One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Dave Greer]

Oh I see ... Apollo is not a political conspiracy , so it doesn't belong on this forum .... You're kidding right ? ....The "Apollo Hoax" is a conspiracy that was perpetrated for "POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS " .... If that doesn't qualifty as a "political conspiracy " , then I don't know what does .

Well, that's the crux of the issue. I'm 99.99% convinced that Apollo wasn't faked - hence I don't consider it a political conspiracy. Some other people do.

Why do you keep pretending to not understand the horn shaped anomaly in the visor reflection ?

If I agreed that it was a "horn shaped object with feathers hanging from it", and said it wasn't a shadow, I'd be lying.

You keep calling the strange horn shaped object a "feathery horn" as if that will somehow diminish it's importance ....but it IS reflected in the visor , it DOES have the shape of a horn , it is an ANOMALY and it is NOT the "astronaut's shadow" .... Calling it a silly name that YOU put on it , will not make it look ridiculous , it will only make you look more ridiculous for attempting to make it less of the ANOMALY that it really is ... You haven't shot anything down in flames except your own silly explaination as to what that strange looking object is .

Well, this is how you initially referred to it...

"an object that looks very much like a black horn with feathers hanging from it ... This is either some type of stage production object that accidently showed up in the visor reflection , or perhaps another fine example of obvious Whistle-Blowing "

...so it seems logical to refer to it as a "feathery horn". If you prefer "anomalous reflection of a black horn shaped object with feathers hanging from it", use that. Bit of a mouthful to me. If you don't like me calling it a "feathery horn", I'll refer to it as the astronaut's shadow, which it quite clearly is.

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted here , I went through my PM's to you on YouTube and the only one's I wrote to you was one explaining why I had been banned from this forum , another one asking you to please send me Mr. Simkin's e-mail address , another one asking you to please not e-mail Mr. Simkin on my behalf , as I would prefer to defend myself , one chewing you out for ridiculing me and the "feathery horn " evidence on the UM , one asking you to do the right thing and post the truth about the anomalous horn shaped object , instead of pretending it was the astronot's shadow , and one thanking you for sending me the e-mail address I asked for.

t's funny , but I didn't find any letter where I begged for your assistance in getting me reinstated ... So why would you post something which is blatantly untrue ?

You are quite right, I was confusing that request with other PMs. The one with the exhortation "if you are any kind of a real man , with any kind of real honesty in you". And the other one with "do the honest thing and be a man instead of taking credit from this disinformation artist for posting <expletive deleted>". I confused those phrases with the unbanning request, so humbly withdraw my "begging letter" accusation and offer my public apologies if you felt tarnished by that.

If you helped me get unbanned from this forum , then you did it on your own , because I never asked for your help .. In fact , I asked that you please NOT e-mail anyone on my behalf , as I preferred to handle it myself .

You did originally, but were getting no reply, so accepted my earlier offer of help, which I was happy to do.

No , you were NOT right about why I was banned from the UM ... I already explained why I was , so I see no reason to explain it again ..So if you didn't link my post here about the UM , to that site , then I guess another member of both forums did that in hopes of getting me banned .

I interpreted you accusing the moderators of hacking your mail as you typed them as bad-mouthing them, i.e. accusing them of some kind of illegal or immoral shennanigans. I think this comes down to our definition of bad-mouthing. I take it as meaning trying to discredit someone, not insult or swear at them. You say potato, I say tomato. [sic]

I guess any game will do , so long as it works to try to make the CT look bad and stop the Apollo hoax evidence from continuing to spread any further than it already has .

It's the evidence that counts, so feel free to discuss it. Just stop playing the innocent victim again. You are invariably the instigator of any unnecessary behaviour, and are always the first to cry foul. I'm sorry if you think me rubbishing your claims is a personal slight against you as an individual, which it isn't, neither is it intended to be. Don't take it so personally.

Let me ask you a question ... If the British had landed men on the Moon on July 20th 1969 , would there be a national holiday commemorating that monumental achievement , or would the Brits completey ignore it as if it never happened ?

National Holiday! No chance! That would mean the Labour Government falling out with Big Business, who would end up bearing the cost in terms of lost producticity, or increased overtime. We prefer to celebrate genuine political conspiracies, such as the Gunpowder Plot. Mind you, with the amount of rockets we launch every November 5th, if we saved the propellant we'd probably have enough to launch our own moon rocket.

Most Englishmen don't even know when their own National Day is (St George's Day, April 23rd). As far as celebrating it, it's practically ignored. Irish Day celebrations in England are far bigger than St George's Day celebrations. I think you'd be very hard pushed to get the average Englishman to celebrate "Moon-landing Day". Far too reserved to dress up in space-suits in public. We'd no doubt pontificate about how superior we are as a nation down at the pub, but actually celebrate it? Do me a favour, and pass me a Guinness!

I think of all the many mistakes that nasa and the United States government made while faking Apollo was to forget to make it a holiday .... Just think , we Americans could have added MOON LANDING DAY as one more of our numerous holidays ... After all , humans stepping onto an alien planet for the first time in the history of mankind is a tad more important than Secretaries Day or even Columbus Day , as he was not even the one who really "discovered" America !

If it's the sort of thing you Yanks enjoy celebrating, knock yourself out. By the way you need to get up to speed, it's not "Secretary's Day", it's "Administrative Professional's Day"! You really couldn't make crap like that up!

[Dave Greer]

Yet not one of those visor reflections looks like this pentagon ! ..... Are you sure one of them is from Apollo ?

<snip>

Oh wait ... Let me guess ... Number three on the top row is from the Apollo 14 photo shoot too ! ... Or did one of the shuttle missions perhaps use a spotlight also ?

Surprised you didn't spot it first time round Duane - since it's the only one in black and white!

I hope the point is made - reflections of the sun in astronaut's visors can be all kind of shapes, both geometric and irregular. Take for example the second colum from the left. Four images, all of astronauts during an EVA in LEO. None of the sun reflections looks remotely like each other. The top one is a bizzarre, irregular shape. The second one down looks very like a reflection of a large, yellow spotlight. The third one down has straight egdes. The bottom one is like no sun reflection in a visor I've ever seen!

A question to ask yourself. If you had seen any of those four reflections in an Apollo photo, would you have used it as proof that it wasn't a reflection of the sun?

[Dave Greer]

I think of all the many mistakes that nasa and the United States government made while faking Apollo was to forget to make it a holiday .... Just think , we Americans could have added MOON LANDING DAY as one more of our numerous holidays ... After all , humans stepping onto an alien planet for the first time in the history of mankind is a tad more important than Secretaries Day or even Columbus Day , as he was not even the one who really "discovered" America ![/b]

Guess the Wright Brothers never flew either - why is this milestone in flight not celebrated with "Wright Brothers'" day?

It was obviously a fake, just like Apollo - as this coin PROVES!!!

[Duane Daman]

Thanks for being honest about my PM's to you and admitting that you were wrong ... Now if you could only admit that you're wrong about about that "feathery horn" reflection , I would be really amazed ! ... But I guess hoping for two admissions of being wrong is too much of a miracle to expect from you in one post .

From now on I would really appreciate it if we could keep the personal and private things ( such as PM's and alleged PM's ) PRIVATE .. and not waste space on this forum with this type of nonsense in the future .

To be honest with you I hardly even looked at your visor reflection montage until I posted the Apollo 14 pentagonal shaped visor reflection photo below it ... Then it became crystal clear which one of your series was the Apollo photo ...and it had nothing to do with it being in black and white , as I hadn't really noticed that either .

I will agree with you that the visor Sun reflections are all very different looking and don't always show the concentric spokes , so your point about that is acknowledged ... but it is still very obvious which one is the Apollo photo in your montage , because the Apollo "Suns" and Apollo photos all have a look about them that just don't look like any of the other real space photos .

I own a coffee table book called 'Spacecam ' ( in co-operation with NASA ) by Teri Hope .. This book has the most incredible pictures of space taken by NASA and of the NASA missions that were photographed in low Earth orbit .... Then in the middle of this book ,filled with all of these magnificent looking color photographs of LEO missions and of deep space , there are a series of back and white Apollo images , which were allegedly taken on the Moon , and the differences between them and the other photos are astounding ! ... and the difference has nothing to do with them being in black and white either ... It has to do with what is real looking and what is so obviously NOT !!

At this point I'm not too sure what to believe about Apollo , other than the photography was staged ... You may have proven that the Sun doesn't always show concentric light spokes while being photographed or reflected in astronaut's visors , but you have not proven that the Apollo photographs are real or that the light source reflected in the visors is the real Sun .

The Apollo photographs are unlike any of NASA's other photos taken in space , and the difference is that they look staged on moonsets ... I will be posting some Apollo photos which will show the obvious dividing line between where the foregroud stage ends and the painted backdrops begin .

I also noticed recently on the ALSJ where NASA has mixed together some real Moon photos ( taken by previous unmanned missions ), with their Apollo 17 moonsets, and I must say it was a quite clever trick of them to mix together the real and the fake the way they did on that self serving web site of theirs ....If you really study the A17 photos though , the difference between what is real and what isn't becomes quite obvious.

I will post some of those as well .

Well at least they managed to get a little coin to commemorate "THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT KNOWN TO MANKIND " !

But did the Wright brothers pretend to land on the Moon too ? ...

Edited December 4, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Thanks for being honest about my PM's to you and admitting that you were wrong ... Now if you could only admit that you're wrong about about that "feathery horn" reflection , I would be really amazed ! ... But I guess hoping for two admissions of being wrong is too much of a miracle to expect from you in one post .

From now on I would really appreciate it if we could keep the personal and private things ( such as PM's and alleged PM's ) PRIVATE .. and not waste space on this forum with this type of nonsense in the future .

Good idea, I don't suppose it makes for anything resembling a remotely interesting read for anyone!

To be honest with you I hardly even looked at your visor reflection montage until I posted the Apollo 14 pentagonal shaped visor reflection photo below it ... Then it became crystal clear which one of your series was the Apollo photo ...and it had nothing to do with it being in black and white , as I hadn't really noticed that either .

What do you think about the image beneath the Apollo one? I can see some pretty good similarities. Pentagonal shaped reflection of sun. Similar looking "light spokes" for want of a better phrase.

I will agree with you that the visor Sun reflections are all very different looking and don't always show the concentric spokes , so your point about that is acknowledged ... but it is still very obvious which one is the Apollo photo in your montage , because the Apollo "Suns" and Apollo photos all have a look about them that just don't look like any of the other real space photos .

OK, sun visor reflections are all very different looking. Perhaps Apollo photos look different to you because of the equipment used, e.g. film vs digital? Different types of lenses? Dust on lenses? Or the difference in lighting conditions in LEO vs on the lunar surface? Not questions I'm expecting answers to, just food for thought.

I own a coffee table book called 'Spacecam ' ( in co-operation with NASA ) by Teri Hope .. This book has the most incredible pictures of space taken by NASA and of the NASA missions that were photographed in low Earth orbit .... Then in the middle of this book ,filled with all of these magnificent looking color photographs of LEO missions and of deep space , there are a series of back and white Apollo images , which were allegedly taken on the Moon , and the differences between them and the other photos are astounding ! ... and the difference has nothing to do with them being in black and white either ... It has to do with what is real looking and what is so obviously NOT !!

Haven't seen the book, but see my "food for thought" above.

At this point I'm not too sure what to believe about Apollo , other than the photography was staged ... You may have proven that the Sun doesn't always show concentric light spokes while being photographed or reflected in astronaut's visors , but you have not proven that the Apollo photographs are real or that the light source reflected in the visors is the real Sun .

I agree, I was just showing that you can't really rely on the "Apollo sun" studies as proof that it was faked.

The Apollo photographs are unlike any of NASA's other photos taken in space , and the difference is that they look staged on moonsets ... I will be posting some Apollo photos which will show the obvious dividing line between where the foregroud stage ends and the painted backdrops begin .

Before you do htat, some more food for thought.

I also noticed recently on the ALSJ where NASA has mixed together some real Moon photos ( taken by previous unmanned missions ), with their Apollo 17 moonsets, and I must say it was a quite clever trick of them to mix together the real and the fake the way they did on that self serving web site of theirs ....If you really study the A17 photos though , the difference between what is real and what isn't becomes quite obvious.

I will post some of those as well .

Don't know the images you're referring to so will wait until you post the links.

Well at least they managed to get a little coin to commemorate "THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT KNOWN TO MANKIND " !

But did the Wright brothers pretend to land on the Moon too ? ...

I doubt they could have held their breath long enough.

[Duane Daman]

I came across these Apollo photos in my buddy Mike's PB account and thought this might be some interesting evidence to post next .... It appears that nasa really screwed up their Apollo 17 " final parking place "of the lunar buggy photos ...

It will be interesting to see how the Apollo defenders will try to explain away this little mistake .

According to the JSC image library, this is the "final parking place" of the A17 Lunar Roving Vehicle. Note the TV antenna dish angle, the gradient upon which the LRV is parked and the shadow angle.

Now compare that with Eric Jones' LSJ version of the same A17 LRV " Final Parking Place" Different high-gain antenna direction, wheel orientation, flat terrain and shorter shadow, cast at 90 degrees to that of the JSC image.

The Lunar Surface Journal's version of the A17 LRV "final parking spot" Hassselblad.

I will get to those real vs. fake Apollo 17 photos in my next post ... and also show some photos with the obvious dividing line between the moonset foreground and the painted backdrops .

* edited to add a message from Jack to Dave .... Your typical non like- for- like comparison does not apply once again .

Edited December 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

Well, whoever put the details into the JSC website got it wrong; from the ALSJ:

AS17-146-22367 (OF300) ( 144k or 1162k )

166:53:35 This is Gene's "locator" to the Rover. This excellent picture shows the TV camera pointed off to the left and the high-gain antenna pointed back towards Earth, which is over the South Massif. Note that the low-gain antenna, which is partially hidden by the high-gain is also pointed at Earth. The SEP antenna is behind Jack's seat and the rake for the explosive charges is visible on the back of the Rover. The East Massif is at the upper right. Readers should note the dark blemish on the East Massif foothill above and slightly to the right of the SEP antenna. This is the outcrop area that Gene notes as he and Jack leave Station 8 at 167:39:41.

The JSC description that it was taken at Station 8 is correct, but it was not the final parking place. Station 8 is near Cochise:

It's also quite obvious when you see that the images after 22367 on the same roll have the LRV and astronauts in different locations that it was not the LRV final parking place.

Just a simple administrative error that the JSC website people have made.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Evan Burton
Added traverse map

[Evan Burton]

BTW Duane, Jack can speak for himself. He can link to the image on your website just as easily as you can, so let him post his own rebuttals.

Thanks.

[Duane Daman]

"Just a simple administrative error that the JSC website people have made. "

That's a great excuse ! .. and you came up with it so quickly too ! ... What a surprise .

I guess you better complete your mission then and notify the good folks at the JSC web site that they have made a little error that doesn't look very good for nasa's already very questionable Apollo photography .

I haven't broken any forum rules posting an image for Jack have I ? ... He can't post them from his Mac , so he asked me to please post it for him .

Why don't you be a good moderator and moderate some of your pal's obnoxious comments here instead of constantly busting Jack's chops ... and mine .

*edited to add some more of Mike's evidence .

This might not be evidence of a hoax but it's evidence of something very wrong with this picture .... I wonder if "administrative error " will be your excuse as to why our first man on the moon hero is standing in the back row of this nasa photo op ?

Moon Landing" 10th Anniversary astronaut get-together in 1979..... hang on a moment - where's Neil? Who's that shy retiring gent standing far right in the back row?

Looks a lot like the" First Man On the Moon". Is he trying to tell us something? ( Observation by M. St.M. )

Edited December 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

"Just a simple administrative error that the JSC website people have made. "

That's a great excuse ! .. and you came up with it so quickly too ! ... What a surprise .

I guess you better complete your mission then and notify the good folks at the JSC web site that they have made a little error that doesn't look very good for nasa's already very questionable Apollo photography .

Then how do you explain the disparity in what they said: "Station 8" "final parking place", when Station 8 is some 5 km from the LM?

The fact I "came up with it so quickly" is that I am obviously more familiar with the material than you. As soon as I heard Station 8 and final parking position used together, I knew there was a mistake.

How many images are there in the JSC collection? How many people had to put in the descriptions? How many descriptions were they putting in per day? Where did they get the descriptions from? You have never made an error when posting something, when putting a caption on an image? Again - you have never made an error when putting a caption on an image?

I haven't broken any forum rules posting an image for Jack have I ? ... He can't post them from his Mac , so he asked me to please post it for him .

No, but if Jack wants to rebut something, he should do it himself. Jack can post images from his Mac... if they are being hosted on another website. All he need to do is type the URL. My understanding is that because he has an outdated OS, he cannot upload to this Forum, and he cannot upload to Photobucket. That does not prevent him from linking to an image on the internet.

[Evan Burton]

Yes, Armstrong is a shy, retiring gent. He has been known as such for many years, preferring to ask people to acknowledge the contributions of the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, and not focus just on him.

[Duane Daman]

Mike gave you your "rebuttal " with his "shy Neil " explaination ... Not to worry though because anyone who isn't blind to nasa's Apollo scam can figure out Neil's message to nasa and to the rest of the world .

What an embarrassment that must have been for them ... They obviously wanted the Apolo 11 crew out front and center for the photo op and Neil wouldn't comply !?! ... Good for him !

So first we had ..

APOLLO 11 - THE FIRST MEN ALLEGEDLY ON THE MOON.

Then we had ..

APOLLO 11- THE MOST MISERABLE PRESS CONFERENCE EVER.

And now we have ..

APOLLO 11- THE ODDEST PHOTO EVER TAKEN CELEBRATING TEN YEARS OF ACHIEVEMENT.

Neil's position in the BACK ROW speaks volumes !

Edited December 8, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Shy? Retiring?

Isn't he the one who tried to punch out Bart Sibrel?

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Shy? Retiring?

Isn't he the one who tried to punch out Bart Sibrel?

Jack

Nope, that was Buzz Aldrin.

Althought being called a xxxx, thief and a cheat may have elicited the same response from Armstrong.

I know what kind of a response I would have given... but my friend Joe wouldn't have batted an eyelid. As for my friend Barry.... Ouch!

Point being... people react to diferent situations in different ways.

[Dave Greer]

* edited to add a message from Jack to Dave .... Your typical non like- for- like comparison does not apply once again .

Jack, you really must put this stuff in context. The photo I posted was simply to point out to Duane, before he wasted his time, that far-off mountains can appear different to the foreground. For you to post a photo alongside it then accuse me of not using a like-for-like comparison, is, how can I put it... plain daft?