Dave Greer

For the same reason he is not interested in posting on this forum . I agree! He isn't interested in finding the truth - only in rubbishing Apollo and the people hwo believe it happened. Otherwise he would have no qualms whatsoever in answering a simple question: how is it possible that a craft undergoing re-entry while travelling in a southerly direction, off the West Coast of Australia, splash down 6000 miles to the north east, five hours later? He won't answer a simple question that addresses the evidence itself. Can you answer the question that he avoids like the plague? That explains why Jarrah lied about my opinion on visibility of craft in orbi, and refused to make a simple correction when asked. Actions of a truthseeker, or actions of a xxxx? He isn't prepared to debate the evidence he's presented - because he knows it falls apart under anything more than superficial analysis! Which is exactly why he refuses to explain the question I posed above about Apollo 11 - he can't answer it, because to answer it honestly shows that the object that was seen could not possibly have been Apollo 11. Would a truth-seeker avoid asksing a simple question about the evidence, and continue to falsely mis-represent my position after they've been asked to rectify their error? Methinks not

I'm sorry but I have ADD... Could you please repeat the question ? Oh, this question ? Yes, I agree with my fellow CT's that the Apollo astronots made it as far as LOW EARTH ORBIT ! .... But I'm afraid that I can't back that up with any evidnence because THERE WERE NO CAMERAS IN THE CABIN DURING LIFTOFF PROVING THAT THE APOLLO ASTRONOTS WERE REALLY IN THE ROCKET DURING LAUNCH ! You don't need cabin footage during liftoff - you have cabin footage when they're in space! Whether that footage be in LEO or after TLI, they were in space! Now, use a bit of logic. If we know they are in space, we know they must have got there somehow. Maybe they flapped their wings. Maybe they beamed up to a craft already in orbit, Star Trek fashion. Maybe they fell into a rift in the space-time continuum, and by some incredibly ironic twist of fate, ended up in the CSM. Or maybe they just got into orbit in a Saturn V rocket. Fancy that! For the love of God, STOP SHOUTING! OK, so you think NASA should have made cabin footage a priority. Perhaps you should write to them and give them a piece of your mind. Give them a jolly good ticking off. Get it off your chest. The main issue is that you can not possibly use this as evidence that Apollo was faked, since you ADMIT they were at the very least in Earth orbit! And don't pull the old "But I never said it was evidence of fakery" trick, all your Apollo posts are related to the Hoax Theory. You can question the lack of cabin footage all you like, but surely you must realise that if they were in space, it's highly likely they were in the cabin at launch?

I don't need to read your post again ... I saw the link you provided under "submit a request here" .... I already saw the other photos from that roll on the ALSJ and agree that several of them show the blue light streaks which could very well be a problem with the film or developing of the film . It was the amber light orbs which interested me, not the other "moisy artefacts" ... Fairy nuff. I don't really know enough about developing to cooment a great deal on the orbs - all I can say is that they appear over the surface surface as well as against the background of the sky. Possible it could be a reflection off the window, possible it could have happened in development. Possible it was UFOs hovering over the surface, trying to zap the LM.

Do you agree that it seems highly unusual that not a single reel of film exists of the Apollo Astros strapped in the cabins on top of the Saturn V's bound for the moon? Especially considering prior to and after Apollo, NASA made this a priority. Yes or no? Ta. Still avoiding the question old bean? You're doing a Jarrah - changing tack and hoping the question you don't want to answer will quietly disappear. In answer to your question: IMO it would be have been nice to have footage of the crew during lift-off, but the lack of that footage cannot be construed as evidence of shennanigans on NASAs part, since we know they were in earth orbit! And you can scoff all you like, but weight considerations are mightily important. I don't know if that's the reason for a lack of cabin launch video, but it's a possibility. Now, do the decent thing old chap and return the favour: answer the question you've been hoping will go away!

Stop being so thin-skinned Duane old boy, you're happy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being blind, lying fools. If he is so interested in the truth, why will he not answer questions directly pertaining to the evidence he has brought up on his own message board? No doubt because he realises the entire premise of the video would come tumbling down. He just changes the subject and hopes it will go away. He lied on his video about what I said about the visibility of craft in orbit, and refused to acknowledge the mistake. It was entirely transparent that all he was trying to do was make it look as if ABs were split on an issue. Gav had the guts to admit he was in error, you've done it yourself Duane: I wonder why Jarrah finds it impossible to follow suit. Easier to throw enough mud and hope some sticks no doubt! Even if he was correct that different people had a different opinion on the visibility of craft in orbit, so what? All he's done is shown that people can have a difference of opinion, even though they believe Apollo was real. But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? He isn't really interested in "the truth" - if he was, he'd have the intellectual honesty to address questions that pertain directly to the actual evidence presented, rather than avoiding uncomfortable truths and changing the subject in the hope they will go away. His current interest lies in trying to drive a wedge between people in the "pro-Apollo" camp. I do find it ironic that he is exactly what he accuses others of being: a propagandist, only for the Moon Hoax theory. Truth-seeker my foot!

How do you fake three men sitting on Saturn V rockets as they launch ? Get with the hoax program old bean .... Bill Kaysing always suspected there was nobody aboard the Saturn V's, and he would know because he worked for Rocketdyne . "Weight" is the only excuse you come up with ? .... The largest and most powerful rocket ever designed and you think one little camera in the cabin showing the astronauts during launch would be too much extra weight ??? The cameras they used later on were there already, adding to the weight . Nine alleged trips to the Moon and not one reel of film from the cabin prior to and including launch ??... How very strange . Most of NASA's missions prior to, and all of them following Apollo had a camera in the cabin but they JUST FORGOT about the moon trips ?? Even the makers of the movie Capricorn One remembered to put a camera there for the crucial scene when the Astronots are removed from the rocket. Yes. I notice you completely ignored the parts of my post that referred to Apollo 11 footage being in filmed at the very least in LEO, as acknowledged by David Percy, Bart Sibrel, Jarrah White and even yourself since you agree with their theories! Please explain how did they get there, and back up your claim with evidence. Ta!

Are you saying that a scanning defect would have caused not only the amber orbs ( lights) but also all of those blues lights and streaks that covered that photo as well ? The links you provided don't work. I don't know what caused it. If you look at the scan of the entire film roll, which includes parts of the film not exposed to the scene, they also exhibit moisy artefacts. Read my post again - I provided a link to re-request the ultra-high resolution images if the links didn't work (they are only available for 24 hours).

Jarrah's latest videos have less to do with examining Apollo evidence and more to do with mis-representing people's positions so he can score points over them. All while being dutifully egged on by his blinkered, merry band of sycophantic yes-men. In his Cats and Elephants video message board, he simply refuses to address the question of how an object re-entering the atmosphere while travelling in a southerly direction, could be recovered 5 hours later, 6000 miles to the north east. He hasn't bothered addressing the fact that the Perth observatory (IIRC) identified the object as Proton 4. He'd rather create a red herring about the length of time it took the West Australia newspaper to report that the object seen was indeed Proton 4. He even side-lined the "discussion" to bring up my email exchange with Jenny Heller almost a year ago! Anything but discuss questions directly pertaining to the issue itself. I wonder how many of the 25 rules of a disinformationist he's guilty of?

You started it with your Moon/moon madness. I think you've been reading a bit too much Dark Moon old bean! Why should anyone need to explain why there were no cameras? Even fully bolted-on HBers like Percy concede that the APollo 11 astronauts were at least in Earth orbit for the duration of the mission. How did they get there, wishful thinking? Or maybe reverse-engineered alien technology? Or - shock horror - perhaps they actually used a Saturn V rocket! Seems such a waste to spend all that time developing a rocket to get a lunar craft into LEO, then for the astronauts just to "beam up" into the CSM once it was in orbit. Guess what? I haven't got a clue why there were no cameras in the cabin! Why should anyone consider this evidence that the Apollo programme was faked - especially someone who agrees with Percy that the Apollo 11 TV footage was faked in Earth orbit! And if they didn't go into LEO, why didn't they just fake the cabin lift-off footage, like you say they faked hours and hours of TV and DAC footage from the surface of the moon - a feat of monstrous complexity compared to filming someone in a CSM simulator while a couple of burly youths rock the outside of the cabin! Here's a thought - maybe they decided against cabin cameras because of weight considerations? As for questioning the validity of the Launch Escape System (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "Emergency Escape Chute") - wow! NASA actually built a safety feature into there launch system! FAKE!

Good points Gav. How anyone believes this contraption flew all the way to Saturn and landed on Titan is beyond me. It looks a like a cheap prop used in "Lost in Space".

I think you guys are doing Duane's latest Apollo-buster an injustice. Being an objective skeptic, I decided to follow the evidence trail, and look where it led me. If Duane is right, and they didn't go to the Moon, perhaps they went to a moon. A good contender would be Saturn's largest moon, Titan - why else would they use Saturn V rockets? In the past, the moon Titan has been referred to as Saturn IV and Saturn VI, but never Saturn V - coincidence? The gravity on Titan is almost identical to that on the Moon, making it easier to fake footage. Titan has an atmosphere, which would explain the mysterious waving flags. The moon hoax was a scam of Titan-ic proportions! Look at this image, supposed to be taken on Titan by the Huygens probe. What proof do we have that it was taken on Titan? None! It could have been taken on Mars for all I know. Or even Redcar beach. Examining this image reveals subtle clues as well.

The point of this thread is to try to figure out what the lights are ... Whether they be orbs, or stagelights, or UFO's , or reflections of the LM cabin lights , or lens flare , they have to be something .... and I would like to try to find out if that's okay with you . My initial assumption was the same as Evan's, some kind of reflection of the interior lights on a LM control panel. I don't know enough about the internal configuration of the LM to be sure of that. Looking at the ultra-high resolution (with no post-processing) versions of this image, and the two images taken either side, leads me to think it might be some kind of defect in the scanning or developing process. Check out the links - if they don't work you'll need to resubmit a request here. ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS12_AS12-47-7018.JPG ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS12_AS12-47-7019.JPG ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS12_AS12-47-7020.JPG Perhaps someone with some experience in developing film can shed some light?

I'd like to nominate this thread as an early contender for the 2008 Forum Awards, in the "Least Convincing Argument" category. No offence and all that old bean, but come on... step outside and have a word with yourself!

I'm assuming you read the entire article? (Only a few paragraphs). If so you'd have read this (my bolding):- I don't see anything that supports your theory that NASA has no way of knowing how to develop a heatshield with the necessary characteristics? The airbags are for use with the Orion CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle), which is the equivalent of the Apollo Command Module, not the LM (Lunar Module). It was intended to make it possible to land on solid ground, rather than at sea. It was part of the initial design cycle, but according to this report , has been removed in order to save weight. The legs for the LM were, of course, designed to safely land the LM on the moon, not not the CM on Earth. They did that, very well. Six times all told. Or will completely validate Apollo, as if such a validation were even necessary! PS The Von Braun clip was very funny - thanks for that!

Carbon dioxide? In club soda? Pah! You'll be telling me next that those luvverly little bubbles of "happy gas" that make my lager tingle the tastebuds is carbon dioxide too I suppose? It's political correctness gone mad, I tells yer. Nonetheless, I don't want the rugrats growing up and blaming global warming on ME in a few years, so I'm changing my drink of choice to Mother's Ruin. Am I allowed ice, or will that feast ruin upon the world's glaciers? By how much will a slice of imported lime increase my carbon footprint? Ah hell, I'll just wash away my concerns with another bottle of juniper juice, blissfully unaware of the encroaching sea levels, rising temperatures, and my ulcerated leg. 'Hic!'

Duane I'm at a loss to understand why you can't grasp that the reflection of an astronaut kneeling down, would appear smaller than if he were standing upright the same distance away! Total cobblers! Have you measured how far the astronaut/photographer is from the visor in each case? Have you measure the size of the reflection? Do you know the film format and lens focal length of the camera used to take the museum photograph? I'm guessing not, so how can you state as fact that the A17 photos are faked? Look at the TV transmissions taken at the time of the Apollo 17 flg photos. There are TWELVE of them. You can marry each photograph up to the video perfectly - astronauts in the right place, either saluting, holding the flag etc. That's because you've just admitted YOU DON'T CARE! The fact that the A12 helmet is larger IS ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED that the astronauts were closer together on the A12 shoot than the A17-134-20385 image! You don't need to see video footage of the A12 astronauts taking those photographs to see how far away they are from each other in comparison to the A17 photo - they absolutely MUST be nearer to each other, because the helmet size is larger! The helmet size is the evidence you're looking for - yet you claim you don't care about it? You really don't care about the evidence? A very strange position to take. How far apart are they in AS17-134-20385? How far apart in the A12 image? "It looks like" isn't very empirical, it's purely subjective. Apparently you don't like subjective opinions. I agree. How about some evidence to support your claim?

Do you not see the paradox you've created here? Re-entry of a capsule takes a matter of minutes once it hit's the atmosphere and creates a visible plasma layer. You are saying that the Apollo 11 capsule was seen re-entering the atmosphere off the west coast of Australia, travelling north to south... and that re-entry continued for another couple of orbits before splashing down in the Pacific! That's the longest re-entry on history, and completely re-writes the laws of physics. Let's not the facts get in the way of a good yarn though! Yawn. Yeah, no-one who's interested in Apollo has a life outside it, unless they think it was faked. That's just a thinly-veiled attempt to make yourself feel superior to people with whom you disagree. I'm taking my girlfriend to Whitby today for a bracing walk along the pier, followed by an unfeasibly large portion of haddock and chips. We may even risk the 199 steps. Then I'm cooking tea for my dear old Mum. 5-a-side footy (chap has to keep fit), a tasty pint of Guinness or three down the local, then round to my chums house for a late-night poker sesh. Then off to the local lap-dancing parlour to get my jollies off, before going back home so 'er indoors can feel the benefit. Gosh, I have a rich and fulfilling life! I feel so superior to those fools who think Apollo was faked! All they do is infest discussion forums with their nonsense and make videos about Thomas the Tank Engine! Do you really think anyone cares a great deal about the private life of anyone else on the forum? Stop pretending to be so superior, we're all just as human as each other! Have an ice-cream and grow up!

Which evidence do you dispute? The eye-witness reports that put the object flying north to south off Western Australia 5 hours prior to Apollo 11 splashing down, 6000 miles to the north-east?

You can't compare the alleged re-entry of a known satellite to a DVD player repair ... Don't be absurd . Duane - it's called an analogy. Let's look at the evidence and decide what it might have been. 1. Eye-witness reports in the newspaper. If it was an object in orbit, why would it elicit such a response from the general public? If simply an object in orbit, would it really elicit such responses as:- "The object could have been a satellite re-entering the earth's atmosphere" "The most remarkable thing he had ever seen in the sky" "A little glow about the size of a ping pong ball" "It gave me a big fright and as soon as I got to the old coast road I stopped at the first house I saw and nearly banged the door down" "Do you believe in flying saucers?" Do these responses sound as if they are describing something burning up during re-entry, or a spacecraft in orbit? 2. Time of incident. According to the newspaper reports, the object was spotted at 19:05 Western Australia time. Apollo 11 splashed down 5 hours later. If the object was re-entering the atmosphere, it can't have been Apollo 11, since re-entry takes a matter of minutes. 3. Location and direction of travel. The object is reported as moving from North to South. Apollo 11 was recovered 6000 miles to the North East, in the Pacific ocean. On the other hand, analysis of the orbit of Proton 4 shows that it was moving from north to south, just off the west coast of Australia, at the time of the reported sightings. The orbit of Proton 4 is also known to have decayed on the day of the eye-witness reports. Come to your own conclusions, gentle reader.

How was it proven false ? .. I haven't seen any evidence yet to show how close the A12 astronots were standing to each other . You don't need evidence showing how close they were to each other. You just need to know whether they were closer together in the A12 photo, or the A17 photo. The helmet is bigger in the A12 photo, ergo they were stood closer together. The astronot "bending down" would not turn him into a DWARF ! No, it made him appear smaller. Bending down has that effect on most people. Here is a screen shot from the video of the A17 being taken. You can download the video here. Dwarf, or astronaut bending down to take photograph? It was Jack's study and you haven't explained anything ... You have only offered your subjective opinion , as usual . I guess Mr Pot has already met Mr Kettle then!!!

The point is, the visor in the A12 photo was measurably larger than the A17 photo. Hence, the astronauts were closer together in that image. Hence, the reflection of the astronaut is larger. Your position was that they were closer together in the A17 photo, a claim which has been demonstrated to be false. No need to calculate the exact distance, your original claim has already been proven to be false. You also need to remember that in the A17 photo, the astronaut taling the photo is bending down and at an angle, so his reflection will seem even smaller than if he was standing upright (as in the A12 image). You say the reflection looks unrealistic? That's very subjective. My subjective opinion is that it looks very realistic. Viewers can judge for themselves, here's a crop of the ultra-high resolution scan of the film roll itself. The author of this study you posted, presumably either you or Jack, didn't know what the features were, so I explained it! http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/stra...photooddity.jpg I'll address these issue individually in another post. The author of the study didn't say what features he couldn't make out, only that he needed help figuring out what they were.

Getting back to Jack's study... the question he asked was what are the features visible in the astronaut's visor. Any feedback as to why he disagrees?

Duane No-one tears a strip off you for admitting being in error, how about extending the same courtesy to others when the ball is on the other foot? Looking at the evidence in the video itself, Jarrah's claim holds less water than a Lithuanian crack-whore's fishnets. What the eye-witnesses described was nothing like a craft in orbit, but very much like a craft burning up during re-entry. They all claimed it was travelling from north to south, which ties in nicely with the known decay of Proton 4. Apollo 11 was recovered 5 hours later, 6000 miles to the north east. The only comeback that Jarrah has, is "Why did it take a month for it to be identified as Proton 4?" Methinks he's grasping at straws because he knows the facts don't support his conclusion. He would have more credibility doing the decent thing and admitting his error, rather than flailing around trying to prop up an untenable position.

Funny "one up " there Dave ... You should really keep up with the comedy cuz it sure beats some of your lame "rebuttals" . I'm happy for my buddy to use my name in any video he makes exposing the Apollo hoax evidence ... He did a fine job of finding some more faked Apollo video footage of the Apollo astronot frat boys goofing around during the Apollo Simulation Project on there silly little trampolins, which were hidden behind the buggy .... I don't know who NASA thinks they're fooling with silly staged stuff like that . Not strange at all if you are using NASA's tricks, such as "training" wires , light weight "hammers" and weighted "feathers " to fake 1/6 g on the moonset . Duane That's all good, you're entitled to your opinion. Do you have any actual proof to back these claims up though?

I wanted to try out the new shoes I got for Christmas! If you're happy for him to use your name in his videos then you have to be prepared to accept the blame as well as the glory! No worries. Best tell Mr Magoo not to give up the day job just yet! Re the four foot jumps. I'm assuming you're of the opinion that they were jumping on little trampolines? Strange how on some of the jumps they stop dead - would be mightily difficult to do in a bulky suit, with a PLSS, after a four foot high jump.