Dave Greer

Millions? Billions believe they did happen. Your point? So you do believe the Orbiter missions were faked? On the strength of one photo that bears good similarity to the Apollo photo? That's actually evidence in favour of the Apollo being genuine! Thanks for pointing it out! Oh, you've been thoroughly outed and debunked on every forum you've posted on. The plausible explanations for the Bean photo are too mundane for you to comprehend, so I'll leave you warm and cosy with your fly-system fantasy. Personally I think you've been reading too much Lewis Carroll...

Obviously the sun is above the clouds - and I doubt you'll understand what I mean by that so I'll explain: the clouds are on earth, the photo is taken on the moon, the sun is very, very far away... hence it's above the clouds. Looks to me like a Lens Flare effect - what do you reckon?

Both photos were taken from different altitudes, as you or anyone else can easily demonstrate with a cursory examination of them. Perhaps you'd like to explain how and why the Orbiter missions were faked, as you seem to be incuding them in your Apollo fantasy? Debunked again, Duane!

I think you need to read up on convex mirrors. They really can do weird things with reflections.

Nice photo. Looks strikingly similar to this one taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in Jun 1998. Could the difference in contrast possibly be explained by different methods of image capture and processing of the images? Was the image pushed in processing? Or photoshopped to improve contrast for internet images? Or was the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter unmanned programme also faked? Or maybe (shock horror) they might both be genuine? http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00094 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA00094.jpg Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech Edit - and here's the image under discussion, processed in such a way that it more closely resembles the LRO images.

Duane, don't blame me for your lack of analysis skills. I clearly stated that I'd vertically stretched the photo to make it easier to see the detail of the shadow. You don't need to take my word for it - you can easily do exactly the same thing using MS Paint. You can indeed see what appears to be a hose coming out of the PLSS. However, the shadow is clearly that of an astronaut bending forwards - which is no surprise given that the astronaut is bending forward too. Yes they were. And no it hasn't. Unless you have proof or evidence to the contrary? That's evidence, not insults.

I think a warning system, followed by a temporary ban, followed by a permanent ban. Other suggestions include a locked thread where any warnings/bans are notified by yourself, so we can find out why certain people were banned. Another is having a system of moderators in place. None of these is flawless, and all have their drawbacks, but I too have been targetted by unwarranted insulting behaviour and false accusations of lying, and agree something needs to be done for the integrity of the site. The last thing the internet community needs is another mud-slinging site. Dave

Steven Interesting question. I think the point you raise re variations in temperature has been answered several times. I don't know enough about the type, level and duration of ionising radiation exposure to offer much insight. For example, I don't think levels of xrays on the moon are high, and I don't know how the gamma exposure would have affected the film, nor cosmic rays. Until someone produces empirical evidence to show it would have been a problem, I'm not sufficiently motivated to research it. If you are, then feel free to post your findings here for discussion - but it will take more than an unscaled gamma photo of the moon to convince me! Cheers

Shadows were PASTED IN? Are you making this stuff up as you go along? In that case, where is the shadow from the light source? This is one of the most laughable scenarios you've come up with yet for explaining how they faked photos. You do know there is video footage of the astronaut taken at the same time, showing the shadow in the same place? Did they erase the real shadows and paste the fake ones in every single frame? Can you not grasp how utterly ludicrous this claim is? Bottom line is, you can dream up as many different ways as you like for faking lunar photos, but it's not based in reality. All you're doing is reinforcing your cosy little fantasy. Look at the shadow in the photo. This has been stretched vertically to counter the flatness of the shadow. You can clearly see the shadow of the astronaut is bent at the waist, just like the astronaut is. You can see the shadow of one of his arms, his helmet (slightly mis-shapen as it is cast on uneven terrain), and very clearly make out the shadow of the PLSS.

What's more ludicrous is your continued refusal to acknowledge the difference between the kind of radiation dosage expected on a short lunar mission (2-3 days) and a long term lunar mission (six months). Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's.

Uncalled for personal insults? That statement would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad! You've offered little except unwarranted personal insults, and false accusations of lying, for several weeks now. You don't address the message for some reason - I'm assuming it's because you can't. So once again you go on the offensive, as it's all you've got left.

As stated on the other thread (there appears to be some crossover) - YOU pasted his views, and dared anyone to debunk them. His views on perspective are wholly relevant to his ability to comment on photographs. So, instead of twisting things around to make it seem as if I'm taking things off topic, how about defending his claim re perspective? You can't, because he is wrong, and you know it - so as usual you go on the offensive instead, and hurl insults and sad accusations at all and sundry who disagree with you. I'll ask again - I think this is the 5th or 6th time but I'm losing count - do you agree with Neville's position on perspective, in particular with respect to crepuscular rays through a cloud? Yes or no? If yes, then why? Duane - you are the one who is building this guy up to be some complete authority on all matters space-related, without once even questioning the validity of his claims. The fact that he believes space telescopes can't work, that stars revolve around s stationary earth, and that the illumination of the moon is not explained by the sun - do the alarm bells not start ringing? Do you not think for one moment to question his credentials? His opinions? Why he is saying what he is saying? Or are you desparate to cling to the fact that someone who put a few letters after his name also believes the same as you about Apollo - regardless of his true agenda. He interprets the world, and science, from a strict interpretation of scripture, and bends everything to fit that worldview. That's why he won't allow photographs of man or beast on his website - he believes it goes against scripture. That's why he believes the stars revolve around a stationary earth. And that's why he believes man didn't land on the moon - it goes against his literal interpretation of scripture. Of course, you figured this all out yourself by reading his website, didn't you? I respect anyone's right to their religious belief and their faith, but I don't think you can use that as a scientific basis for whether Apollo happened or not.

Indeed - the only references to Nathan Jones I can find are copies of the article Duane has posted dating back to Nov 2003. What are his credentials? Qualifications? Or is he just another HB disinformationist, like Hawkins? For someone who claims to despise it, it seems to be your main form of argument - cutting and pasting HB disinformation, and claiming it to be the truth.

Duane I've explained this phenomenon, and Dr Jones misinterpretation of it, several times, and very clearly. Why does Dr Jones call it an "outlandish claim" that the "rays" should trace back to the sun? And what of his claims re HST, lunar illumination, stars rotating above a stationary earth? Agree or disagree?

You know full well that if there WERE any photos of the LRV being deployed, you would use it as evidence of fakery. "It took two people to deploy the rover! Why did one stop to take an unnecessary photo? It's because they weren't really on the moon, or they wouldn't have risked one man doing a 2 man job". So you saw some training footage of the LRV being deployed. Do you have a point?

Duane You have absolutely nothing to offer except pathetic ad homs. I've bent over backwards to get you to engage in sensible and proper debate. I guess when you can't address the points I raise, all you're left with is insults - slimy even by poundland/kilter/elsewhere's exceedingly low standards. I thought you'd risen above his level - but with your constant insults, false accusations of lying, and failure to respond to simple questions addressing the message - you have finally unmasked yourself. You're still espousing Neville Jones' views as credible? He who believes the HST can't possibly work? He who believes the sun can't account for the illumination of the full moon? He who believes the stars rotate around a stationary earth? Any chance of you addressing these points? What about his peculiar views on perspective in photos I've raised FOUR times? You had more credibility when you were gushing over Hawkins nonsense when half-way through his book. I'm past caring what you believe - you're beyond help. I do, however, reserve the right to counter the HB disinformation you continue to put forward as "unassailable fact." You have the gall to call me an insulting, condescending xxxxx? Grow up, FFS.

Which video was that Duane? The Apollo 15 video footage clearly shows both astronauts deploying the rover. At some points in the footage, one astronaut disappears out of the field of view of the camera - maybe you saw a short clip which only had one astronaut in it. Do you have a link to the footage you're referring to? Regardless, the original question is redundant anyway (in terms of whether the landings were faked). It's typical HB disinformation along the lines of "if I ran the zoo". As an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

Fraid I didn't. But do keep up with the pro-hoax disinformation that seems to be your speciality these days! I trust that you believe what you're saying... but I also believe you're wrong. Kevin's explanation makes sense with everything matching up. I can even understand why you think the shadow looks like what you're saying it is - but applying some common sense and logical thinking supports Kevin's position rather than yours. Credit where it's due though - at least you're doing your own research rather than cutting and pasting the "Jones Brother's" nonsense. Quick question - how could the configuration of the shadow conform to your explanation if the photo was taken on a moon-set?

I think you mean Neville, not Nathan. Which part was I stupid enough to disagree with? The bit about the HST not working? Or the moon's brightness not being explained by the sun? Or the Earth being stationary and the stars revolving around it?

The very same. He states quite clearly that the HST can't work. I got them from Dr Neville Jone's website. I'm glad you agree he's wrong. Here are the links, I was pushed for time when I posted before.http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page80.htm http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page17.htm Disinformation? I posted information from Dr Neville Jones own website that I believe is pertinent to his level of scientific knowledge. Speaking of disinformation, how about addressing the point that I've raised THREE times now? Don't pass it off as irrelevant - the thread is about photographic claims and Dr Neville Jones. Whether he can understand perspective is very important and relevant to the discussion. So... for the FOURTH time... My bolding. The effect is called Crepuscularity. Using his logic, the sun would be just behind the clouds. Last time I checked, it was approximately 93,000,000 miles away. The light rays in the photo are (essentially) parallel - they don't look parallel due to perspective. The author has shot himself in the foot by demonstrating he can't understand this basic concept. So - is Doctor Jones correct when he infers that the sun should be "just above the clouds" according to the photo I posted? Or can you not answer my rebuttal without admitting he is wrong? I suspect that is why you failed to answer my post last time and went straight on the offensive wuth the unwarranted false accusation of lying. Try sticking to the message this time. PS if you think I somehow faked this image, you can Google up a whole host of them fior yourself. Here's a few to be going on with. Google results for "crepuscular rays"

He's no stranger to making peculiar claims - apparently the HST (Hubble) shouldn't be able to image faint objects. http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page23.htm And the brightness of the full moon is wrong, and can't be explained by the sun. And the Earth doesn't rotate - the stars and planets rotate around the Earth. He is, of course, entitled to his opinions.

Well, let's look at what Dr Jones said. He states that it is an "outlandish claim" to say that when the sun shines through a hole in a cloud, the rays obviously don't look parallel, but each traces back to the sun (paraphrasing). He even questions it by saying "Do they?" And then he states his belief that if this was the case, " the Sun would be just above the clouds". So, what point in your opinion is Dr Jones actually trying to make? The language he uses (outlandish claim), and his hypothesis about where the sun would be given such a photo, makes it quite clear that he doesn't agree with Dr Bouw. I've provided evidence to support Dr Bouw's statement. If Dr Jones is agreeing with him, then (1) why did he bring the point up, and (2) why did he say Dr Bouw was making an outlandish claim? If Jones is disagreeing with Bouw - as his language strongly suggests - then clearly he is wrong. Hence, Dr Jones has, in my opinion, shot himself in the foot.

I emailed Eric Jones re a photo on the ALSJ myself a few weeks ago - it was a copy of a print that was reversed left-to-right (an Apollo 11 image I'd emailed JW about). If I get a mention in the credits on the ALSJ does that put me on NASAs payroll too? And WHEN do I get my cheque? I find it a difficult position to support given two photos alone, taken in separate locations, at different times - one colour, one B&W. The angle of the visor very similar in both cases, but different backgrounds - and the artefact is pretty much identical.

Craig - once again you're making the mistake of letting facts get in the way of a good story. Party pooper!

I keep asking you about one of the doctor's claims from the article you posted, but you haven't addressed it yet as you claim it has nothing to do with the moon andings. Well, you posted it, and it has everything to do with the Dr interprets perspective in photos, so I see no point in addressing the rest of his points until you either agree with my rebuttal, or show that I'm wrong and the doctor is right. Here's my post again... Duane I already did this with one of his claims in a previous post - you chose to ignore my rebuttal and continue with your recent strategy of accusing people who have a different opinion to yours of being liars. As you have asked for rebuttals, I'm sure you are capable of addressing the message this time, and showing me where I'm wrong, rather than falsely accusing me of being a xxxx yet again - a distraction tactic that is not only becoming extremely wearisome, but also somewhat revealing about your own character. My bolding. The effect is called Crepuscularity. Using his logic, the sun would be just behind the clouds. Last time I checked, it was approximately 93,000,000 miles away. The light rays in the photo are (essentially) parallel - they don't look parallel due to perspective. The author has shot himself in the foot by demonstrating he can't understand this basic concept. So - is Doctor Jones correct when he infers that the sun should be "just above the clouds" according to the photo I posted? Or can you not answer my rebuttal without admitting he is wrong? I suspect that is why you failed to answer my post lsat time and went straight on the offensive wuth the unwarranted false accusation of lying. Try sticking to the message this time. PS if you think I somehow faked this image, you can Google up a whole host of them fior yourself. Here's a few to be going on with. Google results for "crepuscular rays"