Duane Daman

Oh I forgot about Shill West .... Sorry pal , I guess you win the prize as being the first to the scene of the Apollo crime !

Lamson ... You're slipping ole timer ... You're not gonna let these youngster shills take your job away from you , now are you ?

Hats handed to them ? ... Too funny !!

The only place that happens is on the Bad Astronomy and clavius sites , where the good ole boys slap each other on the back for putting those "crackpots" in their 'place' .

You guys are so full of it , it's laughable .

bump

BEAN: One thing they wanted to know was how often and where. I didn't record where they were because it just seemed like anytime in the dark, if you wanted to, you could stay there a little while and one, two or three of them would come by. If I was thinking about watching for them, I would see one every minute or somewhat less. One of them would be a flash, and about a minute later there would be a line. It didn't appear to make any difference if we were in lunar orbit, translunar, transearth or anything else. If you wanted to look for them, you could see them going by.

This transcript is a complete contradiction to the claims made in his inteview which is featured in 'Astronauts Gone Wild' .. Forgot the details of his only mission the moon ??? .... Right .

But that's not all old Al forgot ... He even forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts were located , or if they even flew high enough to have encountered them ??!!?

And we wonder why nasa doesn't want these guys interviewed !?!?

Yes , the evidence is obvious .... There are no bootprints coming in from the left in this photo either .... Not even in the shadows of his legs .

Look at the way Bean is tilted forward and the way his arms are dangling out in front of him ... He is obviously hanging from a fly system .. The position of his bootprints even show evidence of this fact , and show that he didn't walk up to where he was suspended for this photo to be taken .

"Checking the image we can clearly see tracks criss-crossing the lunar surface in the mid-distance - good evidence that the lunar rover does indeed leave tracks (this can be verified with other photos and DAC footage)."

Dave .... The fact that tracks show up in this photo BEHIND the buggy is not proof that this particular buggy made them .... If this buggy made those tracks , then we would be able to see tracks behind the rear tires and between the front and rear tires also , where the buggy has been positioned for this particular photo shoot .... The tracks very easily could have been put in the photos at a later time , or the buggy with the batteries could have made them .

I know I don't have any proof that there were dummy prop buggies being used on the moon sets ... but it would explain why the tire tracks are missing in so many of the bogus Apollo photos .

And using unflyable LM props would explain why there is no blast crater underneath any of the LM's in the Apollo photos , very little or no dust on the footpads and no dust disturbed in the immediate area around the LM , where the astronots left many clearly defined bootprints ...

It is obvious that the LM's didn't fly and then land on these moon sets ... but were only props made for the Apollo TV Program and the Apollo still photo shoots .

Dave ... If I were to post every phony lunar buggy photo that nasa ever faked , you would see that there are just as many, if not more photos without tires tracks than with, behind the buggy and in between the front and rear tires .

I haven't studied as many of the Apollo 14 photos but the 15 and 17 photo shoots were particularly sloppy in their pretense of taking these silly looking photos on the real moon .

I was reading a thread about the Apollo moon hoax on a forum last night where most of the members believe that Apollo was faked.... I have never posted on a forum where the conspiracy side was in the majority , so I can't even imagine how that must feel .

Anyhoo , while perusing one of the threads where the discussion had gotten rather heated about why the moon landings were so obviously faked in every respect , I came across this post which pretty much sums up what I have been saying all along here , as to why the typical defenders of Apollo get so worked up about the "conspiracy nuts" and their "tin foil hat" hoax evidence .

Here's a quote from this web site , plus a few of the replies to this post .... It seems like it's the same MO wherever you go ... and the message to me is loud and clear .... " Me thinks thou dost protest too much" , Mr. Moon Hoax Debunker .

And now I will await the replies from the other side of the moon hoax debate ... I wonder which one of them will show up first within five minutes ? .... Greer ? .... Lamson ? .... Burton ? ..... Tick .. tick .. tick .... count down ... 5 4 3 2 1 ... Blast off ! .... To the moon and beyond !!

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

notice how the same felching debunkers

rush in to passionatly protect us from

what they are convinced is non-sense

but still seem oddly threatened by it just the same.

ALWAYS with in minutes, like they spend nearly

ALL THEIR TIME waiting for something to

be posted the they CLEARLY FEAR SOMEONE MIGHT

ACTUALLY SEE AS PLAUSABLE OR WORSE YET, ....

UNDENIABLE ONCE TOO MANY FACTS ARE PRESENTED

TOGETHER AT ONE TIME!

... and like so many other threads discussing

silly 'Conspiracy Theories' they begin to

work as a team to disrupt the discussion and

my guess is it's probably one damn bas*ard

assign to create the illusion that commom

scientific consensus is that there is no

proof whatsoever and only foolish and deranged

people would ever believe such things.

YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND SO DO WE AS*HO*E !!!!!

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

Replies .

Yep, I've definitely noticed. Their appearance automatically convinces me that the information is correct.

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

Then you ARE actually as stupid as we supposed.

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

Who's "we", a-hole? Are you one of the tired debunker types who immediately jumps to the defense of NASA anytime their decades of malfeasance and deception is brought to light?

Save your breath. Nothing's gonna resurrect the reputation of these criminals.

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

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/mess.../07&mpage=1

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

Yep , it's the same old MO wherever you go ! ... You would think that we would all be tired of this stuff by now .

Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture.

And this would be one of the main reasons why the tracks didn't show up in some buggy photos and did in others ... Tracks when using the one that drove ... and no tracks when using the one that didn't , and was lowered into place ... The reason it wasn't rolled into place was because that would have created too many bootprints in the moon set dirt , showing even more anomalies than there already were , in these faked photos...

And the reason Jack wanted feet to be shown in the photos was to prove that the Apollo astronots could not have taken the off side shadow pictures without turning themselves into contortionists .

Jack and I just proved lamson wrong .... Get over it .

Sorry Steve but I don't see any evidence of tire tracks at all ... and it's pretty obvious from the texture of the rocky dirt in this photo , that no one "kicked dust over the tracks" or obscured them with their bootprints either .

As for the dirt on side of the tire rim , I do see that ... but then the moon set was a very dirty place and dirt got on everything .

But if this tire had just come back from an EVA there would be evidence on and in the wire mesh part of the tire ... Yet is is obvious that this tire is too clean to have just finished up an EVA ...

Even with the fender repair , there would be dirt and rocks wedged up in the mesh , as in some of the other photos of this same buggy .... but it simply isn't there....

Speaking of props being lowered into place .... I do believe that Jack even posted a photo study , showing how a boom truck was blacked out in the background , by nasa's photo editors ... Which shows that lowering props onto a moon set was quite possible ... Especially if there is no evidence that these props ever arrived on the set by driving or landing on their under own power .

Steve ... I didn't use the word xxxx but if you think I am using ad homs then I will try to tone my posts down at bit ... Sorry .

lamson .. I am not "waving my hands" as you put it ... I could see that the Apollo photos were studio fakes before I ever "parroted my favorite hoaxters" .

Can I explain why I know this technically ? ... No .... but others can and have , such as David Percy, Jack White and Dr. Jones ..

Jack just explained in another thread how multiple lighting can be used without creating multiple shadows ... and Percy explained in detail how an artificial light , used to represent the sun on the moon sets , created hot spots , anomaluos shadow lengths and huge spotlight reflections in the astronot's visors ...

If you choose not to believe all of this photographic evidence , which proves that the Apollo photography was faked , then that is your right ... Just as it's mine to agree with the professionals who have exposed nasa's bogus Apollo photos .

No other professionals or even laymen , disputes any of nasa's other missions or space photography ... Only Apollo .... So not everyone was fooled by the faked moon photos ... Only those who can not conceive that such a thing could have been done , or are part of the cover-up to keep the lid on the hoax evidence .

Trust me Mark , I do not take this subject as lightly as you would think .... Posting smiley faces is just my way to try to keep the discussions as light as possible here ... It is merely a means of posting used by this conspiracy researcher to defend myself against the typical insults from those who oppose my views on forums such as these .

If the smileys offend you though , I don't have to use them ... This is not a game , even though many here make it one every chance they get , by twisting the hoax evidence around to suit their own agenda .

I didn't know that Jack was almost murdered for exposing nasa's faked photography .... But I can understand why some people would want him permanately silenced .... He is one of the pioneers of the Apollo moon hoax , along with David Percy , Mary Bennet , Bart Sibrel , Ralph Rene', Bill Kaysing , James Collier and several other researchers, who have had the courage to go up against nasa's 30 billion dollar swindle known as Apollo .

If I didn't believe that Apollo was a monumental hoax , and that the Apollo photography wasn't faked , then I surely wouldn't be wasting my time posting as much .

I know what most people think of "conspiracy theorists" and I also know why they think and say what they do ... We are called crackpots, nuts, delusional , ignorant , stupid , illerate , unpatriotic etc. ... It's known as the program of ridicule and ad homium attacks against those who dare to question the authority of nasa , the military industrial complex and the American government .

So if you're asking me again if I'm afraid there will be attempts on my life for posting this information on certain web site forums , the answer again is NO ... I am not important enough to silence .... but others are and were ... Such as Tom Baron and the Apollo 1 astronauts , among many others who could and did blow the whistle on nasa's Apollo debacle .

Okay , I looked again ... and it is still ...WHISTLE CLEAN !

This photo must have been taken before they rolled the buggy around on the moon set and got it all dirty .

The bottom line is the fact that you had to twist and bend your body around to get your shadow to the side of the photo ... and the Apollo astronots were not in this twisted position when they allegedy took these off center shadow photos on the moon ... Nor were their feet in the photos , which I think is the point that Jack is trying to make .... To get your feet in the photo , and prove that you really took these photos with your shadow to the side , you needed to contort your body .

The shadows are anomalous for this reason and were probably just superimposed into the photo , like so many other things were in the phony Apollo photos .

So it doesn't look like you have proven anything , except that your experiment turned out just the way Jack knew it would ...

Yes , I know exactly what was claimed as taking place with the broken fender and took this into consideration when studying this whistle clean tire .

But replacing the fender would have not dislodged every single bit of dirt and tiny rocks from the entire wire mesh part of the tire... That is unless the astronots also scrubbed it down with their toothbrushes while rigging the new fender !

And I doubt if cleaning the entire mesh part of the tire with their toothbrushes is in the ALSJ .

Dr. Jones was only addressing the assertions made by his opponent ... He didn't make the claim that multiple light sources were necessarily used on the moon set , but rather refuted the evidence proposed that it couldn't be possible to use mulitple light sources without producing multiple shadows .

He explained that if the master and slave lights had the proper balance , multiple shadows would not occur ... but I can't prove whether this is correct information or not .

And this is what I consider nit picking , because Dr. Jones rebutted his opponent on so many other more important issues , but you only focused in on this one issue because , being a photographer , you could play a game with this .

I , on the other hand, would have no way of knowing how many lights were used on the moon sets or where they may have been placed to not create mulitiple shadows .

I have seen the evidence though , that artificial lighting was used in the form of a huge spotlight to represent the sun ... and this explained the many lighting anomalies which are evident in the Apollo photos .

Evan .... Where is the proof that Bean walked to this spot from the left and then turned around to get his photo taken ? .... You posted this ALSJ conversation as proof that Bean turned around , but I don't see how you could have possibly surmised that from this .

Reference to the ALSJ shows:

132:31:47 Conrad: I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll stop right here and take a pan.

132:31:51 Bean: Okay.

132:31:52 Conrad: How's that grab you?

132:31:55 Bean: Because these rocks obviously came out of the crater, because they're scattered more uniformly around it. There's a bunch of them on the rim and there's not many far away. We probably ought to grab a big one of them.

132:32:06 Conrad: 74 (foot focus).

132:32:07 Bean: We're moving straight south now. (Pause) There's an interesting rock. Hey, that's all right; let's get it. (Pause) Let me read your camera and you can read mine, if you would. Help them out a bit down there (in Houston).

132:32:34 Conrad: Just a minute.

132:32: Bean: Okay, your camera right now is on 36. How about mine?

132:32:41 Conrad: You're 36 also.

132:32:43 Bean: Okay.

132:32:43 Conrad: Move.

132:32:44 Bean: Did you copy that, Houston?

132:32:48 Schmitt: Roger, we got it, Al.

132:32:51 Bean: Every crater you come to and look in, you see the glass beads. (I'll) move out of your way, Pete, (while you take the pan). (Pause)

132:33:12 Conrad: Okay, now. Back to rock-taking (camera) settings: 5 feet, f/8, 1/250th. Okay. All right, Al, where do you want to grab a sample here?

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

Plus , there are NO BOOTPRINTS coming form the left side in this photo either ... Unless you want to pretend they are hidden in the shadow of Bean's legs ... Oh yeah , I have read that one before too .

Sorry , but your explanation is just as lame here as Dave's and Kevin's was about why the tire tracks are missing from so many photos featuring the lunar buggy .

No .

You are deceptive .. and bending and twisting your body around to get your shadow to the side of the photo proves that .

You and your cronies , who defend the faked Apollo photography , would do ANYTHING to try to prove Jack wrong .

This is not rocket science , it's photography and nothing is "beyond" me .... Well , except for maybe that "inverse square law thing .

But the rest of it is pretty simple really .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes .... Jack has proven this and because of this you and your Bad Astronomy friends have targeted him with your constant disinformation and unkind insults .

Isn't it great that this forum is moderated now ? .... I don't think I've been forced to read the word "ignornant" ever since they decided to clean house around here .

No .

If nasa wanted to shut anyone up it wouldn't be just one of thousands who are posting about this subject on internet forums ... It would be guys like Sibrel and Percy they would want silenced .

Plus , the nasa defenders and hoax deniers are so good at what they do , that nasa's dirty little secrets are well protected .

Nice mockery by the way ... I love sarcasm when it is done with such flare !

Craig ... Didn't you forget something in your last post ? ... Like maybe your reply ??

Plus you're five minutes late too ! ... Did you perhaps have some important photos to take in your busy studio , or were you too busy posting more disinformation on other forums , discussing how nasa hoaxed their moon landings ?

I have just looked at the other photos of the Apollo 17 lunar buggy on the 'moon' ... and the wire mesh is filled with all kinds of dirt and and what looks like tiny pebbles ... So I guess the buggy was at least rolled around on the set for some of the other photos.

If the hoax deniers here would like me to post these other photos here , I will be happy to .... Then we can compare them to the photo where Jack outted nasa once again !

The moon buggy tire in the photo posted above could not have possibly have driven through the dust , dirt , and jagged little rocks , which make up the lunar surface ....It was most likely only a prop lowered onto the moon set , the same way the LM's showing no blast craters, no dirt on the foot pads, and no dust disturbed by their landings, were lowered into place for the various Apollo photo shoots .

Nice work Dave .... Once again you took a great deal of time and effort in defending your cause ... I hope you get a bonus in your nasa paycheck this month .

lamson .... I don't have to be a set builder or a photographer to see that these moon panoramas are not only fake , but some of the cheesiest work ever done by nasa's hired photo hoaxers ... I'm not waving my hands ( another lame Bad Astronomy phrase ) ... but only posting the evidence which clearly proves that the Apollo photography could not possibly have been taken on the moon .... But don't take my word for it ... just watch 'What Happened on the Moon', where professional photographer David Percy will be happy to explain to you in great detail , how nasa faked the Apollo photography .....

Oh , that's right ... I almost forgot .... the Bad Astronomy boys , with their guru Jay Windley at the helm , have already pretended to debunk all of David Percy's evidence against Apollo .... Silly me , what was I thinking that you could ever open your mind and your blind eyes to the truth ? ...

Or perhaps you do know the truth , but are part of the cover-up ? ... After all , your name does have top billing as having helped out with nasa's ALSJ !

Evan ... The fact that you can even suggest that conspiracy investigator Bart Sibrel altered the audio of his 'Astronauts Gone Wild 'video and that Mitchell's son was not the one who threatened to have Sibrel "waxed" , shows how desperate you really are to defend the myth of Apollo astronots landing on the moon .... Sibrel was clearly threatened and it clearly by Mitchell's son .... "Hey dad , you want me to call the CIA and have him waxed ? "

On this same video we also get to see Alan Bean's complete confusion in not even knowing if his Apollo 12 mission flew high enough to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts or even where the belts are located ... When Sibrel told him where they were , he then claimed that they must have gone right through them .... But he said there were no light flashes in his eyes from the radiation in the belts , where as Gene Cernan , in the same video , said that he did see the radiation light flashes in his eyes while going through the belts .

Cernan, while sweating profusely , also made the claim that the descent engine of the LM was very loud .... where as Bean made the claim that it was completley silent .... So here we have two complete contradictions coming from two men who allegedly went to the moon .. and I doubt it was from not remembering the details of their suppossed moon trips .... If these men really flew to the moon , they wouldn't be telling such opposing stories about it ...Even their body language showed that they were not being truthful.

Tom Baron's verbal report to the committee hearing was only a part of his 500 page written report .... He never had the chance to submit his full written report , containing the damaging evidence against the Apollo Program , because it disappeared from his car when he and his family were killed .

Evan ... While you're on You Tube you might want to watch 'Secret Space' also ... It's NOT a UK 'mockumentry' .

Okay Dave, or anyone else who might be interested ... How about addressing just a couple more photos then before we drop this thread for good .

I posted this photo early on in this thread but you managed to skim right past it without much comment ... Would you care now to give an explanation as to why there are no bootprints leading up to where Bean took his alleged walk around the crater ? ... Why does it look like he is dangling from a cable wire and his bootprints look as if he had been lowered in place to do a little dance for this photo op ?

Maybe lamson would like to answer this one .... I know ! ... I bet this has something to do with the INVERSE SQUARE LAW !!

AS12-49-7213