Dave Greer

I keep hearing this claim that the FBI ordered blueprints to be destroyed, but can find no corroborating evidence. It only seems to be mentioned on conspiracy websites. I made the mistake of assuming the claim was correct because Duane has claimed many times that this fact is accepted even by ABers. It's an object leson to me to check every claim made, as this seems to be more disinformation being perpetrated by conspiracy theorists. If Duane or anyone else for that matter has eidence to the contrary I'll gladly reassess the situation, but as far as I'm concerned it's time to label this piece of dis-information as exactly that.

Duane Over the last few weeks we've enjoyed occasional pleasant banter along with at times robust debating on here. Obviously that changed a week or so ago when you wildly over-reacted when I pointed out you had been wrong in the past in your analysis of an Apollo photo. Our opinions on Apollo differ - so what? Have you any idea how you are portraying yourself to anyone following these threads, regardless of their opinion of the subject matter? How about actually discussing facts, and defending your opinions? Or are you only left with the lies and personal attacks you claim to abhor? Get over yourself.

As stated in the previous thread - you have prior history of mistaking smudges and scratches for reflections of fans, lights etc. So it's completely relevant. And I've already devoted far more time on this thread to debunking your "shadow" theory than you have defending it. Once again, you can't defend your position so you go on the offensive. YOU are using distraction tactics, YOU are hurling the insults about, because YOU cannot defend your claims. Duane - scratches or reflection of stagelights? Duane - scratches/smudges or reflection of a fan? See the recurring theme here? THAT'S why I brought up the Apollo 17 photo. When you fail to provide ANY evidence re the Apollo 12 photos except your own interpretation and accuse others of being blind or liars for not agreeing with you, the Apollo 17 photo becomes COMPLETELY relevant.

The photo I posted has EVERYTHING to do with Dr Jones claims - he specifically refers to it in your cut and paste job. Since you stated you agree with everything he said, and invited rebuttals, why won't you address it? This is the second time I've posted it, the second time you've tried to ignore it. Re the Apollo 17 photo - I think it's quite clear why I posted it - to show that your subjective opinion of what you claim to be "obvious reflections of fans or stagelights" has prior history of being proved wrong, and admitted by yourself to be wrong. (I lauded you for that admission). You needed reminding of your fallibility re subjective opinions of photos of visors - seems you need that reminder again, as you are continuing to call people liars for not agreeing with your (admitted) flawed interpretation of artefacts on visors. I've already done so in another thread - not to make you look silly (you're doing a grand job on your own) but to put your opinion into focus for anyone here who isn't aware of your prior history of mistaking mundane artefacts on a visor for reflections of imaginary objects. You can't even admit you may be wrong about the Apollo 12 photos - despite your previous history. That's why I posted that picture - and will continue to do so for as long as you keep insisting that people (who disagree with your opinion on what a visor artefact is) are liars, or blind, or paid NASA disinfo agents. If that means you've lost respect for me, tough.

Duane It's a smudge - or a scratch - or both. It's not a reflection. How do I know this? By examining the evidence. Just like the visor artefact in as17-134-20387 is clearly a smudge/scratch. You can see the position of the sun change between frames from 20385 to 20387 - the artefact doesn't change size, shape or position - hence it's exactly what it appears to be - smudges/scratches on the surface of the visor. Just like the three artefacts in as17-134-20380 are not stage lights, but scratches. How closed was your mind when you insisted they were stage lights? Or were you just blind?

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"

You either didn't bother reading my posts, or you completely misread it. The Apollo 17 photos were used to show that the reflections of sun, astronaut and shadow match up linearly. I showed that using two photos, which I had clearly cropped and edited to show the point I was making - you have nothing to counter this with except for MORE baseless accusations of lying. I highlighted it to make it clear what features I was referring to. Why do you think it strange that an astronaut should cast a shadow, exactly where it should be given the light source? Do you not think it more strange if he didn't cast a shadow? What do you think it is? Evidence to support your opinion? Again, you didn't bother reading my analyis properly. I very clearly pointed out which part of the shadow I think is cast by the astronaut - and even highlighted a part that wasn't cast by him. Either you're not interested in hearing alternative and plausible explanations to your "fan blade" hypothesis, or you're just flame-baiting. I really think you should read what people post before you try to attempt to dismiss it out of hand - anyone who properly read my three posts and your subsequent replies will know that you haven't even tried addressing my points. I never ONCE mentioned the surveyor craft causing the "fan blade object". I hope you read this thread properly and appreciate the irony in this sentence. I've presented evidence which you've laughingly ignored, then either lied or assumed I said something I didn't, then accused me of a lame attempt to suppress hoax evidence? You haven't even tried to answer the evidence. If that's because you don't know how to, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Yet you can offer no evidence at all, other than "it looks like XYZ to me, therefore anyone who disagrees is a lying NASA disinfo agent". That is NOT evidence. I've presented evidence which I believe supports my position. I'll happily withdraw or alter it if anyone can falsify it. You wouldn't know, as your reply demonstrates you didn't read it. Duane - what happened to shooting the message, rather than the messenger? Without handwaving, strawmen, ad homs, and disinformation? Or are you not interested in debate any more?

Some Conclusions So what is causing the shadow? I believe at least part of the shadow is that of the astronaut taking the photo. See the crop below, taken from AS12-48-7133. It's difficult to be absolutely certain where the reflection of the astronaut taking the picture is, but we know that his reflection is there, and that is must be quite centrally located on the visor (strictly speaking, where the surface of the visor is orthogonal to the direction of the reflected astronaut). There are three "hot spots" in this area which I suspect correspond to highlights on the astronaut's suit and helmet. See an enlargement below, position where I believe the astronauts reflection to be is directly under the red arrow - his shadow is highlighted by the yellow arrows. Matching up the tip of the shadow, tip of astronaut, and reflection of sun shows a good line fit, as expected given the proof of concept earlier. This leaves us with the following shadow unexplained by either a ceiling fan, or the astronaut. I'm unsure exactly what this shadow is at present, though suspect it is shade caused by a small crater. I've not been able to find any corroborative evidence yet, but am confident it cannot be caused by the visor artefact, and I don't believe it's cast by the astronaut.

Applying the Concept I've attempted to show that there is a reasonable straight line correlation between lightsource, object and it's shadow on an Apollo visor, providing they aren't too close to the edges of the visor (there will still be a correlation, only not straight line). I'll now try and transfer this concept to some of the Apollo 12 photos to show why they can't be caused by the "artefact" under discussion, and where I believe the shadows are coming from. AS12-48-7071 A high-resolution version of this image can be found here. Firstly, let's look at the claim being made. Duane has made the claim that the artefact has cast a shadow which appears to be "on" the reflected image of Al Bean. I don't believe that this can be the case for several reasons. Firstly, look at the relative sizes of the artefact and it's alleged shadow. I can see no way to extrapolate to a light source that could cast this shadow, especially when compared to other shadows in the scene. Duane then claims that in photo AS12-48-7134, the astronaut has turned his head, and the object's reflection has moved further to the centre. However, 7071 was taken at a different location to 7134, and at mission time 133:15:32 (7134 was taken at 134:16:54, over an hour later). Furthermore, since the astronaut has turned his head, you would expect a surface feature on his helmet to move, but you wouldn't expect a reflected image to move, all other factors being equal. (Quick thought experiment - imagine a goldfishbowl in front of you. If you rotate the bowl, then the price tag you forgot to remove will obviously rotate - but your reflection stays the same - providing your are stationary, and the bowl is rotated, not translated). Nonetheless, let's look at the photo itself for clues. The alleged shadow now seems far larger than in the 7071 image. Again, I can discern no correlation between the artefact, the shadow, and the light source, as demonstrated below. (The reflected light source is toward the RHS of the helmet as we look, probably centred somewhere on the side eyeshade). As shown in the proof of concept section, I would expect a much closer "straight line" correlation than is apparent. EDIT Re the edit in previous post: in the last image it is clear that there isn't a linear relationship between the salient data points (sun, artefact, shadow), and that any relationship between them would in fact be curvilinear. However, given the convexity of the visor and the location on the visor of the data points, I can see no way that they would match up. For example, see the curved feature on the LHS of the visor as we look at it. It is even closer to the edge, and further away from the orthogonal point of the visor, but is not curved enough to be able to link the three features (sun, artefact, shadow). Thus, a better diagramme than the one above would be this one (I've highlighted the curved feature in red for comparison):-

"Shadow" of Artefact It has been proposed that the artefact under discussion must be a reflection of an object, since it casts a shadow in some of the photos under discussion. I don't believe that the geometry of the shadow, artefact and light source (sun) support this claim, and will attempt to demonstrate this. (I don't have any photoanalysis training and can only be considered a layperson in this field, so invite constructive criticism from those equally or better qualified to comment on any aspect). Proof of concept. Before looking at the Apollo 12 photos, I'm going to refer to 2 Apollo 17 photographs to prove a concept I will use later. The two photos will be familiar to most people who have studied the Apollo record:- as17-34-20385 and as17-34-20387. I'm using these photos because they both show quite clearly the reflection of the astronaut taking the photo (in this case Jack Schmitt) in the subject's (Gene Cernan's) visor, together with the light source and the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo. The version of both images I've used are the high resolution images available here:- Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. 26 Aug. 2005. "Large Image Request Results." http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/Larg...7-134-20385.JPG (23 Jan. 2007). Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. 26 Aug. 2005. "Large Image Request Results." http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/Larg...7-134-20387.JPG (23 Jan. 2007). Each image has had the colours auto-adjusted for clarity in Photoshop, and has been cropped to show the area of interest (Cernan's helmet). I propose that is should be possible to show a geometric relationship between a light source, object and it's shadow reflected in an Apollo helmet. (Error margins will increase as the incident angle of the visor increases relative to the observer, i.e. the camera). As such, we should be able to correlate all three (light source, object, shadow) in any Apollo photo that contains all three. Straight-line correlations will be less accurate the closer any of the three data points are to the edge of the visor. AS-17-20385 Here is a crop of Cernan's visor. The lightsource, astronaut taking the photo, and his shadow, are all clearly visible. They are highlighted for clarity in this crop. Notice that there is a very good straight line fit between the centre of the light source, the top of the astronauts helmet, and the righthand edge of the shadow. This GIF is composed of the top two images. (Slight lack of clarity is due to the GIF software). AS-17-20387 Here is the next crop of Cernan's visor. Again, the lightsource, astronaut taking the photo, and his shadow, are all clearly visible. I'll provide links to save space in the thread. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...adows/20387.jpg Again, there is a very good straight line fit between the centre of the light source, the top of the astronauts helmet, and the righthand edge of the shadow. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ows/20387ii.jpg This GIF is composed of the top two images. (Slight lack of clarity is due to the GIF software). EDIT I just want to clarify my position re straight lines on the convex visor. Obviously, not all straight lines reflected in the visor will appear straight. Some lines can appear straight ( or very close to it) depending on the angle relative to the viewer. The closer the reflection of a straight line is to the part of the visor closest (i.e. orthogonal) to the Hasselblad, the straighter it will appear on film. The diagrammes showing straight lines may be better represented using thicker lines to represent error bars. In the 2 Apollo 17 photos any discrepancy is marginal, since the line passes very close to the orthogonal part of the visor. I'll annotate the other posts accordingly where required. Continued...

Duane Over the last week or so you have offered nothing except accusing people, including myself, of lying for offering their opinion, a tactic you would probably lambast others for using as "disingenuous moon-nazi bullies". I cut you some slack the first few times to allow you the opportunity to cool off, as I'd assumed you took offence when I brought up one of your studies of a moon photo that you had een convinced was fake (because you were berating others for being "blind", or "foolish" for not seeing what you see). You are using the same tactic on this board, accusing people of being "blind" or "lying" because they don't agree with you - hence I brought up that study as a reminder that just because people disagree with you doesn't make them liars or blind - they can actually be telling the truth. And just because something looks obvious to you, does not make you correct - as that photograph proved. Sadly you seem to have taken this as a personal affront, and have gone on a mini-insulting spree toward everyone who disagrees with you. Question: why should I agree with you that the artefact must be a reflection of a fan? For the same reason that I had to agree with you that the three reflections were "footlights" rather than scratches? Do you not see that this form of debate is ridiculous? Either I agree with you, or I'm a blind, foolish xxxx. So, what happens if I agree with you, and further evidence turns up refuting your claim, which you then quite correctly withdraw? Am I still a blind, foolish xxxx to have disagreed with you? Or am I a blind, foolish xxxx to have agreed with you simply because you say "it's obviously a fan/stagelight, anyone who disagrees is lying"? Do you think that's a reasonable debating technique? I don't. I think it's very similar to the "schoolyard bullying" technique you claim to deplore.

I had to laugh at this line early on in the piece:- The text is also riddled with bias. For example:- I hope the irony about the blinkers comment isn't lost!He also quite clearly has no idea about how perspective works, as he demonstrates in this paragraph. 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.

There was a similar artefact on Jack Schmitt's visor during Apollo 17. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a similar study on the Apollo 12 visor images - for starters, most of the Apollo 12 images show a small visor due to him being further away. The photos used for the GIF below are AS17-134-20385 and AS17-134-20387. Very briefly, I've rotated and rescaled crops of the helemts from both photos, and used the HS sunshade as a reference point to align both photos. As the GIF gradually changes from one image to another, you see obviously reflected features (massif, flag, sun) change their position - the "smudge" remains in the same place, with the same shape. I'm not trying to steer this thread away from Apollo 12 photos, just using this as an example to show that artefacts that keep the same shape and position, on a convex surface viewed from slightly different perspectives, are highly likely to be on the reflective surface itself, rather than reflections of other objects. The change in perspective between the Apollo 12 photos is even more marked, which makes it even more difficult to think they can be a reflection of an object. If I had a goldfish bowl (or an Apollo helmet!) I could take some photos to show the effect, but I believe this one demonstrates it quite adequately. Back to the Apollo 12 images under discussion - I can see why someone would say the artefact looks like a fan, but examining the evidence in 7 or 8 photos leads me to the conclusion that it is on the surface of the visor, rather than a reflection. In that case, a smudge is a very good candidate.

OK, now we just need to sort out which category Percy, Sibrel, Rene, White, Kaysing etc fall into! (Jack - I don't think you're either a game playing geek or a NASA disinformation agent, I think you're just plain wrong!)

Duane - how about doing your bit to help prevent other people from being duped into buying his book? You could post a review on Amazon, stating clearly that you believe there were no moon landings, but that Hawkins book was either written by an idiot, or is disinformation. If it stops one more person pouring money into his pocket, I think it would be worth it. After all, would you have bought it if there had been more reviews from HBers slating the book?

Duane, I was all set to go with the Apollo 12 "fan shadows" that you wanted me to discuss, but in the light of the paragraph below from another thread, what would be the point? It seems the more evidence is presented to counter your argument, the more you believe there is a big cover-up. It is an interesting twist though - the main reason you still believe Apollo was faked is because others believe it wasn't, and are willing to robustly argue their case on an internet forum? I don't think that's your main reason for a moment, maybe you're just letting off steam. If it IS your main reason, you're letting your lack of objectivity cloud your judgement. I notice you are continuing with your accusations of lying while I've tried to keep our discussions on here civil. By doing that, the only reputation you're harming is your own. Look at it from my point of view - I find it very difficult to believe that some anyone who has actually studied the evidence for and against a moon hoax still believes in a conspiracy - do I accuse you of being a xxxx for having your beliefs? Do I accuse you of being blind or dishonest for interpreting the Apollo photos as fakes, rather than genuine? Of course I disagree with your conclusions, but you're entitled to your opinion - just as I'm entitled to mine. Talking about opinions - IMHO the shadow on the floor could not be caused by the fan-shaped artefact as the geometry of the shadow, artefact and light source don't even come close to matching up. There is other photographic evidence to opint to it not being a shadow from a "fan" either. What is causing it? I don't know. I haven't been able to find a photograph showing the rest of the scene to be able to say with any certainty what it is.

The position (given the stipulations in my post) look the same to me - near the top rim, slightly to the left of centre (astronauts point of view). Agree to disagree? Well, as with position, I see the same shape (yes, I can see why you describe it as fan-shaped) - so we'll have to agree to disagree again. No, I'm just busy at the moment. I'll address this point when I have time to study it in a little more depth (I don't like arguing from a position of ignorance!) I accept your argument that I can't use it as proof that there is no fan, but I'd describe it as circumstantial evidence. (Obviously I don't agree with the scenarios you invented!) A "fan shaped object" does not necessarily have to be a fan! It can be something quite ordinary, like a boring smudge on a visor. That's what I see, and IMHO that's what the evidence supports. Of course my integrity is important to me. If you think I'm lying about seeing a smudge on Conrad's visor, I can't help that, but I'm not changing my honest opinion just to look good in your eyes. And you're not really doing your own case any good by continually accusing people who disagree with your opinion of being "liars" - isn't that the sort of behaviour you intensely dislike on discussion forums?

Oy! I'm always nice! I'm guessing you've had a bad day at the office so I'll "cut you some slack" Guess what? I was wrong about that photo as well, and admitted so at the time. I didn't initially put it down to scratches, my initial thought was some kind off reflection of the various visors. I withdrew that when someone put forward what I deemed to be a better answer - scratches. Further evidence did indeed show this to be the case. So your accusation about me not admitting when I'm wrong is incorrect. The reason I brought this picture up isn't "distraction tactics". You made this statement about people on UM (inculding myself):- You were making similar claims about other photos on UM a few months ago. You then said:- In a later post you stated:- So, in the space of three posts, you accused me of being a xxxx, making a "silly claim" that the artefact is a smudge, and being either blind, stupid or dishonest to say that. I decided my best response would be to remind you of a very similar claim you made about a "visor artefact" a few months ago, hoping you would have learnt from that experience and would agree that it is at least a possibility that the artefact now in question could indeed be a smudge. That is the reason I mentioned the other photo - not to try and make you look silly (I've praised you on more than one board for retracting your initial claim). Right, now that lot's out of the way...! How about we get back on topic? I'm making the claim that the artefact is on the visor (probably a smudge). You are making the claim that it is a fan. I'll present evidence that supports the "smudge" hypothesis over the "fan" hypothesis". 1. The artefact is in the same place on the visor each time (giving due regard to convex shaped visor, differing camera angles etc). The photos are taken from 3 or 4 different locations: hence, it is far more likely to be a surface feature on the visor, rather than a reflection in the visor. 2. It has the same shape in each photo. With photos taken from different locations, the shape should change noticeably if it was a reflection. 3. It is visible on Pete Conrad's visor in at least eight different photos - but NEVER visible on Alan Bean's visor. If it was indeed a reflection of a fan, then I would expect to be able to see it reflected in Bean's visor. OK, over to your evidence that supports "fan" as opposed to "smudge". I'll leave the "fly system straps" for someone else - you were moaning a few weeks ago that I was replying to too many of your claims - sheesh! I can't win!

Firstly, I disagree about the smudge changing position - it appears to me to be in the same position on the visor (making allowance for convex surface and different viewing angles). Secondly, why should I admit to "being wrong" when I believe I'm right about something? I'm not here to "defend NASA lies", I'm putting across my point of view. I ain't going to agree with you just to make you feel better! After all, I'd have looked a wee bit silly if I'd agreed with your analysis of this photo... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20380HR.jpg Here's crop of the relevant bit. I tend to err on the side of caution and fall back on Occam's Razor, rather than inventing wild and fanciful claims about stage lights, fans etc. The mundane explanation, more often than not, turns out to be the correct one.

As promised, here's two of the photos I've highlighted showing the same artefact. You can see it quite clearly on all the original images I linked to. (These images are obviously cropped and zoomed to highlight the visors).

The point is, if this was a reflection then the artefact would not be in the same position on the visor each time. I agree the artefact looks slightly different each time due to the convex shape of the visor, and changes in viewing angle. All this is consistent with it being something on the surface of the glass itself, but not consistent with it being a reflection. If it's on the surface of the glass, then it's likely to be a smudge, whether you like that explanation or not. Any reason you can think of for it not to be a smudge?

Well I agree with the first part of your sentence! I can't believe this one is still being wheeled out. But I suppose there are always going to be people who are new to the conspiracy theory. You can't really complain at other people's treatment of yourself when you make a blanket statement about people who have a different opinion to yourself being "blind, stupid or just plain dishonest". Do you really want to reduce this to a slanging match? Here are 8 links to photos that show the artefact on the helmet. It's clearly in the same place on the helmet in each photo. To me, that shows it's very unlikely indeed to be a reflection. I'll leave others to make up their own minds, as far as I'm concerned this "anomaly" has been well and truly explained many times. AS12-47-6919 AS12-48-7071 AS12-48-7074 AS12-48-7133 AS12-48-7134 AS12-49-7307 AS12-49-7308 AS12-49-7309 Whom are you trying to fool? I examined all eight images you posted, and found they did not contain the same artifacts referred to by Duane. Jack Not trying to fool anyone Jack. I've re-checked the links to make sure they point to the correct images. The one where I'm willing to concede it doesn't necessarily show the same artefact is AS12-47-6919 - though I'm still reasonably sure it's the same thing. I'll try and post some crops if I have the time later.

Well I agree with the first part of your sentence! I can't believe this one is still being wheeled out. But I suppose there are always going to be people who are new to the conspiracy theory. You can't really complain at other people's treatment of yourself when you make a blanket statement about people who have a different opinion to yourself being "blind, stupid or just plain dishonest". Do you really want to reduce this to a slanging match? Here are 8 links to photos that show the artefact on the helmet. It's clearly in the same place on the helmet in each photo. To me, that shows it's very unlikely indeed to be a reflection. I'll leave others to make up their own minds, as far as I'm concerned this "anomaly" has been well and truly explained many times. AS12-47-6919 AS12-48-7071 AS12-48-7074 AS12-48-7133 AS12-48-7134 AS12-49-7307 AS12-49-7308 AS12-49-7309

Hmmm... not too happy with the "guilty by association" ad hominem fallacy! I might not trust a Nazi to run a country, or not to start a war, but they sure knew how to build a rocket...

I gave them about twenty of the most significant ones to choose from. I do not know which ten they chose to include. Jack Thanks Time will tell whether they decide to go ahead with it or not I supppose.