Duane Daman

Yeah, I'm ashamed of the fact that I ever replied to any of your hateful flame baiting posts. Jack already did give his answer ... You just didn't happen to like it .... You just don't happen to like anything about him or me because of our opinions about Apollo ... We both happen to believe it was a hoax and neither one of us have any doubt that the Apollo photos are cheesy moon set fakes .... Millions of people know this. And no amount of games you play on this forum is going to change that fact.

I never called lamson dog$#!& ..... I said I stepped in something the other night that reminded me of him ... but luckily I was able to scape it off my shoe.... I only wish he was that easy to get rid of. His and your sole purpose on this forum is to anger the members you disagree with .... That is what being a xxxxx and a flame baiter is. Why don't you and the rest of your Bad Astronomy bullies just leave me alone , and leave Jack alone ?... None of you know how to discuss any subject without being completely insulting ... lamson is like a ridiculous one trick pony with his constant usage of the words ... ignorant , ignorance , and ignoramous to describe those he disagrees with .. Being called ignorant is the height of insults and you know it .. I don't care what kind of games you play with the word. You and your "friends" make this forum a cesspit with your off topic ad homs and hateful comments. Please just ignore my posts from now on and I will do the same with yours.

xxxxx ALERT !

lamson , the bad boy of 'Bad Astronomy' says to Jack ... "Bottom line is you have simply shown your IGNORANCE about the properties of light and shadow." Jack , a polite and honorable man says nothing to the flame baiting xxxxx, lamson. I do believe the web site called 'Bad Astronomy' should change it's name to 'Bad Manners' .... especially after reading it's typical member's typical hateful comments . I also believe that flame baiting trolls like lamson and colby should always post their insulting comments with the warning "xxxxx ALERT" at the top of their posts , so we will know not to bother to read their nonsense .

Yeah .. a comment ... They moved the spotlight on the moon set . I know it's been a rough week with my swaping insults with some of the members here , and then joking around with some of the Apollo photos .... but I have made my apologies to the administrator and will now ignore the members who have been so insulting to me . This thread is about faked Apollo photos and before I am finished I plan to post many of the faked photos here , and hopefully be able to explain and prove why they are fake and not taken on the moon .

Len .... Here's my reply to you ... I just posted this on the forum under 'Member's Behavior' .... You have a lot of nerve posting the lies you did there after I apologized for postings insults on this forum .... This will be my last post to you , so don't bother to continue with your insulting , dishonest post comments to me . ........................ Len ... I already apologized for my unkind behavior and insulting comments to some of the members who have insulted me ever since I joined this forum .... Too bad you are not big enough of a man to do the same thing ... Your treatment of Jack White and now me is completely out of line .... And I stand behind what I posted yesterday on the Political Conspircies forum .... If anyone should be banned for insulting conduct it should be you and Lamson ... Not only for your constant insults to Jack and me but now for your outright lies .. No one ever "politely" rebutted my Apollo evidence posted here ... but if you consider being called a crackpot , ignoramous, delusional , stupid , etc ., mostly by Craig Lamson as being "polite" , then you really do need a reality check .... None of you will let up .... Your posts to me today on the Political Conspiracies prove that ... But I will not be dragged into another brawl by you , Lamson , or anyone else on this forum who defend Apollo with the most dispicable of tactics . I didn't realize that you and Lamson and Ulman and Burton had come here from the Bad Astronomy forum until I read Jack's post here last night .... Now it all makes perfect sense why you are all so rude and insulting .... everyone on that pathetic forum acts the same way the four of you do when it comes to trying to debunk the hoax evidence .... Sorry to dissapoint you but I will no longer play your game by answering your dishonest comments or your personal attacks .

Since you currently are the most abusive member of this forum your complaints ring very hollow. -I’ve only seen one post on this forum that was edited by a moderator for being too offensive and it was one of yours - Twice you have accused me of trolling after I asked you politely to back your claims. - Recently you called a fellow member dog $#!& after he politely pointed out errors in one of your posts. - You regularly hurl invectives like Nazi and sociopath at your critics and accuse them of lying or acting “stupidly” Len ... I already apologized for my unkind behavior and insulting comments to some of the members who have insulted me ever since I joined this forum .... Too bad you are not big enough of a man to do the same thing ... Your treatment of Jack White and now me is completely out of line .... And I stand behind what I posted yesterday on the political Conspircies forum .... If anyone should be banned for insulting conduct it should be you and Lamson ... Not only for your constant insults to Jack and me but now for your outright lies .. No one ever "politely" rebutted my Apollo evidence posted here ... but if you consider being called a crackpot , ignoramous, delusional , stupid , etc ., mostly by Craig Lamson as being "polite" , then you really do need a reality check .... None of you will let up .... Your posts to me today on the Political Conspiracies prove that ... But I will not be dragged into another brawl by you , Lamson , or anyone else on this forum who defend Apollo with the most dispicable of tactics . I didn't realize that you and Lamson and Ulman and Burton had come here from the Bad Astronomy forum until I read Jack's post here last night .... Now it all makes perfect sense why you are all so rude and insulting .... everyone on that pathetic forum acts the same way the four of you do when it comes to trying to debunk the hoax evidence .... Sorry to dissapoint you but I will no longer play your game by answering your dishonest comments or your personal attacks .

When I first joined this forum I was hoping for meaningful and intelligent discussions about my favorite subject , the Apollo moon hoax ... I mainly joined this forum to be supportive of my mentor Jack White .... I have admired Jack's works for a long time now and was hoping to help defend one of his causes here , exposing the Apollo photography as being faked . At first I tried to be a peacemaker with those who had been constantly attacking and insulting Jack on the Political Conspiracies forum .... but soon it became very evident to me that no matter how much I asked certain members to be civil towards him , the personal insults still continued ... Then , because of my defense of Jack and also because of my opinions about Apollo , I also became the target of their ad homs . I don't need to name any names because for anyone who has read this forum , it is very obvious who these members are who constantly use personal attacks instead of meaningful debate about the Apollo subject .... Then unfortunatley , because of the constant name calling directed at me , I also became as abusive and insulting in some of my posts to the members who were now being as insulting to me as they were to Jack .... So in allowing my buttons to be pushed I became as guilty as my attackers with some of my insulting posts ... The smart thing to do would have been for me to ignore them .. but unfortunatley I chose to lower myself to their level and fought back ... A decision which I now very much regret ... I am sorry for my contribution in being a problem here and have now decided to completely ignore the members who have been so unkind to both Jack and myself because of our stance on the Apollo Program . I have much respect for Jack and his ability to not be dragged down to the level of his abusers ... I hope to learn by his example of remaining a gentleman and if allowed to stay on this forum I promise not to engage in any more conduct which is beneath my own previous standards ... Duane

By your post information then the time line of the Americans working with the Russians could have meant that they were in on the Apollo hoax ... and this would be a very good reason for not blowing the whistle on the Americans ... There could even have been a possible trade off ... American got the manned moon landings and Russia got the space station .... I know you don't believe that Apollo was a hoax but regardless of that , you have just provided evidence that it's very possble that the Russians and Americans were working together much sooner than most people realize and that Russia could very well have in on the pretense of landing on the moon .. It also shows that the 'cold war' might not have been exactly what we were told it was .

I do believe you missed the entire point Steve ... It's obviously NOT laying on the lunar surface but rather laying on a moon set on earth ... And that's precisely why it didn't self destruct or burst into flames . .... Love , straydog .

Sure thing .. I just thought I would ask Jack that question while he was here .... I thought he had answered the question before .. and he confirmed that he did . I think if you have a polite discussion with him, instead of the typical type of lamson attacks , you will find that Jack will be more willing to discuss this with you . Sorry for butting in .

Thanks for redefining the question ... I think I understand what you are saying now ... I also think that possibly Dr. Jones could have not quite understood what his opponent was saying or may possibly have used an incorrect term ( sun above the clouds ) to try to expres his opinion ... I'm not looking at the article right now , but I remember this was a very brief answer to one of the lesser important claims .. He addressed so many more important claims about the Apollo photography and answered them , to my knowledge , correctly . As we all know , I don't know a lot about photography and don't even take pictures ... I have never even owned a camera except for cheap throwaway kind and have no interest in the subject at all . But in spite of not knowing much about the subject , I am fascinated with the fact that the Apollo photos look so fake ... The moon does not look like a real planet in any of the Apollo photos , nor do the mountains look real , but rather like painted two dimentional backdrop scenery ... and the complete lack of depth perception to the point of the horizon looks to be no more than 50 to 100 feet in most of the photos also .... It looks like a stage covered with dirt , with crudely dug 'craters' which can easily be scuffed over by bootprints , and an obvious seam line between the end of the foreground stage to the beginning of the painted mountain walls ... I looked at still photos from the move 'From the Earth to the Moon" and the sets used for that movie looked almost identical to Apollo photos ... Even the rock group Rammstein set up a fake moon scene for their video 'Amerika' which looked identical to the Apollo sets ....And they set up their video scene in a very brief amount of time and even duplicated the effects of a lesser gravity by using slow motion .... So obviosly recreating a moon set to exactly match that of the Apollo one's is not very difficult . But getting back to your question ... I don't know if I agree with him or not because of the vague way the answer is stated ... and that is an honest answer .

Jack ... That makes perfect sense to me ... but then I am completely IGNORANT when it comes to photography . Dave keeps asking me the same question over and over again about Neville Jones' claims of parallel shadows or sun rays being above clouds or below the clouds but I have no idea what he is asking me ... He is trying to disprove Jones claims in his article about the Apollo photography . Didn't you address this question already ? ... And if so , why is this such an issue ?

Where is this interview did it mention what type of Kodac film was used ? ... Did I miss something ? When Jan Lundberg was asked by David Percy if he could explain why the famous photo of Buzz looked like he was standing in a spolight while on the lunar surface in the bright lunar sun , Lundberg said he had no explanation for what could have created that effect .. That is was a mystery to him . This interview with Jan was also shown in the documentray "Conspiracy Theory : Did we Land on the Moon ?' , where Jan seemed to be stumped by several things about the Apollo photography ... One of them being why the lunar surface radiation the film was exposed to didn't fog the film or cloud the photos or cause the usual white spots which should have shown up on the photos had they really been taken on the moon and exposed to that type of deep space radiation .

I haven't avoided your question , I just don't understand what you are asking .... I guess that has to do with my complete "ignorance" of photography .

Well we are all entitled to our own opinions ... I agree with this claim because of the intense heat of the radioactive lunar surface ... I think his estimate of 100 degrees C . would do what he said it would ... Do I have any evidence to prove this ? ... No ... But then neither do you have any evidence to prove it wouldn't do what he claimed either .

Thanks very much for your typical trolling post ... and I have no doubt you have already written to John Simkin with your wishes to have me banned for insulting those who have constantly insulted me . But if the truth be known , if anyone should be banned from posting here it should be you and lamson and Burton ... Especially for the way you have treated Jack White ... but like I said in my post , the majority always wins because they are the loudest .... and in your sad case , the most obnoxious .

Steve ... Good question but I don't know if I can give a you good answer . As you know, most people believe that the Apollo moon landings were real ... and the 6 to 20 percent ( numbers vary depending on the poll ) of the population who believe Apollo wasn't real , are constantly ridiculed and insulted , by those who defend the Apollo Program ... This fact can even be seen right here on this forum . I just noticed a thread by John Simkin asking that the insults by certain members stop , on the political conspiracies forum ... But unfortuantley , after being insulted repeatedly , the usual response ( even though not a very mature one ) is to insult those who have insulted me , in return . I also see that he is asking for members opinions as to who should possibly be banned because of these insults ... I haven't as yet had time to reply to his inquiry , but I have no doubt that other members here have ... and I also have no doubt that I will be the one to blame for the insults and that I will be the one eventually banned ... That's how things work in a system where the majority rules ... and the reason I went off on this particular tangent is to make a point and a comparison of the majority 'winning' and the underdog usually being the one suppressed and then banished ... After all , the majority is always the loudest and is also always 'right' . There are literally millions of people from all walks of life , including scientists , astronomers and physicists, who believe without a doubt that nasa faked the Apollo moon landings ... And their evidence is both technical and photographic ... But unfortunately, thanks to nasa defenders such as Phil Plait and Jay Windley , these millions of hoax believers and conspiracy researchers are made to look like ignorant fools and have been forced to endure constant ridicule and personl insults , under the old school program of using ad homs , by attacking the messenger to stop the message ... And the reason for this program is to suppress the hoax claims and evidence by any means necessary . I'm sure that most people who defend Apollo really do believe that nasa pulled off this amazing and technically impossible feat of soft landing six manned missions on the moon 38 years ago ... And I also believe that they feel it's their civic duty to defend either their country or their strong belief in what they have been led to believe by nasa and it's many defenders .... Some people can not conceive of the type of government and military that would conduct such a monumental hoax or perpatrate such a tremendous lie ... And then of course there are the nasa defenders who know very well that Apollo was a scam but are part of the cover-up because of their government positions or military duties . But what has this to do with Russia not blowing the whistle on the faked American moon missions ? .... Possibly everything .... If Russia had tried to expose nasa's moon hoax , America would have just claimed it was sour grapes on Russia's part , and that they were lying because of their own failed manned lunar space program .....And who would have believed the Communists anyway, especially during the cold war ? .... No one likes to be insulted , ridiculed or possibly threatened ... Or in Russia's case, have their own possible bogus moon space program exposed .... We all know how the Russians lied about everything ... At least according to the American propaganda machine in place during the cold war . There are several theories as to why the Russians never exposed the bogus Apollo Program .... There is the possibility that the Soviet Union was bribed into silence with either food supplies to a starving nation or lots of money .... There is also the possibility that Russian scientists and rocket engineers knew very well that manned space flight to the moon was an impossibility , but were part of the hoax .... I always found it strange that as soon as the Apollo missions came to an abrupt halt , that nasa and Russia became fast friends , even sharing the space station and working together in LEO ... What happened to that cold war mentality ? .... Maybe even the entire cold war was a scam, blown all out of proportion, just to fool the masses ... With corrupt political structures that lie and conspire to control the masses , I guess anything is possible .... The military/ industrial complex extends to the CIA , FBI , NSA, black ops programs and nasa .... and they control everything . The nasa defenders will have you believe that Russia had the deep space tracking capabilities to track the various Apollo craft to the moon because they were able to track their own unmanned missions to the moon .... but that is simply not true .. For the Russians to have tracked the Apollo craft they would have needed the tracking coordinates ... And of course there is the possibilty that even the Russian moon missions were faked ... and in that case , they wouldn't have been able to track any deep space missions at all ... Especially those of a foreign country . Here is a paragraph from a web site that defends the Apollo missions , and even they admit that it wouldn't have been possible for Russia to track Apollo .... "Bart Sibrel said, in response, that "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."[61] However, the Soviet Union had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959.[62] and "during 1962, deep space tracking facilities were introduced at IP-15 in Ussuriisk and IP-16 in Evpatoria (Crimean Peninsula), while Saturn communication stations were added to IP-3, 4 and 14",[63] the latter having a 100 million km range.[64] This does not prove they could track foreign spacecraft, but as they had the ability to track their own it is likely they could at least receive radio transmissions from Apollo. " http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-moon-l...oax-accusations So as you can see, there is no proof that Russia could have tracked Apollo ... Even the members on such forums as Bad Astronomy and clavius have admitted to this fact . So why do I believe the Russians didn't blow the whistle on Apollo ? .... Because I believe that part of the corrupt Soviet government and the Russian space program rocket scientists were probably part of the hoax . I saw a documentary once where a Russian rocket scientist and a Russian cosmonaut were interviewed and they both admitted that it was impossible for humans to survive deep space travel ... They discussed the fact that several of their cosmonauts had died while trying to fly through the Van Allen radiation belts and know for a fact that the Americans had never landed men on the moon because of this intense radiation .... I have watched so many documentaries on the Apollo hoax , so I'm not sure which one they were interviewed on ... It may have been Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon ? ... Or maybe it was 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon ' or 'What Happened on the Moon' or possibly 'Secret Space ' ... I will try to see if I can find this interview again though , so I can answer your question better by posting their names here ... I remember them both saying that one cosmonaut survied the belts but returned to earth literally burnt black from radiation poisoning , and died shortly after his space flight . Yet nasa allows us all to believe that deep space radiation is not dangerous , that it is no problem at all to send humans into the Van Allen belts and that it's perfectly safe to travel to the moon in space craft with only some tin foil for radiation protection ... Right .

Nope. It's another mundane answer. The TV was deployed the correct way up on an arm attached to the LM that was deployed after landing. After he descended the ladder (TV image right way up), Conrad started to remove the camera in order to deploy it on the tripod before Bean started his descent - you can see it happen here. View from around the 1 min 35 sec mark. He didn't finish deploying the TV onto the tripod, as Bean had the Hasselblads ready to lower down on the LEC, and Conrad wanted to have his camera to take some stills. Pretty mundane huh? And right there on the ALSJ for anyone who wants to check their claims before posting them. Yes , very mundane ... In fact , just about as mundane as the lack of enthusiam of all the the Apollo astronots while visiting the moon . The reason I thought the cameras were mounted upside down on the side of the LM came from a discussion I had with a nasa defender a few years ago ... I can't remember his reasons for the why the camera was positined upside down on the side of the LM , but he seemed to be pretty sure about his claims ... and who am I to dispute the impeccible knowledge of the typical defender of nasa's great lie of landing men on the moon ? So a vintage 1970's TV camera was able to video tape and broadcast images from 240,000 miles out into deep space, from the radioactive lunar surface , before the TV dish was even assembled for broadcasting ?.... Maybe the mundane explanation for this one is that nasa had magical powers and didn't need to use the conventional TV broadcasting equipment or conventional video technology of the time ... And the mundane explanation for why they never pre-tested any of their LM landing and launch capabilities was becasue they just knew it would work perfectly for the TV camera ... Right . Getting back to fake photos and faked images from the 'moon' .. I found this one today on a German web site that had a whole lot to say about nasa and their entire faked space program ... I have read several pages of this site , and even though I find it difficult to beleve all of their information , a lot of it makes perfect sense .. Especially the parts about the murder of the Apollo 1 astronauts , the murder of whistle blower Tomas Baron , and the fact that no one has ever been to the moon because of deep space radiation , the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts and the completely radioactive lunar surface ... Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html

Thanks for the answer to that one ... I didn't know that Bean was in a position to take that shot of Conrad . Strange indeed .... I have watched the video footage of Bean egressing the LM ladder and his image is upside down because of the way the TV camera was positioned ... and before the camera allegedy broke , he turned it right side up . So since Conrad was the first one off the LM and on the ground , then how was a TV video made of him coming down the ladder right side up ? ... Have you seen the video of Bean coming down the ladder upside down ? Is there a mundane answer for this one or .... could it be !?!? ... Another nasa .... opppsss .. clanger !! I don't have time now but I will check out some Apollo 12 videos tomorrow to see if I can find the one of Bean coming down the ladder upside down .... I know I have seen this footage on one of the hoax sites before .... Weird . Or possibly you will beat me to it ... If so , please post it here ... Thanks .

You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer... More smudges on the visor ?? .. Er, I mean , more lens flare ?? But I thought those very expensive Hassleblad moon cameras with their regular Kodac LAND film would not have taken so many photos of lens flare ..... So let me get this straight ... You mean to say that "smudges on the visors" and "lens flare" account for all the anomalies in the faked Apollo photographs ? Well why didn't you just say so in the first place ? .. Then I might have believed the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , and wouldn't have wasted all this time thinking they were all staged on moon sets !!

So what does your nasa Debunker's Manual say about this one ? .... Why isn't actor Pete upside down ? If this was a still shot taken from the TV image , he would be upside down ! ... and if it was taken with a camera , is that alien invisible or air brushed out of the visor reflection ? Really don't know where you're going with this one. Upside down? Huh? The "alien" is facing toward the camera - why would you expect that side to be reflected in Conrad's visor? That would defy some pretty basic laws of physics. I'm surprised you suggested it. You can of course see the "rear" of the "alien" (Kapton tape) in the visor - right where you'd expect to. Dave ... I'm not sure if we are speaking the same language here ... Okay , let me out this in simple terms for you . If Pete was the first guy out on the moon set , then who took the picture ? If it was taken by Houston , then it would have to be a still shot from the TV camera . If it was taken from the TV camera , then the image would have been upside down , because it wasn't turned right side up until the Beano climbed down the LM ladder , and then deliberately turned it to face the 'sun' , so nasa could pretend that the camera lens burned out . I guess they didn't want the whole world to watch them fake the second moon landing , huh ? I do believe the people of planet Earth were more interested in watching re-runs of 'I Love Lucy' !

Here's the spotlight that made the Apollo 12 photo shoot shadows look so strange !! And it's just where I told you it would be too ... Right down on the moon set floor ! ... No wonder Pete and Al's shadows looked so big and almost as tall as the LM !!! Hey, would there be a halo around the spotlight , er , I mean the sun , if it were really photographed in a vacuum ? AS12-46-6767

Psycho mind games ... ain't they pretty ? I didn't read Dr. Neville Jones' web site ... I have absolutey no idea what his religious beliefs are , nor do I care .. Nor do I give a damn what his beliefs are about the Earth and the stars and what some astronomers wrote in the 18th and 19th centuries , which was what he was referring to in the first place .... Must you all take everything out of context with your mind games ? The bottom line is that I agree with his beliefs ,opinions and EVIDENCE of Apollo being a hoax .... That is the article I read ... That is the article I posted here ... and that is the article that no one here can debunk ... Not unless you consider copying Jay Windley's lame rebuttals a proper debunk ... and speaking of copying Jay's lame rebuttals , I do believe that Matt and that psycho lamson have already done that .

Of course I know the answer, it's in my official "NASA Debunker's Manual" that I got when i joined the programme! I'm just surprised you didn't see the picture of the gold-faced alien on the RHS of the frame - NASA were worried when that one slipped through the net! So what does your nasa Debunker's Manual say about this one ? .... Why isn't actor Pete upside down ? If this was a still shot taken from the TV image , he would be upside down ! ... and if it was taken with a camera , is that alien invisible or air brushed out of the visor reflection ? Yes , I really, really do believe that Apollo was a big fat hoax !!! ... and guess what ?? .. So does Bart, Jack , David , and Mary ! ... But that bad boy Charlie .... He was just pulling everybody's leg by hoaxing the hoax ... What a load of crap that boy put in his book ... In fact , it was kinda like the crap that sociopath lamson just posted in his pretense of debunking me through Dr. Neville Jones .