Kevin M. West

Well said. People have been warned down through the ages not to trust any government. But they go right on doing it. And that's one of the mistakes that CTs make in their judgement of non-CTs. I don't trust the government very much at all, and I don't believe the official story because of its source. My belief in the official story is based on the facts as I've seen them and my knowledge of the relevant fields, and the research I've done in the years since 9/11. None of the CT claims hold up to any real scrutiny.

That's a novel suggestion. As I understand it, the Osama-the-stout pic on the left was the one supplied by the US in December 2001, Possibly, I haven't dug up the origin of that specific frame. But the government didn't just release that one frame, so the same point still applies, why does the conspiracy theorist pick the worst of the bunch, mess with the quality of the image, and ignore the rest of the video? This site has some more images from the same video, looks like him to me. http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm

duplicate post

He gave you the link to the original image, either you can't read or you're lying. Which is it? Wasn't bent, only stretched vertically. How is it sneaky if he said exactly how he manipulated the image in the same post? What a shame you continue to stoop to misrepresenting others claims and ignoring evidence contrary to your position. No, the reason there are no tracks is because they were trampled by the astronauts walking around the buggy. Take your own advice, open your eyes and realize you've been duped by people looking to make a buck selling books full of lies.

Which I assume you don't believe. My only quibble with your post is, do you really believe that the man shown on the left below is the same person who is shown on the right? Yes actually, if you watch the actual video instead of just looking at that one carefully picked frame, it's clearly him. That one frame was picked where the lighting is odd and his facial expression is different, and then very poorly captured and compressed for the web, to make it look like someone else. But whoever grabbed that frame clearly saw the rest of the video and had dishonest reasons for picking that particular frame out of it instead of the thousands of others that look just like him.

Are you serious? If D is the backpack, than what is C? Are the shadow's arms growing out of its ass?

What is this magical 'depth perception' that you believe exists in 2d photos? Surely you can't mean atmospheric haze, as there's no atmosphere on the moon. Nor can you be judging size relatively, since you'd need to know either the size or the distance of the mountains to figure that. So what are you using to judge depth?

So you're not going to defend your claims, at least you're admitting it up front this time. A) Rock Legs C) Arms D) Head E) Backpack What's backwards about that?

Kevin .... Maybe if you take a close look at the original photo before Dave posted a different photo which appears to be altered , you will see the shadow of the four slender fan blades ... Smudges do NOT create shadows on the moon set floor ... nor do they look like ceiling fans or stage lights ... Are you a xxxx if you don't see the shadow ? .... I would have no idea if you are lying or not ... but you certainly are blind if you can't see it and also playing games along with the rest of your nasa defender friends who refuse to see the truth about the faked Apollo moon set photos . Here's the original photo which clearly shows the fan shaped anomaly and it's shadow of the same shape . In both the object, and the shadow, I only see 2 'blades' and they don't match. They also don't line up with the direction of the lighting.

Guys, if it took 2 people to deploy the rover, who was going to take pictures while they did it?

Duane, what 'depth perception' effects would you expect to see on the distant mountains in those apollo photos and why?

Am I the only one those only sees 2 of the 4 so called 'fan blades' that are supposed to be so clear that we're liars if we don't see them?

Duane, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others, and PROVE that it is a ceiling fan, not a smudge.

I disagree, that's clearly not a ceiling fan, stage light, or anything else other than a smudge. It never changes size or location relative to the visor even though the astronaut was photographed in different locations. Try to replicate that with a convex mirror and see how far you get.

It's not possible without installing a live keylogger on your pc, and having someone sit there monitoring you all the time. And considering the number of users on all of these forums, the manpower doesn't exist to watch them all. Do you think your posts really warrant that kind of attention? You're just cut & pasting other people's arguments that you don't even understand. The guy who claimed to have been banned before he could finish typing the reply either got banned for something else, or is lying. Considering the post didn't even say who it was so people could investigate, I'd go with the second option. As for fast replies, it only takes a second to click the reply button and it gives you the post nicely quoted and ready to go.

It's not, add the internet to the list of thing Duane knows nothing about.

The article is only proof that the guy who wrote it has no idea what the hell he's talking about. All he's doing is grossly distorting the images to bring out subtle artifacts created by the photography, developing, duplication, scaning, and compressing that took place between the moon and your web browser.

Vaporized? You really believe that?

Come on Jack, this is common sense. The only way the shadow could end centered on the bottom of the picture is if the photographer was either shooting directly downsun, or including his own feet in the image.

Jack is hopeless. Nobody ever claimed that stars were never visible. There were claims that stars were not visible when you're standing on the brightly lit surface of the moon, but what does that have to do with what was visible on the way to the moon while looking through an eyepiece to a specially designed sextant?

How can you not get it Duane? Are you intentionally that stubborn? This has all been explained to you hundreds of times before. NASA can certainly do it with today's technology, just like they could do it with technology 40 years ago. But you can't create a lunar program overnight, it takes time to design and build the equipment and plan the missions, and without unlimited funding, and with all the other missions nasa is running, things take longer. For comparison, just look at how long an unmanned mission takes from conception to launch. You'll find that most are over a decade, some go back as far as the 60s. What was lost since the 70's isn't knowledge of how to do it. What was lost was the infrastructure to build the equipment they used back then. That takes time and money, in inversely proportional amounts, to recreate. Nasa's entire budget, for everything, not just the moon, for the next 15 years, is less than the cost of apollo (adjusted for inflation). It's going to take time to plan what they want to do, to find manufacturers, to design the equipment, to build it, to test it, etc. The aren't testing the radiation conditions to see if someone can go without being fried alive. They're testing to see what is necessary for someone to stay there 50 times longer than the apollo missions stayed. What sites claim the rocks were 'collected mechanically'? They were all collected by the astronauts, and there is plenty of footage of this (seriously, why don't you get yourself a copy of the dvds before you claim there's no footage of something). You were duped alright, by all the CT websites that have no idea what they're talking about.

Sibrel never called anyone a xxxx? Have you not seen the video of Buzz Aldrin punching him? He called him a coward and a xxxx to his face right before he got decked. In fact I believe he was trying to provoke him to do exactly that.

Well there's a lot more proof that Reinart did it (which has been posted here) than proof that nasa did it (which no one has ever shown).

His side window is also appears broken. Regarding the other lamppost hit by a plane, it appears to be a different style of lamppost, and it was hit higher up by a plane travelling much slower. Can really expect them to react the same way.

Hey remember when we were accused of hacking world of the strange? Looks like their problems go back way before that forum was linked here... http://www.worldofthestrange.com/modules.p...opic&t=5258 Funny enough, they're discussing problems in one of Duane's threads...