Duane Daman

Well if there are multiple shadows in the Apollo photos which were caused by at least three different light sources , then why couldn't those extra light sources be studio lighting , all in the correct places ?

I think you just refuted your own argument .

The South Atlantic Anomaly is the LOWEST and the SAFEST part of the Van Allen radiation belts , yet it cause these problems !!!

"Evidence of these bands was first made public by James Van Allen, and so they are often referred to as the Van Allen radiation belts. This radiation can cause all sorts of malfunctions in spacecraft electronics. In fact, the Geiger counter used to measure cosmic rays on Explorer 1 stopped functioning because it was overloaded by radiation! "

"A satellite in a typical low Earth orbit remains safely below the proton belt—except at the South Atlantic Anomaly. Spacecraft passing through this region are bombarded by protons with energies exceeding 10 million electron volts at a typical flux of 3000 particles per square centimeter per second. These particles can be a hazard for space systems and astronauts. "

"Perhaps the most serious case was NASA's Modis satellite, which was rendered inoperative in 2001 as it passed through the South Atlantic Anomaly. The failure seemed to be caused by an overvoltage shutdown, probably started when a high-energy ion struck a vulnerable metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), causing it to fail. It took 16 days to get the satellite back on line. "

"The South Atlantic Anomaly is of great significance to satellites and other spacecraft that orbit at several hundred kilometers altitude and at orbital inclinations between 35° and 60°; these orbits take satellites through the Anomaly periodically, exposing them to several minutes of strong radiation each time. The International Space Station, orbiting with an inclination of 51.6°, REQUIRED EXTRA SHIELDING to deal with this problem. The Hubble Space Telescope does not take observations while passing through the SAA."

Thanks for the links ... You just proved my point as to how dangerous the Van Allen belts really are ... If all of these problems take place in the lowest and safest part of the belt , can you imagine what kind of damage would happen going though the more intense part of the belts ?

Like I said before , the ISS has never flown THROUGH or ABOVE the belts .

Can't you people read ?

bump

You keep talking about the open blue sky being a second light source to the sun in this photo , but there was no open blue sky on the moon , so the second light source would then be the Earth shine right ?

And I have read that even the lunar surface is a light source .... So on the moon , there are three light sources ... The Sun , the Sun's reflection off of Earth and the glass filled dirt of the lunar surface ....

So if there are three light sources on the moon and three light sources cause mulitple shadows , then why are there no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos ?

Dave ... Why are you not twisted around like Lamson was in his photos which proved Jack's point about feet being in the photo ?

Jack claims ... "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are."

But unlike Lamson's twisted shadows photos , your feet are not in this photo ... Therefore you are NOT standing beside your own shadow !

"Why no, the Apollo photographs were taken on the moon. "

You left out the word set after moon .... Yes, I know the Apollo photos were taken on moon sets and the black sky added in post production , but what has that to do with multiple shadows ?

When you said mulitple shadows , I thought you were going to show multiple shadows on the main snow clump in the sunlight ... Not imaginary shadows of the clumps in the shade .

So excactly how have you refutted Jack's evidence ? .... He explained in great detail how a good photographer could have balanced the stage lighting to not show any multiple shadows .

"It's wrong to suggest noone believes the Titanic didn't sink."

Awesome ! ... I now have a new conspiracy to investigate !! .. I had no idea it was a different ship that really sank !

I guess I do get a bit touchy about 9/11 ... I am a New Yorker and had family members near the buildings when they were hit ... but luckily , no one I know and love got hurt ... but I loved those buildings , as I do every other building in the NY skyline ... So to watch them come down and kill so many innocent people in the process was heartbreaking .

Yes , I will post who analysed the photos for me , if they prove to show what I believe they do ....

Dave ... The astronauts on the ISS are well below the Van Allen belts ... The space station has never flown through or above the belts ... No manned missions have ever done that except for the alleged Apollo one's ... and this is one of biggest reasons why so many people believe that Apollo was a hoax , aside from the too perfect Apollo photography with their faked looking backdrops .

Van Allen's initial scientific findings are most likely the correct ones ... as in needing several feet of lead shielding to protect the astronauts from radiation poisoning ... He contradicted his findings to placate nasa during the Apollo debacle ... but up until the day he died he was against manned space flight because he knew how dangerous it is to humans....

Even nasa scientists today have admited that the problem of deep space radiation needs to be conquered and new radiation protection has to be devleoped before any manned missions can travel to the moon .

I will admit that the lunar buggy dust looks nothing like the dune buggy dust but that could be due to the type of dirt involved and the speed of the vehicle .

When the film was speeded up to double it looked like it was in Earth's gravity .

I don't know how moon dust should behave , as I have read conflicting information on this subject .... If it was such fine dust , then why are the bootprints so crisp looking ? ... and if it stuck to everything like glue , then why do most of the Apollo photos show very little no dust on the LM pads ? .. In the original Surveyor photos , it's landing pads were covered with dust .

Plus there are photos where the buggy tires are very dirty in one photo and then completely clean in the next ...

I will see if I can find any info on the dust behavior from the unmanned missions ...

Where exactly is the second shadow in this photo ? .... I only see one .

"(BTW this was taken in a studio and the sky was added in post production)"

You mean like with the Apollo photographs ?

I knew this thread would be nothing but mockery of a conspiracy you can't so easily mock .... Apollo .

No one believes the Titanic didn't sink but MILLIONS of people have now realized that Apollo never went to the moon , inspite of so many people working around the clock on internet forums , to try to refute the hoax evidence .

I am waiting for professional photographic analysis of my new findings and will post them when I know more about the photos in question .

Meanwhile , let's show a little respect here ok guys ? .... Hundreds of people lost their lives when the Titanic sank and thousands were murdered when the twin towers were attacked by whomever and then collapsed .

Dave ... You're right ... None of the above evidence can be used to bolster nasa's claims of landing manned missions on the moon , because it all comes directly from the fox source, as usual .

As for Dr. Van Allen changing his initial radiation findings , I have read where he was rather illusive about his latter claim .... I think he only went along with the pretense of manned moon landings for reasons none of us might understand ... He never really refuted his initial claims about the extreme dangers of the radiation belts that he discovered but did change his story about the amount of radiation shielding which would have been needed after the alleged Apollo missions .... But up until the end of his life he was completely against manned space flight to other planets ... Maybe he knew something we don't ?

I posted an interesting article here by James Collier about this very subject called the Van Allen Enigma , but no one cared to reply to it ..

I don't think any of us have been told the truth about the Van Allen belts , the dangers they present to human space flight , or the amount or type of shielding which would really be needed to keep astronauts safe .... Deep space radiation is going to be the show stopper for all future manned missions , whether they be to the moon or to Mars ... Just like it stopped the manned missions 38 years ago .... "If you can't make it , fake it " ....

There is no technical , scientific proof that Apollo landed men on the moon ... outside of the fox .

No, I haven't watched part 4 and 5 .... It was part 1 and 2 I saw a few days ago ... I've watched so many of these video clips that it's difficult to tell them apart sometimes .... I will check out parts 4 and 5 and see what I think .

You didn't answer my question about the way the dust allegedy behaved with the Surveyor missions ... I have read conflicting views about the way dust acts in a vacuuum and in a lesser gravity field .... I believe it was James Collier who brought it to everyone's attention in his documentary 'Was it Only a Paper Moon ' , that the dirt flying up behind the buggy in the nasa videos , acted as if it were hitting a wall of atmosphere , so the buggy footage could not have been filmed in a vacuum on the moon .

Right you are Ron ... I believe this bogus CIA tape was left convienantly laying around a house in Afganistan , so the US military could scoop it up and then show it to us gullible Americans .

If Bin Laden had really taken out the World Trade Center , and had his operatives take out part of the Pentagon too , bringing America to it's knees that day , he would be the first one to admit it ...Yet he has never taken the credit for this amazing 'terrorist' attack ... And on top of that , Bush is no longer gunning for him , " dead or alive " .... I wonder why that would be ?

Dave .... I've already watched this video evidence before ... and sticky dirt and a non-waving flag are hardly proof that these nasa films were taken on the moon .

The behavior of the dust acts as though it is hitting an atmosphere behind the moon buggy ... Plus , if the buggy were really hot doging about in 1/6 g it would have flipped over , considering it's very narrow wheel base .

Sorry , but viewing contrived nasa films is exactly what Jack said it is .... asking the fox why the chickens are missing .

I have read where the expected dust behavior upon the lunar landing was to billow up in clouds that would have taken a very long time to disapate because of no air resistance in a vacuum and also the light gravity field ...... I read where nasa was concerned if Armsrtong would even be able to see to land , gauging by the dust which was kicked up by the unmanned Surveyor missions, which apparently bounced three times before setting down , creating enormous dust clouds as it bounced .... Was this information incorrect ?

... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Now this is an interesting comment. Based on your lack of scientific credentials, how would you be able to assess if any evidence presented was valid or not?

This is not an ad hom, I'm not saying you are stupid or anything like that, but if you lack expertise in a subject - how can you judge how credible it is?

Evan .... Aside from moon rocks , can you provide any physical proof or show any real hard scientific evidence that the Apollo spacecraft really performed as nasa claimed it did and landed men on the moon six times ? ... Aside from the fox source ( nasa) , that is .

Oh , and the phony moon set photos don't count as evidence either .

Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE is

akin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after

being left to guard the chickencoop.

Jack

LMAO !!!

Jack ... It looks as though the opposition still wants to discuss why Lamson had to become a contortionist to try to prove your anomalous astronot shadows study wrong .... and it looks as though the foxes outnumber the hens around this particular barnyard also ... Too funny !

The photos you posted from the video clip look at bit more like the real Bin Laden , but if you look closely you can see that there are more differences than just the width and shortness of the nose .... Look at the hairline , the imposter's is much lower , going below his hat .. His hairline is much lower than the real Bin Laden ... Also the placement of the ears ... The imposter's are lower and not as large .

I don't have time to read the article that came with your anticipated and typical rebuttal .. but I will check it out later to see if it will make me change my mind about this not being the real Bin Laden .

I haven't researched the 9/11 attacks as much as I have the Apollo hoax evidence , but from what I have read about this subject so far , it does appear that the official version of the events are not true .

There was clearly no plane wreckage found at the Shanksville, Pa. site , and not enough wreckage found at the Pentagon either , for a jumbo jet to have hit the building .... And to me, this is the most alarming physical evidence that the government is hiding something and not telling the truth. ...Several eyewitness accounts at Shanksville also claimed that Flight 93 was shot down by a military jet which had been circling it after it went out of control ....

I have also read on several 9/11 forums where Dick Cheney had ordered over 20 hijacking games to take place that morning , which sent the majority of the NORAD jets to Langley, Va. , thus placing them out of interception range for NY .... and also phoned the head of NORAD with orders to stand down if anyone from the FAA called them about hijacked planes ...

Apparently when the FAA called NORAD to report the hijacking of Flight 11 , they asked if it was real world or games ... and refused to scramble their jets for the hijacked planes heading for NYC ....

Does anyone discussing this know if this information is correct or not ? .... Because if so , this would be the most convincing evidence proving US government involvment .

For those of you who think they know what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) is all about , they really need to read this eye opener of an article .

Not only did NASA scam the entire world with their bogus Apollo Program , beginning in 1969 , but they are not a civilian space organization , as they have always claimed to be ... NASA is a branch of the US military industrial complex ... and their agenda is not and has never been the "peaceful exploration of space " , but rather military dominance of space at any cost ..

As if man's inhumanity to man is not awful enough on this planet , now these war mongers want to take this horror show out into space .

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

by Richard C. Cook

Global Research, January 22, 2007

The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative—"Star Wars"—which were gaining momentum until space weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster.

To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin’s stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASA’s August 2006 announcement.

NASA is not paying the giant of the military-industrial complex $8.15 billion to have people hop around and hit golf balls on the moon. The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."

The first step will be a colony at the moon’s south pole, described by NASA in a December 2006 announcement. According to Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, "In the end, NASA’s plan to establish permanent bases on the moon will help the military control and dominate access on and off our planet Earth and determine who will extract valuable resources from the moon in the years ahead."

NASA’s plans appear to be a step backward to the Cold War perspective which the International Space Station (ISS) was supposed to transcend and is contrary to its original mission. NASA’s 1958 authorization stated that, "The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind." Fostering a 21st century race to the outposts of the solar system, which Griffin has likened to the armed scramble by European nations for colonies, would not appear to further the visionary goals for which NASA was created.

These goals were compromised by the words and actions of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and are being repeated today, as shown by the new national space policy outlined by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

At the landing of the fourth space shuttle mission by Columbia on July 4, 1982, nine months before his March 1983 speech inaugurating SDI, President Ronald Reagan told an audience at Edwards Air Force Base in California that a primary goal of the space program was to "strengthen the security of the United States." A fact sheet issued that day said that the use of space "for peaceful purposes…allows activities in pursuit of national security goals."

The language of the October 2006 White House announcement is similar, defining "peaceful purposes" in the use of space as including all "U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests." The announcement was amplified in a December 2006 speech by Undersecretary of State Robert G. Joseph, where he stated that "We reserve the right to defend ourselves against hostile attacks and interference with our space assets. We will, therefore, oppose others who wish to use their military capabilities to impede or deny our access to and use of space. We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means." Joseph spoke at the George C. Marshall Institute, which had published a policy statement two months earlier entitled, "The War in Space Has Already Begun."

The mixing of civilian and military priorities by NASA led to the Challenger disaster of January 31, 1986, an incident which showed how muddled motives and lack of candor in public programs can result in tragedy.

On February 9, 1986, almost two weeks after Challenger was lost, the New York Times published a series of explosive documents, including a memo I had written the previous July—and which I shared with Times science writer Phil Boffey— warning of a possible catastrophe from a flawed O-ring joint. Thus began a cascade of disclosures that included the account of how contractor engineers protested against launching in the cold weather and NASA’s past knowledge of the deficient booster rocket seals.

But it was not until after the presidential commission which investigated the disaster completed its work that I learned why NASA kept flying shuttle missions after the worst damage to date had occurred on the seals during a January 1985 cold-weather flight, a full year before Challenger blew up. It was because a launch commit criterion for joint temperature could interfere with the military flights NASA planned to launch for the Air Force out of Vandenberg Air Force base in California, where the weather tended to be cooler than in Florida. Many of these flights were to carry "Star Wars" experiments in preparation for possible future deployment of "third-generation" nuclear weapons, such as the x-ray laser.

Flying with the O-ring problem was but one of the design compromises made on the shuttle to accommodate the military. These began at the shuttle’s inception, when NASA abandoned a straight-wing design and agreed to a huge 65,000-pound capacity payload bay to launch military satellites. The shuttle orbiter also had to be as lightweight as possible, which accounted in part for the heat-shield tiles that have been so troublesome. This compromise contributed to the loss of Columbia in 2003 from a reentry fuselage burn-through that began with tile damage at liftoff.

The shuttle will stop flying after 2010. But the nationalistic tone of Griffin's language about the moon-Mars program, combined with the gargantuan contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, the Bush administration's 2006 space policy declaration, and the Air Force’s "Strategic Master Plan for FY 2006 and Beyond," which designates space as "the ultimate high ground of U.S. military operations," sets the stage for another attempt to militarize NASA’s manned space activities.

These issues point to a flawed direction in U.S. space policy that calls for national debate. The U.S. could gain credibility by reversing its opposition to ongoing efforts at the U.N. to ban weapons in space. NASA has said, almost as an afterthought, that they are talking to other nations, including Russia, China, and India, about involvement in the moon-Mars program, but wouldn’t an honest intention to forego using future manned space activities for military purposes start with the kind of overt international agreements observed with the ISS?

Funding is also an issue. In ten years, $100 billion has been spent by the U.S. on the ISS, a half-finished six-person workshop in low-Earth orbit, a cost which does not count the expense of shuttle flights to build and service it. Critics might say the money was "squandered," since, according to Gregg Easterbrook writing in Slate, little of the promised private sector investment ever materialized. Meanwhile, NASA’s space science and aeronautics budgets have been drastically cut just to keep the shuttle and ISS aloft. Has Congress really determined what the moon-Mars program will eventually cost the U.S. government and what its impact will be on a budget whose deficits have again skyrocketed as they did in the Reagan era?

Perhaps it's not NASA's question to answer, but it should also be asked how we as a nation can be planning to spend hundreds of billions more to extend our imperial reach throughout the solar system when we cannot provide for our own people at home—when over forty-five million citizens have no health insurance, thirty-five million lack what USDA calls "food security," the income of our middle class is in long-term decline, the city of New Orleans remains largely in ruins, the value of the dollar is plummeting, recession looms from deflating asset bubbles, and we must sell Treasury bonds to China to keep the doors of federal government offices open from one day to the next because, as stated in a July/August 2006 analysis published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, "the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt."

Addressing space policy concerns should now become an urgent priority of the new Congress.

Richard C. Cook was the NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the Challenger disaster. His book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, has been published by Thunder’s Mouth Press. Currently he is an independent writer and consultant, his website is at www.richardccook.com.

Global Research Articles by Richard C. Cook

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4554

Top Bin Laden Expert: Confession Fake

Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”

by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

2/17/06

Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11?

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.)

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush's insistence that the tape is authentic, America's top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.

“It's bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration's lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence's first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

Why has the Bush Administration been lying for more than five years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine “confession video”? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus's Bin Laden units, said that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from

“conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

If Professor Lawrence is right—and anyone with eyes can see that he is, simply by comparing the overweight impostor in the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video to other pictures of Osama Bin Laden—the Bush Administration, by repeatedly citing the tape as authentic, is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice at best, high treason and conspiracy to mass murder at worst. Since the FBI now tells us that Osama Bin Laden is “not wanted for 9/11” because there is “no hard evidence” connecting him to the 9/11 attacks, and since US intelligence personnel all know the “confession tape” is a Bush Administration hoax, it should not be difficult to nail the perpetrators of this outrageous cover-up of the crime of the century.

It is time for Congress or an appropriate judicial authority to mount an investigation of the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video.

Where did this tape come from? Who was responsible for the

administration's claim that it is authentic, despite widespread knowledge in relevant intelligence agencies that it is bogus? If Bruce Lawrence is correct in asserting that US intelligence personnel know the tape is fake, we need to put them, along with Bush and Cheney, under oath and find out why our government has been lying so outrageously for more than five years in order to obstruct justice by shielding the real perpetrators of 9/11.

Please email your congressional representatives with the subject header “investigate bogus Bin Laden ‘confession video' NOW!” and include a copy of this article in the body of the message.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/bi...ession_fake.htm

Dave ... Since nasa so obviously faked the Apollo photographs , it is quite possible that they faked others as well from other missions .

The point I was making was simple .... No one is debating or discussing the reality of nasa's unmanned missions , or their missions in LEO .

It is only the Apollo record that has been in question ever since nasa pretended to land men on the moon in 1969 .... and it is only Apollo which millions of people have sadly accepted as being a monumental hoax .

I have read both sides of this argument .... I still read the Bad Astronomy forums to this day ... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Shills like Jay Windley and Phil Plaitt keep insisting the scientific evidence exists , but so far I haven't seen any proof that the moon landings were real .

And after listening to the few Apollo astronot interviews available , it is even more evident from their lack of knowledge about their alleged missions and their conflicting stories , that none of these men ever got anywhere near the moon .

Fascinating evidence there craig ...

Oh by the way ... I have some phony Apollo photo evidence coming soon that is going to completely blow away your BS of the Apollo photos being real and really taken on the moon .

Nice snow ... Very pretty .

If it's moving , then where are the tire tracks ?

I do believe you just made your case even worse .

Look at his bootprints .... He's either doing the bunny hop or he's suspended by a wire ...

A big hop ?? ... You mean like 18 inches in 1/6 g ? .... Right .