TWENTY FIVE WAYS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH

[Craig Lamson]

We've had run-ins Stephen? How did I miss them?

While we might not agree on much of anything, you are at least a decent fellow...

Edited June 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

The last time I checked , neither Jack or I were disinfo artists ( or agents ) working for the government to suppress conspiracy evidence by using these tactics to promote the cover-up .... Nice try though fellows .

How do we know that? I wouldn't be surprised if they paid you and Jack to make crtics of the government look foolish.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

We've had run-ins Stephen? How did I miss them?

While we might not agree on much of anything, you are at least a decent fellow...

Now thats going on my headstone My only point here is that anyone who can believe that you and I would conspire about ANYTHING, is fifty yards offshore, and heading for deep water.

[Dave Greer]

and the only reason Dave hasn't joined your party is because he went away on holiday .... But I have no doubt he will throw in his meaningless two cents upon his return .

I'd like to publicly applaud Mr Daman for his insightful posts, an impressive lucidity of logic, the carefully considered way he has presented his thoroughly researched analyses, and the sensitive and empathic manner in which he has conducted himself on this and other forums. He has every right to be proud of his online contribution as a leading, indeed revered, commentator on the Apollo moon hoax debate, and fully deserves ownership of the moral high ground to which he has so magnanimously retreated.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

and the only reason Dave hasn't joined your party is because he went away on holiday .... But I have no doubt he will throw in his meaningless two cents upon his return .

I'd like to publicly applaud Mr Daman for his insightful posts, an impressive lucidity of logic, the carefully considered way he has presented his thoroughly researched analyses, and the sensitive and empathic manner in which he has conducted himself on this and other forums. He has every right to be proud of his online contribution as a leading, indeed revered, commentator on the Apollo moon hoax debate, and fully deserves ownership of the moral high ground to which he has so magnanimously retreated.

And I'd like to publicly appauld Mr. Greer for once again proving my point ... I had no doubt that you would throw in your meaningless two cents .. I just didn't know that it would be so cleverly written ! ... You have every right to be proud of your online contribution as a leading dishonet , game playing disinfo artist ... nasa must be so proud of you ... As for "ownership of the moral high ground " , you might not appreciate my opinions about Apollo or the way I choose to discuss them , but at least I don't feel the need to be dishonest to try to 'win' the argument ...

I hope you read and enjoyed the topic article , "Twenty Five Ways to Suppress the Truth " , because it was as if the person who wrote it knows all of you personally ... but then that comes as no surprise , because you ALL act the same way on every forum , where you make it your business to not only suppress the truth , but twist it around to suit you own purposes of spreading disinformation , by insulting and characrer assassinating those who expose the government lies which you so desperately and adamently defend .

Edited June 29, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

bump

[Jack White]

Duane...Aulis is about ready to post a new study WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED

BY AN ASTRONOMER regarding one of my recent studies regarding the size

of the sun in Apollo photos.

The only grounds that the Apollogists can attack it on are that for obvious

reasons, the astronomer wants his name withheld.

When the new study is uploaded, I will post the URL.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

Jack ...That sounds very interesting ... It's good to hear that a few men of science are finally finding the courage to speak out against nasa's pretense of taking the Apollo photographs on the moon ... and I can perfectly understand why he would want his name withheld ... He obviously knows about the insults, character assassinations and worse , which comes with the territory of taking on and exposing government conspiracies , lies and cover-ups .

If you could please send the URL to my e-mail address I would really appreciate it ... Thanks .

Edited June 29, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Len Colby]

Duane...Aulis is about ready to post a new study WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED

BY AN ASTRONOMER regarding one of my recent studies regarding the size

of the sun in Apollo photos.

The only grounds that the Apollogists can attack it on are that for obvious

reasons, the astronomer wants his name withheld.

When the new study is uploaded, I will post the URL.

Jack

That isn't the "astronomer" who believes the universe is helio or earthcentric is it?

[Duane Daman]

"That isn't the "astronomer" who believes the universe is helio or earthcentric is it?"

And once again , the foolish Mr. Colby couldn't wait to prove my point about those who suppress the truth with insults and character assassinations .

Edited June 29, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Jack ...That sounds very interesting ... It's good to hear that a few men of science are finally finding the courage to speak out against nasa's pretense of taking the Apollo photographs on the moon ... and I can perfectly understand why he would want his name withheld ... He obviously knows about the insults, character assassinations and worse , which comes with the territory of taking on and exposing government conspiracies , lies and cover-ups .

If you could please send the URL to my e-mail address I would really appreciate it ... Thanks .

It may be a few days before the upload URL is available. I suggested an addition which David

is making. I will post it here when it is uploaded.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Duane...Aulis is about ready to post a new study WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED

BY AN ASTRONOMER regarding one of my recent studies regarding the size

of the sun in Apollo photos.

The only grounds that the Apollogists can attack it on are that for obvious

reasons, the astronomer wants his name withheld.

When the new study is uploaded, I will post the URL.

Jack

The size of the sun was addressed in this thread.

You made the mistake of think that the object in the photo was the actual size (i.e. the disk) of the sun itself, when clearly it is some kind a glare caused by the camera lens. This was demonstrated quite clearly in at least two ways:-

1. A whole raft of photos where you could see lens flare within the large, overexposed circle of glare

2. The animated GIF showing the glare noticeably reducing in size when the disk of the sun was parially blocked by the edge of the LM.

I've already shown how large I think the actual sun is in the Apollo photos, I'll post an updated version here. MUCH smaller than you are claiming.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Kevin M. West]

It's good to hear that a few men of science are finally finding the courage to speak out against nasa's pretense of taking the Apollo photographs on the moon ... and I can perfectly understand why he would want his name withheld

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

You can't appeal to authority while that authority remains anonymous, unless they make statements that can be verified. Just saying an anonymous astronomer agrees with you is an incredibly lame way to try to support your argument.

[Len Colby]

"That isn't the "astronomer" who believes the universe is helio or earthcentric is it?"

And once again , the foolish Mr. Colby couldn't wait to prove my point about those who suppress the truth with insults and character assassinations .

Let not be totally absurd Duane your starting of this tjread was meant as an insult, you have on previous occasions called your opponents "idiots" without provocation and on other compared them to dog $#!+ and I suppose you don't consider calling me "foolish" an insult.

I doubt "Dr." Neville Jones would consider calling him "geocentric" an 'insult' or "character assassination" because his openly stated position is that the universe and solar system are geocentric*. Despite slewing a veritable 'alphabet soup" of letters after his name (“Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons), M.Inst.P., formerly of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, England”*) he has never explained how and when he earn the supposed honors or degrees. “M.Inst.P” means ‘member Institute of Physics’, anyone with a degree in science or engineering (or “an equivalent level of attainment”) plus “three years post-degree experience” qualifies**. Even if he really did legitimately earn his claimed credentials it’s hard to take someone who claims the sun revolves around the earth seriously on astronomical issues.

If Jack is going to claim one of his studies has been “validated” by an expert it is reasonable to ask for verification of the supposed expert's credentials.

I assume either

1) The astronomer is anonymous or

2) Is “Dr.” Jones or

3) His/her credentials can’t be verified or

4) She/he doesn’t explicitly say Jack was right

* http://web.archive.org/web/20051030020002/....com/page14.htm

** http://www.iop.org/Membership/How_to_Join/page_4921.html

[Evan Burton]

Len,

You may be missing Dave's point. The Sun will indeed appear smaller; it's just that what Jack claims is the size of the Sun in the image, and what is the actual size, are two different things.