Duane Daman

Strawman is a ridiculous Bad Astronomy term which is overused to attack the opposition . Regardless of what you think of my requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively , I can see when tire tracks are in a photograph and when they're not . And to keep this very simple and ignore your typical games , all you need to do is to look at the three photos I posted showing the missing tire tracks to see the truth ... They are simply NOT THERE ....and if you really believe they are , then you are obviously the one who is lacking in the requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively.

Sorry for accusing you of possibly misquoting the book ... Is this a first edition ? I don't think that's the book cover I saw and that is certaining not the text I read either .

And it's pretty simple to see that no matter what I post here you are going to go out of your way to find fault with it . I bet you're really ticked off now that you aren't allowed to call me an "ignorant ignoramous " anymore . But look at this on the bright side .... Now that you can no longer insult me with the same old redundant words , maybe you will finally be able to stretch your vocabulary a bit ... Or better yet , post something relevant to the discussion for a change , that isn't an insult in disguise ... * ah , edited your post I see ... but it's just as insulting as the first one ... Actually worse . So who was it that received that contaminated sugar cubed size 'moon' rock then ? ... I could have sworn it was one of the Jones'.

Investigator Tom Baron didn't change his mind about the fact that the Apollo equipment couldn't fly ... and he ended up very dead , along with his wife and daughter .... Plus , his 500 page report proving that Apollo was a joke , was stolen out of the car they were murdered in.

Jack .... I know exactly what you're talking about ..... I was followed here by some of the members of the UM forum .. They harrassed me there because of my views on Apollo and they joined this forum to continue the harrassment . Like I have said many times before , they will do anything in their power and stop at nothing , to try to suppress the conspiracy evidence from spreading any further than it already has ....

I didn't say it was a direct quote .... So "quite alarming" and "apalling" are pretty close in their meaning ... especially in the context of nasa's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS . . Was it Neville's brother Nathan who received the sugar cube sized Apollo 'moon' rock perhaps ? ... Or did he say bubble gum size ? .... I just never can get these important quotes quite right . Ya know , I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't really like me .... and that just breaks my heart .

Just one more item to add to the list of things straydog knows nothing about - RADIO. not onlu did the ham's listen in when they were orbiting the moon, they did so during the trans lunar portions of the mission. Also, I do hope you realize that based on your most recent post, you acknowledge that your claim that "and ham operators who have NEVER come forward with any evidence that they listened in on the Apollo transmissions" was totally false and without merit? In other words a complete FANTASY! Just like you did in one of your recent posts , I mis-spoke .... When I said that no ham operators had ever come forward , I meant the ham operators who made the fantastic claims that they picked up alternate Apollo radio transmissions from the boys on the moon to Houston and heard Neil say to Houston ... " These babies are huge !! ... and they are watching us from up on the ridge !! " Aliens on the moon set anybody ? ... No ? ... Okay then , how about some non-existant ham operators nasa DISINFORMATION ?

You didn't understand a bit of this did you Duane? I understood it just fine ... Did you ? .. It looks like your friend Kevin doesn't understand that nasa obviously found a way to bounce some TV signals off of the moon though ... and some radio transmissions also .. By the way , I just love your new picture .... Haven't you lost a bit of weight ? ... You might want to rethink the cap thing though and put it back on .

The article I posted here by Dr. Neville Jones is one example of a scientist only receiving a sugar cube sample of a moon rock and his unhappy opinion about it ... I read another article where it claimed the scientists only received slivers and sand in envelopes , but I haven't been able to relocate it yet . Here is a link to another article which I posted here before but can't seem to find again after looking through the back pages ... weird . This article explains how this scientist was appalled by the amount of earthy contamination on all of the moon rocks that he has studied ... Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/ap...cks_010326.html There are also several other articles suggesting that the Apollo moon rocks are no different from the moon rocks picked up in Antarctia .... In fact , they are a perfect match in every respect . I believe I posted this article information here before under the thread 'Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets' , which now seems to have disappeared ....

Evan ... You are either quoting from a different book than the one I read or you are intentionally MISQUOTING the book . Just as I suspected though , you can't prove that what you posted here is really from the book ... I could say I have the book right in front of me too and write something completely different . I do remember the words "too excited to sleep " ... but I also remember someting like .. We stayed with the original plan and took our nap , even though we couldn't sleep ... or words close to that ... I remember they had quite a lengthy a converstation while they rested too , which sounded completely contrived . I will try to see if I can find the book again and then see for myself what it really says .

I assume you mean frames per second right? But still the number of frames are wrong. It was filmed and transmitted at 10 frames per second and was still 10 frames per second when broadcast in mission control. It had to be filmed off a screen because there was no convertor available to change it to the 30 frames per second need for TV. As stated above, because of the difference in frame rates, they couldn\'t have a direct feed. Filming off of a screen was the easiest way to do it. But that was only done with Apollo 11. The other missions did not need to be filmed off of a screen. Yes, I did mean per second ... Sorry , I was in a hurry ..... Here's how the Apollo footage from the 'moon' was filmed . "Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!! " http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

No, I said a communications signal could not be bounced off the moon. Sure you could bounce some morse code, or some low bandwidth voice, but the infrastructure to bounce tv signals off the moon did not exist, let alone the capability to do it without adding additional delay that would be very obvious in the 2 way conversations. I stated that radio signals could be bounced off of the moon ... You and Evan said they couldn't be ... I proved you wrong . nasa had 30 billion dollars to work with ... I'm sure they would have had no trouble making it appear that the TV signals were coming from the moon when they weren't . Oh and speaking of delay ... There was absolutely no delay on many of the mission control to the moon set voice transmissions .... Also proving that no one broadcased anything FROM the moon , 240,000 miles out in deep space . You nasa fans really do live is quite a fantasy world , don't you ?

lamson ... Jack does not post "JUNK" ... He's right about what he posted on this thread ... Neither he nor I can post any of the Apollo hoax evidence here without being immdiately attacked by the above mentioned members , plus a few more .... Nor are his photo analysis studies nonsense either .... What is nonsense though is your unkind , inncorrect and insulting comments and posting tactics . At least now that this forum is being moderated , you will not be allowed to post your usual nonsense ... Like calling Jack every name in the book and calling me an ignorant, illerate, delusional , conspiracy nut , crackpot .... That would be the nonsense here , plus your 'rebuttals which are nothing more than your lame attempts to disprove everything posted by those you disagree with .

Jack ... I'm so glad that you brought this up here . Here is a link to the Unexplained Mysteries forum where it is now being discussed of how government agents are working on internet forums night and day to suppress all conspiracy information ... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=87874 If there was nothing to any of this , and you and I and all of the other conspiracy researchers were just a bunch of " delusional crackpots " , then these people wouldn't be wasting their valuable time trying so hard to debunk the conspiracy evidence , around the clock . I have suspected for quite some time now that a few members of this forum and also a few from the UM are probably working for the government .... And the more they protest and the more jokes they make about not getting their checks from nasa , and the more they attack us the second we post anything about 9/11 , JFK, or Apollo , only proves that there is much to hide and that a lot of people are working very hard to keep a lid on all of the conspiracy information . You know the expression ... " Me thinks thou protests too much " ? .... And with good reason my friend ... I admire you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe in , and for not letting any of these possible government agents and Bad Astronomy bullies stop you from what you know is the truth .

You both claimed that radio signals could not be bounced off of the moon ... I only proved that they could be ... What's not to understand ? I guess trying to make me look completely uninformed is also a distraction tactic to get away from the real issue . nasa could very well have bounced signals off of the moon , both radio transmissions and also TV signals . You do realize that the TV signal the world saw was fourth generation , right ? ... Bounced from the moon ... First , received in Austrialia ... Second, relayed onto Goldstone in America where it was converted to slow scan from 60 frames per minute to 30 frames per minute ( slow motion anyone ? ) ...Third , sent onto the back room at mission control in Houston and then ... Fourth , finally projected onto a screen for mission control and the rest of the world to see .... The black and white grainy, ghostly images that everyone saw didn't really have to look like that if nasa had allowed the TV stations to have a direct feed .... but nasa insisted in having COMPLETE CONTROL of the TV picture and cut the TV stations out of the loop ... Something which had never been done before in TV broadcasting .... Just like they cut Jodrell Bank out of the loop so NO ONE would be allowed to track any of the Apollo craft to the moon .... When it came to the Apollo missions , nasa had complete control over everything .... Including scaming the entire world .

Would you please stop with the "strawman" comments ... That is so typically Bad Astronomy and clavius tactics .. and sooooo overdone by all of you who defend Apollo . Even the photos you posted above don't have any tire tracks in them , can't you see that ? The fact that you can NEVER admit when you're wrong ... The fact that you post DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics ... and the fact that you ALTER photos by stretching and bending shadows , is what makes you dishonest about this . So no , I'm very sorry , but I will not withdraw those claims .... and this is not a personal insult but just a fact ... When people misrepresent my evidence by replacing it with their own and then alter the evidence I do post , I consider that to be playing games and being dishonest .

No , I'm not talking about me reading a second edition ... I read the original when it first came out . It might be possble that we are talking about two different books though . Where did you find this source to be able to post this book dialogue here ? ... Is a transcript of the book online somewhere ? ... Because if it is , and this is where you got your information from , then it has either been edited , changed by you , or this transcript here is from a different book from the one I read and remembered in detail . Chapter 29 can not be correct either .... How many chapters are in the book you just quoted from ? The book I remember reading had around 32 chapters and the dialogue about the nap and the EVA was right in the middle of the book , almost exactly half way .

The moon rocks are in question by some of the scientists who have asked for samples to study . The scientists have only been privy to slivers , sand and rocks the size of sugar cubes ... and ALL of these rocks showed contamination of Earthly properties . So far , no one has been allowed to study or even see the other alleged massive amounts of clean rocks which are suppossedly stored in nasa's sealed , locked vaults , and guarded by armed soldiers . So once again , we only have nasa's word that these 840 pounds of pristine moon rocks even exist . Dave .... I don't have time to check out the video you posted but I will take a look later ... If it's the lunar buggy though , it has already been proven to have been video taped in Earth's atmosphere .... and if it's the feather and hammer drop , that has already been explained how it was faked in Earth's gravity also .. and it didn't take a vacuum to do the trick .

I'm not sure what kind of game you are all playing now but that is not what I read in Neil Armstrong's autobiography .... I read it three times to make sure I remembered it correctly because I knew it was in direct contradiction to the Parkes story . Did Neil write another autobiography ? ... Or could you be quoting from a second CORRECTED and EDITED edition ? ... Or are have you altered the text here ? Sorry , but I don't trust any of you to tell the truth when it comes to defending Apollo . I'm was sure the nap information came from his most recent biography ... I remember reading it and thinking .. WTF ??? .. This is NOT the story I remember reading from Parkes because I had this very same discussion on another forum when the book first came out .... I wish now I had bought the damn thing , because not having the book in front of me I can't verify what I read now ... I should have know that Steve was just setting me up for another game of yours .... I don't remember that dialogue at all so maybe it was a different book ... Is the the one that only devoted two chapters to the alleged moon landing and the rest is about his career as a test pilot ? Something is definately wrong here ... I have no doubt about what I read ... When I get some time I will go back to Barnes and Noble and see if I can find the book again or order it ... This dialogue is definately NOT what I remember reading in Neil's autobiography ... THREE TIMES .

Wrong again guys .... Radio signals can , are , and have been bounced OFF of the moon since the 1940's . Read these links . Space&Beyond: Moonbounce Advances the State of the Radio Art http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2002/01/21/1/ From Moonbounce to Hard Drives: Correcting More Errors Than Previously Thought Possible http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.j...256&org=NSF The Bromley and District Amateur Radio Society/Bouncing signals off the moon by Anchorage Daily News http://www.bdars.org/genesis/EME0606.html Radio hams bouncing off the moon http://www.abc.net.au/ballarat/stories/s978542.htm And here's the best of all of them all ... Steve was right .... Ham operators DID listen in on the Apollo transmsions ... being BOUNCED OFF OF THE MOON ! THE ARTEMIS PROJECT Bouncing Radio Signals Off the Moon The S band (2290 MHz) signals from the Apollo missions at the moon were monitored by amateur radio operators around the world. How is this possible? It was relatively easy. There is a class of radio amateur operators that use what is called "Moonbounce" communications. This consists of a large transmitter here on Earth beaming a signal to the moon that literally "bounces" off the moon. As you may imagine the signal strength is exceedingly small, allowing in even the best circumstances, only Morse code and on occasion voice communications. Since the transmitters on Apollo were in the tens of watts, their power was thousands of times greater than a signal that has to make the trip to the moon and back. There is an entire British organization that monitors military satellite launches and communications. This was a second group. If you want more information on this you might contact the UK Amateur Radio Satellite organization. Another resource is a gentleman from Canada, whose call letters are VE3ONT. You can find his address through the Canadian Communications commission. http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/12/moonbounce.html

Moderating this forum is the best thing that could have ever happened here .... It's a shame it had to come to this , but it will be a relief to be able to post here without being constantly personally insulted, or feeling the need to insult anyone in return for their unkind remarks . It's true that discussing certain subjects can and does bring out the worst in some people at times ... myself included .. and I am very happy to see that having this forum moderated will put an end to this type of unnecessary behavior .

Evan ... You're right ... We are all entitled to have our own opinions about this subject and every other subject also . But my position of Apollo being a hoax is not as sad or as misguided as Dave or you or some of the other people who defend Apollo would like to have everyone believe ... but then I believe you are already very well aware of this and that might even be one of the reasons why you defend the Apollo Program as hard as you do . But think about this ... None of nasa's other space missions have been challenged as being a possible hoax , except for Apollo .... The reasons are many , and contrary to popualr belief , have not all been debunked . Many of nasa's claims of landing on the moon can not be proven by anyone , including nasa. .. There are too many holes in the official Apollo record and one of the most glaring of these holes is the photography which looks completely faked and has been questioned and doubted by millions of people , including professional photographers ... So my position on this may still be in the minority , but that does not mean it is wrong . As far as the overwhelming scientific evidence that the Apollo program happened as recorded .... I have never seen any ... Where and what is it ? .... Besides the moon rocks , which are even now in question also .

"That last bit is a real gem. It wouldn't matter because it was bounced off the moon? If it came from the moon, or was bounced off the moon somehow, it WOULD matter where the moon was because either way you'd have to point the dish at the moon to receive the signal. " Of course you would need to point the dish at the moon ... But it wouldn't matter what position the moon was in because bouncing a signal OFF of the moon is very different from pinpointing one particular postion ON the moon , to pick up a signal ... Big difference ... One has to be exact and the other can be pointed anywhere on the lunar surface . Laser signals can also be received from anywhere on the lunar surface without the need of a reflector , so that kind of takes away the 'importance' of Apollo allegedy placing any reflectors there . Of course other dishes were in place to receive the radio signals being bounced off of the moon for the Apollo TV program .... and regardless of whether the EVA was early or late for Parkes to receive it , apparently you are the one who is incorrect by them being the first dish to pick up the signal . Read this . Apollo 11 Broadcast Contrary to popular belief stirred by the film The Dish, the Parkes Observatory was not the first station to broadcast images from the Apollo 11 moon landing. The Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California was initially used to receive the signal, however in light of a very dark, inverted image (due to an incorrect switch position), NASA switched the main feed to the Honeysuckle Creek station outside of Canberra in Australia. Honeysuckle Creek transmitted the images until shortly after the "One small step", when the feed was picked up by Parkes, roughly 3 minutes into the broadcast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory How about that ? ... Apparently Parkes can't even get their story straight either .

Kevin ... The question should be not only who would I believe but why would I believe them ? I would believe someone with absolutely no ties to nasa , who highly doubted the authenticity of the Apollo Program , was qualified to investigate and completely understand the technology which was involved and used by nasa for the Apollo missions , and was given anything they asked for from nasa as proof that this equipment could actually fly , land and then re-launch from the lunar surface , including all of the original blueprints ... and were also shown proof that the thin aluminum skin of the Apollo LM's and CSM's could have provided adequit protection against the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts , deep space and the completely radioactive lunar surface . I would also want proof provided to this person or persons that the Apollo spacesuits and PLSS packs would have not only worked exactly as nasa claimed they did, but would have been adequit protection against the harsh environment of the moon , including the extreme temperature changes from hot to cold , and lunar radiation . Then , if all of this were satisfied , I would want it explained to this person or persons why the Apollo photographs allegedy taken on the moon show absolutely no sign of damage from radiation exposure .... And if that couldn't be properly addressed or answered correctly , then be told the real reason why the Apollo photographs were faked on moon sets .

Look at the photos again ... The soil is NOT disturbed behind or underneath the tires ... If anything it is pristine looking in these three photos , except for a few bootprints to the sides of the buggys .... If the soil had been disturbed enough to completely cover up all of the tire tracks , it would look disturbed and trampled upon ... and this is clearly not the case . The fact that other photos from the same photo shoot show tire tracks either means that the photo editors remembered to put them in the photos , or the buggys actually rolled up to the position to where the other photos were taken ... But this is not the case in the three photos being discussed .... There is no indication that any tire tracks are in the photos , even when enhancing the details , changing the constrast , or praying that they will somehow miraculously appear .