year 2020 .

Return to the moon in 2020 ? .. What a joke !

All the billions of dollars that nasa has pissed away circling this planet going nowhere , should have gone to more important endeavers ... Such as fixing all of the billions of problems on this planet , before creating more on another one .

Evan ... Just because they remembered to put the tire tracks in photos AS17-137-21012, AS17-137-21013 and AS17-137-21011 , does not mean that they remembered to put tracks in AS17-137-21010 ... because they obviously didn't .... I noticed you used DIFFERENT photos to try prove a point about the photo in question ....So who is being intellectualy dishonest ?

AS17-137-21010 has no tire tracks in the photo behind the buggy for the simple reason that the one's faking these photos forgot to put them in the picture ... But instead , probably jokingly , put a single track around that pile of rocks instead ... It's a whistle blower photo if there ever was one ... and you posting different photos does not put tire tracks in the photo being discussed .... That is the oldest trick in the book with you nasa defenders ... Posting DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics to get away from the one that is anomalous .

Dave .. You mis-read my post ... I didn't mean there were no tracks in the photo you posted ... I meant there were no tire tracks in the one I posted .... Except for the single track around the rocks , which had to be a joke by one of the whistle blower photo fakers .

Don't get so bent out of shape over one phony photo and one guy who believes Apollo was a hoax ... It's really not that big of a deal ... I've pretty much gotten to the point where I think this entire endeaver is a big waste of my time anyway .... Not only am I in the minority , but I have had to read complete BS on every forum I ever posted on about this ... I really thought this forum would be different but it isn't ... It's the same stupid game wherever I go with this information .

Until I see definitive proof that these photos were really taken on the moon , I will believe that they are fake .... No one can honestly answer any of the photographic hoax evidence I post without playing games ... I posted a photo that has no tire tracks behind the buggy but does have one single silly looking track around a pile of rocks ...Then you post a photo which is completely irrelevant to the photo in question and Evan posts a few photos from the same photo shoot which do show tire tracks .... So what ?? ... The photo I posted has no tracks where they should be ...so other photos which do show tracks are completely irrelevant .

And no one has even tried to address the most important question , which is why does this photo and the few others from the same shoot show distance from the foreground to the background , when so many other mountain photos don't ? .... And why is there a definate dividing line between the foreground and the background which looks like artist brushstrokes ?

These photos are partly drawn with phony mountain backdrop scenery ... and why you and your friends refuse to see this is because you have made up your mind that Apollo really went to the moon and really took these photos there .... but guess what Dave ?...They didn't take them there because they are all fake !

nasa even lied about the real color of Mars for godsakes ! ... and lied about being a civilain organization engaging in the friendly exploration of space .... Well , if they are so honest , then why did they screw with the Mars photos ?... and if they're really a civilian organization , then why are they planning military dominance of space by wanting to set up military bases on the moon to control the entire world ?? ... and why did they detonate a nuclear bomb in the Van Allen belts during operation Starfish Prime ? ... They thought they could blow a corridor thorugh the belts to get off of this planet ? ... but all they did was to create a third artificial belt which was even more radioactive than the two natural belts which were already bad enough !

Wake up people ... You are all defending an illusion .... An organization that has passed it's prime , has wasted billions of tax payers dollars and is so incompetant now that they not only killed 14 shuttle astronauts , but can't even send a manned mission higher than LEO ! .... We have all been duped and it's time you guys woke up to that fact and stop wasting your valuable time defending something which has no more value to it ...

If you want me to stop posting here, that's fine with me ... I have much more important things to do with my time anyway , than to argue with a bunch of closed minded people who fell for the biggest hoax in the history of the world .

bump

Evan and Peter ... You are both wrong ... NASA might have started out under the guise of being a civilain organization , but their cover has now been completely blown ... Along with their many lies and cover ups , including the bogus Apollo moon landings .

Here is an article explaining how the US military industrial complex now controls NASA and everything they do .

WHY THE SECRECY?

A Millennium Group Report

Earl L. Crockett, Writer

Over the last few years we all have experienced various situations where NASA has covered up, altered, or otherwise kept space information and data hidden from public view. Our first big example was, and still is, the fact that not one close range photo of Hale-Bopp has ever been released from the Hubble Space Telescope, or any other major U.S. observatory. We are also painfully aware that live, uncensored or delayed, broadcasts of space data and photos are simply no longer available. In addition we see example after example where NASA "gives" exclusive proprietary, or otherwise, data rights to private individuals or companies like Malin Space Sciences (Mars Surveyor), or Applied Research Corp. (Hale-Bopp); thereby excluding us, the taxpaying public, from information we have paid for.

The question must be asked, "Why the secrecy?" In fact if you are involved with documenting and reporting these instances of "missing" information, as we are at The Millennium Group, someone, somewhere, sometime (like on the Art Bell Show) will eventually challenge you to provide a plausible explanation. This presents a big problem since NASA is a $13.7 billion dollar per year institution now operating under stringent military/intelligence security policies, and we at the Millennium Group are self-funded private individuals doing this work in our spare time. The situation is so lopsided that it is ludicrous. You would need an intelligence force like the former KBG, working several years, to conclusively "prove" the reason for NASA's information blackout. And if you're new to this conversation, the information we're talking about is not the "what they had for breakfast, and the color of the astronauts underwear" public relations pabulum pumped out daily by the international NASA media combine.

There is, however, another means of approaching the question. In speaking about the then new science of quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein remarked that it was like looking at the face of a clock, seeing the numbers on the dials, and the minute and hour hands turning, but never being able to look around in back to see the arms and gears of the mechanism. This did not, however, prevent science from producing the sum total of our modern technology from quantum science. What did they do? They observed and measured the visible appearances of sub-atomic particles, like the electron, and then developed probabilities, or potentias. We must do the same. Science will never actually see an electron, and we'll never see inside the bowels of NASA.

So here's what our observations have recorded. We have a governmental organization that is charted to be a "civilian agency devoted to peaceful purposes". This supposed "civilian agency devoted to peaceful purposes" is acting like a top-secret, high- security, branch of the military. Why would NASA go to such pains to purposely withhold information from the public? Here are a few possibilities:

1. The military/intelligence takeover of NASA is so complete that secrecy is simply the standard operating procedure.

2. NASA now knows that it has spent trillions funding and supporting bad science based on the Big Bang cosmology model, and must hide the constant stream of space data coming in from our new satellites that proves them wrong; in other words a massive cover up.

3. There is something about the changes being seen in our Solar System environment such as the appearance of the "comets" Shoemaker/Levy-9 and Hale-Bopp, the probable new solar system members, and the increasing activity of the Sun that could be dangerous, if not catastrophic to planet Earth. NASA is, therefore, invoking a "National Security" factor, and hiding the data.

4. If NASA dropped its Big Bang "cover science", and revealed the true nature of our Universe, it would open the floodgates to private development of technology that they, NASA and the military/intelligence community, now possess and use for their own gain through their many incestuous relationships with the military-industrial complex.

5. There is something about the nature of Hale-Bopp, and the many strange and wondrous changes occurring in the Solar System, that if fully known, would alter forever humankind's view of who we really are as beings.

6. All of the above.

More here .

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/why.html

Duane-

You keep on saying that the Astronouts could not have kicked up enough dust to cover the LRV tracks and other boot-prints.

Oops again...

Take a look at the Hi-Res version of AS17-137-20982 of the Station 3 drive tube. Low-Res:

Note the the covering of the LRV tracks and the obliterated boot-prints.

Another one of Duane's myths exposed.

Great find. Very clear, close up photo of a rover track, with bootprints and kicked up dust covering it up completely.

Yeah it would be a great find if there were any tire tracks to be covered over in the buggy photos ... but sadly , there were none ... Neither were there enough bootprints where the buggy tires should have been to have completely covered them ...

Plus , the buggy could have come to a stop and the tire tracks ended in your photo .... There is no way of knowing by looking at that photo what the situation was ... That is unless the ALSJ has some silly dialogue about how the boys jumped out of the buggy and covered over the tire tracks with their dusty boots before taking off again .

In other words , this photo can't explain away the missing tire tracks in literally dozens of buggy photos ...

Sorry boys , but "Duane's myth has not been exposed " .... because there is no myth to expose , ... I'm afraid the only thing to expose, is a boat load of buggy photos with no tire tracks in them .... Even the donut tire track photo above doesn't show any tracks behind the buggy , where they belong .... but somebody sure did have some fun doing a wheelie around those rocks !!!

That 'donut' appears to be an error in the developing of the film. If you look closely, it's a complete circle and it passes over the rocks. It looks very much like something dripped on the film during processing.

Something dripped on the film alright ... A tire track ... Look at it in high resolution and you will see the tread marks ... It was obviously placed there by a whistle blower with a great sense of humor .... Something definately lacking in most of the replies on this forum .

So what were you saying on another thread about no depth perception showing up in the Apollo photos because they were taken in a vacuum on the moon ? .... Take a look at the donut track photo again ... You can see plenty of depth perception can't you ? ... See how far away those painted backdrop mountains seem to be ? .... So why is it that only some Apollo photos show how far away the mountains are , while others seem to have the mountain backdrops , allegedly located miles away in the distance , look as though they are only a few feet away from the foreground ?

The Apollo mountains are suppossedly huge , yet they only look like little hills in most of the Apollo photos .

Please explain why some photos, like the one above , show distance , while other don't ? ... the typical excuse for no distance perspective is the curious explanation that distance can't be perceived in a vacuum ... Yet in the donut tire photo above , it can be perceived .

You might want to get one of the professional photographers to answer this one Kevin ....

My explanation is the use of small scale models on a moon set ... Anyone have any other good ideas for this discrepancy in the Apollo photos ? ... Oh , and when the photographer took the tire donut photo , do you think he might have been standing on one of those huge moon mountains to get that shot ?

"Making unsupportable or inaccurate claims does nothing to reinforce your credibility."

My credibility with whom ? ... A bunch of nasa defenders ? .... You have gotto be kidding me ?!!?

I will withdraw nothing ... I know what I read ... and I will take some time this weekend to see if I can locate the book where I read this information ....

So are you now saying that because books are hard copy that they are not edited when necessary ?

If you read what I did in a book about the Apollo 11 mission and believed it to be untrue , would you not report it to someone at nasa , in hopes of having the book pulled and corrected ? ... Of course you would ... So don't pretend that books are not edited when obvious glaring mistakes are made ... Or new stories don't quite jive with the old one's .

Of course in nasa's case , their stories don't jive quite often ... but luckily for them , they have people like you to cover for them .

"I don't make claims regarding photography on any professional basis"

Neither do I .... I only go by what looks real and what doesn't... and when I listen to professional's explain something , I go by what makes the most sense to me .... I have read both Craig's and Jack's explanations as to why the Apollo photos look a certain way , and so far I have understood and agreed with Jack's analysis and not Craigs .

If a funtional buggy had been used for all of the photos then there would be tire tracks behind the buggys and between the front and rear tires in all of the photos ... but there isn't ... So the only explanation I can think of for this error , is that dummy buggys might have been used and instead of pushing them into place , causing obvious bootprints along the way next to the buggy , they dropped the buggy props in by cable , so as not to disturb the moon set dirt .

What I mean is that Dave will never admit the photos are fake because he believes that would imply that the missions were faked ... but that is not necessarily the case .... nasa could have gotten to the moon and found things they didn't want us to see .. So they faked the photos to cover up what is really on the moon .

What do I believe personally ? ... That both the Apollo photos and the Apollo missions were faked .

But I don't discount the possibly of an alternative technology landing men on the moon ... A stealth technology that our military wants to keep hidden from the world .... and if this alternate space program did take place behind the scenes , then Apollo was just the smoke screen paraded out in front of the TV cameras and the world ... The conventional technology used by Apollo didn't look like it could endure a fall off of a balcony , much less a trip through deep space to land safely on the moon .... I could be wrong , but you asked me to clarifly my position and that would be it .

"Would you be able to recall with certainty all the events that happened to you some 30 years in the past?"

If I had flown and landed on the moon I would .

"Who is "everyone"?"

Everyone who writes about the Apollo missions in wonder and amazement that not one astronot ever got hurt or ever got ill from any of the radiation exposure going through the belts or on the radioactive moon ..

"There are also the aspects of female physiology to consider."

So what are you trying to say ? ... That females need more protection from radiation then males do ? ... That's a new one on me .... and I thought I had heard them all .

"So what you are saying is that exposure duration to a radiation source is irrelevant to possible harm that exposure can do?"

Yes ... It's all bad if the shielding is not adequite .

Speaking of missing tire tracks ... The tracks are missing behind the buggy in this faked Apollo 17 photo also .... but guess where they are ? ...Well, one of them at least .... Doing a donut around the pile of rocks to the lower right of the buggy position ....

What is a single buggy tire track doing circling that pile of rocks ? ... Did the photo faker forget there were suppossed to be two tracks side by side , like behind the buggy ?

Check out the painted mountains in the background too .... How fake looking can you get ? ... Some of these photos are pathetically ridiculous .

Wanna do a donut on the moon set ? ... Well then just rip off one of them there buggy tires , head for that pile a rocks and let her rip !

But at least this one does have some depth perception to it .... Small scale models perhaps ? .. and just look at those painted lines between the foreground and the fake mountain backdrop .... Great art work , don't you think ? .... It's just soooooooo realistic looking .

AS17-137-21010HR

It would be simple if I can find the same book again ... or if this was in Armstrong's autobiography , find a hardback first edition ....

I know I have a reputation for not quoting things exactly and also a tendancy to rush through reading things , and not remembering every single word I have read or what web site I read it on ... but I do remember this dialogue very well and there is no mistaking what it said .... Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was and Neil said he forgot about it and left it in the zippered spacesuit pocket that he threw out on the lunar surface ... This was the same book where it claimed they took their scheduled nap .... So if Neil didn't write this stuff and it's not in the book I thought it was , then some other clown made up this stuff and didn't care if it didn't match up with nasa's previous moon stories .

"And your professional basis for this opinion is?"

I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ?

I don't give a damn if you believe my claims or not ... I know what I read ... and anyway , you're the one who just said that books can be changed from one edition to the next ..

So if your book is a first edition , like you claimed , then I read this crap in another one of nasa's fairy tale books .

Is that how long it took for the Apollo astronots to get though the belts ? ... 10 seconds ? ... Well then .. that would explain why none of them ever got sick !

No ... What I'm saying is that the Van Allen radiation belts are dangerous no matter how long one is traveling through them and that the radioactive moon and deep space radiation would have made the Apollo astronauts very ill had they really traveled trough them and landed on the moon .

If the Apollo radiation shielding was adequate enough to land men on the moon , then why isn't nasa planning on using it for their future missions ? .... Why go to all of the trouble of developing new shielding if the old stuff worked just fine 38 years ago ?

I mean , if there's a solar flare heading for the moon , the future astronauts could just hang out behind some thin aluminum until the event was over with , right ?

I guess those Apollo astronots sure were lucky .... At least that's what everyone keeps saying ... In fact , no one can quite figure out just how they got so lucky ... No wonder Alan Bean didn't know he had even traveled through the Van Allen belts , or where they are even located ... I guess he must have blinked his eyes in the 10 seconds it took them to go through them .

There is one thing that Jack understands very well , along with David Percy , Neville Jones and millions of other people , but for some very strange reason with all of your photographic experience , you don't .... and the thing they all understand is that the Apollo photographs are studio fakes and the multiple light sources and multiple shadows were caused by stagelighting .

I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs .

Did Neil bring back a soil sample ? .... Did he toss his spacesuit out onto the lunar surface ? ... If anyone would know these answers it would be you .... If he didn't return a sample and he didn't bring back his suit , then what I am saying is true .... If not , then someone wrote one hell of a fairy tale about the Apollo 11 mission .

Yes, they brought back both contingency and planned soil samples (as well as 'rocks').

Yes, they threw out their PLSS backpacks (not their suits).

<a href="http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_sampact.html" target="_blank">A brief overview of Apollo 11 lunar samples

</a>

Well if they claim to have brought back soil samples and the spacesuit also , then somone wrote one hell of a fairy tale .

Unfortunatley , I will probavly never find the book I read that day with this strange dialogue and information in it .. and if it was his autobiography , then it has been edited .

Thank you ... It was the CM where the "Smoking Gun " footage was shot and it was a round window , not the windows that were shown in the You Tube video ... If you watch 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon ' , you can clearly see a round window being used to film Earth ... Sibrel changed his mind about it being Earth from low orbit , because the cloud cover would have been moving too quickly .... That's why he said a transparancy had been used when he confronted John Young .

Funny how Dave didn't menion there being a round window in the CM .... and my mistake for saying they were in the LM ... I meant to say the Command Module .

If this dialogue is not in his autobiography , then it must have come from another book ... Didn't you say you had a first edition ? .. If so , it should not have been changed .

I remember every word of the dialogue .... Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was and Neil laughingly told him he forgot all about it and left it in his zippered spacesuit pocket , which he had just tossed out onto the lunar surface, right before they left .

No, I can't prove this is what I read but I remember it well ... The dialogue was silly , like something from the Hardy Boys Mystery Series ...

Did Neil bring back a soil sample ? .... Did he toss his spacesuit out onto the lunar surface ? ... If anyone would know these answers it would be you .... If he didn't return a sample and he didn't bring back his suit , then what I am saying is true .... If not , then someone wrote one hell of a fairy tale about the Apollo 11 mission .