Jump to content
The Education Forum

NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

matt,

Agreed. The point that Jim Oberg, myself, and many others make is that NOWHERE has it ever been shown that the book or NASA claimed this to be an image taken during a Gemini mission. NOWHERE will you find a NASA image ID on it. The only person claiming that NASA have said it was a "real" image is Rene. Oh - and Duane, who has never actually CHECKED on the veracity of that claim... although I might be mistaken.

Duane, you have contacted Rene and confirmed that the image in the book was labeled as an official NASA image, etc? You have checked this, haven't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Too much there to debunk at once so I suggest we start with the first one
My favorite of the photo anomalies in the book is shown here as Photo 3, which René has titled “Mutt and Jeff”. The anomaly in this photo is obvious. This is a photo of Armstrong, holding the staff, and Aldrin, holding the flag. While the two astronauts are basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75% the length of Aldrin’s. The shadows are not parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light. René used trigonometry to discover that Aldrin’s personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong’s is at 34.9 degrees. The sun was at 13.5 degrees altitude on the real Moon, so where were these guys? Certainly not where we have been led to believe. Perhaps a soundstage in the American desert?

reneusedtrigonometryloltf1.jpg

I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes ;)

The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat.

shadowflagyh3.jpg

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg

Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer:

shadows.jpg

indicating two sources of light

Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows?

Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane?

If you want to consider this a non-issue that's fine with me , but not for the reason you presume .

Your pro Apollo pretense of a rebuttal is ancient history Gavin .... If you look at the photo of the DAC footage in question , you will see that the ground is level with no slope .

Although casting shadows against a slanted surface would indeed change the apparent length, this statement conflicts with what Neil Armstrong said during that EVA.

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

Therefore, by Armstrong's own admission, the landing sight was supposedly flat and level terrain.... A slope is the very opposite of level terrain... So if those 16mm DAC videos were indeed filmed on a slope, then that's certainly not where Armstrong said they landed.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

matt,

Agreed. The point that Jim Oberg, myself, and many others make is that NOWHERE has it ever been shown that the book or NASA claimed this to be an image taken during a Gemini mission. NOWHERE will you find a NASA image ID on it. The only person claiming that NASA have said it was a "real" image is Rene. Oh - and Duane, who has never actually CHECKED on the veracity of that claim... although I might be mistaken.

Duane, you have contacted Rene and confirmed that the image in the book was labeled as an official NASA image, etc? You have checked this, haven't you?

To my knowledge the photo wasn't an official NASA image with an ID number .. It was a mocked up photo that was placed in the book with the purpose of misleading the reader into believing it was a photo of Collins taken during his EVA spacewalk .

No where in the book does it state that it was a staged photo, with a blacked out background , originally taken from the Vomet Comet training photo ....It was even used for the front cover, depicting Collins in space .

But if the image was put in the book in all innocence, as you would have us believe , then why was it removed from later additions and replaced with a different photo ?

The point that Rene' was making was that the faked image was not a real photo of a Collins EVA spacewalk and therefore had no business being in the book pretending to be one .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just make sure of things...

]Everything you posted above are NASA disinformation LIES ... and here is the proof of that .

Ralph Rene' is not the xxxx , but Jim Orberg and the rest of the clowns at NASA and on the discussion forums that protect NASA, are ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=133200

They are the same photo... And this is official NASA output!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=133180

Here's the bottom line ...

NASA put out a book with a picture of Mike Collins in it where they BLACKED OUT THE REAL BACKGROUND ( sound familiar ? ) to fake a picture of an EVA space walk .

Then they were stupid enough to include the SAME TRAINING photo in the book .

Rene' busted them out in his book and then Jim Orberg LIED about contacting Rene' with an offer of $10,000.00 to supply the photo , which NASA has since REMOVED FROM THE BOOK AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER PHOTO to save further embarrassment on their part .

This might not be proof that the Gemini missions were faked , but it is proof that NASA once again FAKED A PHOTOGRAPH by attempting to pass it off as a space walking EVA , when it clearly wasn't .

So basically , Orberg lied because Rene' never got word of his offer and Rene's assessment of what NASA really stands for is correct .

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=133218

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this PM from Jarrah White will clear up any confusion on all of our parts ... I didn't read the Oberg "letter" you posted here, so I was in error on some points .

"Oberg's supposed letter to Ralph was posted on BAUT forums on January 20th 2003.

Basically he tried to frame Ralph, going as far as misquoting Collins and then act as though he was trying to protect Collins. I often wonder where he got his misquote from, because I strongly doubt Oberg even has access to the 1975 edition he claims to have: stating the photos themselves were 4 pages apart and that the book itself was a paperback.

Another important thing they won't address, is why the altered image was displayed with an official Apollo 11 photograph? And why did they depict that same image of him floating against the earth on the cover.

I didn't mention this in any of my three films, but I'll bring it up now. On page F of his book, Ralph was kind enough to include the original photo's number: S66-40127.

I've searched high and low for that photograph: I search the Apollo Archive, I searched nasa.gov, I search google, I search the JSC gallery, not a single website hosts this photograph of Collins. It seems not only has the newer books been stripped of the doctored version: but NASA has made sure not to associate themselves with the original picture and thus the only place you can get it is Collins' book.

Jarrah"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

René’s book shows several other interesting photos which indicate various anomalies. On a splashdown photo of Gemini 6A there is a whip antenna in excellent condition clearly shown, with no burn marks or scorching (5000 degrees F on re-entry). No other Gemini had this antenna, and simple logic indicates that it would have burned off during re-entry. Such an antenna is designed for frequencies not used in space.

okay, we have three claims here.

1. Antenna on Gemini 6.

2. No other Gemini had this antenna.

3. Antenna used for frequencies not used in space.

Are these YOUR claims Duane, or are you repeating them from someone else?

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll reply to Jarrah's reply in a few minutes or so...

Are you able to reply for yourself, Duane, or do you prefer to use others? I dislike using intermediatories; I would prefer that i directly respond to the person whose claims I am addressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to consider this a non-issue that's fine with me , but not for the reason you presume .

Your pro Apollo pretense of a rebuttal is ancient history Gavin .... If you look at the photo of the DAC footage in question , you will see that the ground is level with no slope .

Although casting shadows against a slanted surface would indeed change the apparent length, this statement conflicts with what Neil Armstrong said during that EVA.

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

Therefore, by Armstrong's own admission, the landing sight was supposedly flat and level terrain.... A slope is the very opposite of level terrain... So if those 16mm DAC videos were indeed filmed on a slope, then that's certainly not where Armstrong said they landed.

Duane, are you being willfully obtuse? Can you not see the pan of the Apollo site clearly shows the the terrain is not level?

shadowflagyh3.jpg

Are you trying to suggest that this terrain is level, Duane?

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

This quote is absolutely absurd and is a good representation of your illogical thinking. It is a throwaway comment. I'm sure that Armstrong didn't mean that "the entire Lunar Surface was perfectly flat" just that they'd landed in a relatively flat place.

No wonder you have no credibility Duane.

Edited by Gavin Stone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this PM from Jarrah White will clear up any confusion on all of our parts ... I didn't read the Oberg "letter" you posted here, so I was in error on some points .

"Oberg's supposed letter to Ralph was posted on BAUT forums on January 20th 2003.

Basically he tried to frame Ralph, going as far as misquoting Collins and then act as though he was trying to protect Collins. I often wonder where he got his misquote from, because I strongly doubt Oberg even has access to the 1975 edition he claims to have: stating the photos themselves were 4 pages apart and that the book itself was a paperback.

Another important thing they won't address, is why the altered image was displayed with an official Apollo 11 photograph? And why did they depict that same image of him floating against the earth on the cover.

I didn't mention this in any of my three films, but I'll bring it up now. On page F of his book, Ralph was kind enough to include the original photo's number: S66-40127.

I've searched high and low for that photograph: I search the Apollo Archive, I searched nasa.gov, I search google, I search the JSC gallery, not a single website hosts this photograph of Collins. It seems not only has the newer books been stripped of the doctored version: but NASA has made sure not to associate themselves with the original picture and thus the only place you can get it is Collins' book.

Jarrah"

Okay, I am not going to address this post for the moment. Just let me say that I disagree with the conclusion for the moment. I'll come back to it, and I expect people to remind me to return to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA allegedly shot tens of thousands of pictures of the lunar landings, yet it is very difficult to procure even a decent percentage of these, and the same ones show up in most publications.

Totally incorrect. The images can be found here.

A number of the high quality scans can be found here.

Full scans of the magazines are available here and then selecting FULL HASSELBLAD MAGAZINES.

As far as the ID of " S66-40127" is concerned, I can't find an image as yet. That is NOT to say an image does not exist; it is simply that I cannot find one as yet. I believe it is available through a lesser known server, being one of the Gemini series. I'll post details shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to consider this a non-issue that's fine with me , but not for the reason you presume .

Your pro Apollo pretense of a rebuttal is ancient history Gavin .... If you look at the photo of the DAC footage in question , you will see that the ground is level with no slope .

Not so Duane. Look at this still taken from the DAC footage, and the zoomed insert beneath. Quite clearly, the terrain where the flag shadow falls is not 100% flat or horizontal.

flag-shadow-i.jpg

Although casting shadows against a slanted surface would indeed change the apparent length

Slanted surface proven in both the photographicand film record. Will you now withdraw the claim?

this statement conflicts with what Neil Armstrong said during that EVA.

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

Therefore, by Armstrong's own admission, the landing sight was supposedly flat and level terrain.... A slope is the very opposite of level terrain... So if those 16mm DAC videos were indeed filmed on a slope, then that's certainly not where Armstrong said they landed.

No anomaly here either. The Apollo 11 landing site was essentially flat: that doesn't preclude minor localised variations in the terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original Email:

From: Stone, Gavin

Sent: 09 January 2008 10:21

To: 'histinfo@hq.nasa.gov'

Subject: Image location

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm wondering if you could help me in locating an image? I'm trying to find image reference S66-40127. Does this image even exist, if so where could I find it?

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Gavin Stone

Reply:

Image locationFrom: HQ-History Info [hq-histinfo@nasa.gov]

Sent: 09 January 2008 13:40

To: Stone, Gavin

Subject: RE: Image location

Dear Mr. Stone,

I am afraid that I am unable to locate the image on any of our online repositories. However, this does not mean that the image does not exist. I suggest you contact NASA's Public Affairs Office, Code PM, which runs a photo library that makes photos available to journalists and the general public. Please call this office at 202-358-1900 or fax your request on letterhead to 202-358-4333 to order glossy photos. This service is especially useful if you have a list of NASA photo numbers already. In addition, the National Air and Space Museum's reference desk at http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/colle...otoarchives.cfm or by phone 202-357-3133 handles still photo requests.

For your future reference, we have a number of image repositories online:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/

http://nix.nasa.gov

http://www.arc.nasa.gov/aboutames-imagegallery.cfm

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/ (includes non-photo graphics)

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html (great planet images)

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/

http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/ (Earth images)

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/Clickmap/default.htm (searchable Earth images)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/~sirs/scripts/xmlWelcome.pl

http://www.larc.nasa.gov/larc_images/images.htm

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/paogalry.htm

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ (Human Spaceflight)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ (earth images)

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Suckow

Contract Archivist

History Division

NASA Headquarters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original Email:
From: Stone, Gavin

Sent: 09 January 2008 10:21

To: 'histinfo@hq.nasa.gov'

Subject: Image location

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm wondering if you could help me in locating an image? I'm trying to find image reference S66-40127. Does this image even exist, if so where could I find it?

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Gavin Stone

Reply:

Image locationFrom: HQ-History Info [hq-histinfo@nasa.gov]

Sent: 09 January 2008 13:40

To: Stone, Gavin

Subject: RE: Image location

Dear Mr. Stone,

I am afraid that I am unable to locate the image on any of our online repositories. However, this does not mean that the image does not exist. I suggest you contact NASA's Public Affairs Office, Code PM, which runs a photo library that makes photos available to journalists and the general public. Please call this office at 202-358-1900 or fax your request on letterhead to 202-358-4333 to order glossy photos. This service is especially useful if you have a list of NASA photo numbers already. In addition, the National Air and Space Museum's reference desk at http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/colle...otoarchives.cfm or by phone 202-357-3133 handles still photo requests.

For your future reference, we have a number of image repositories online:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/

http://nix.nasa.gov

http://www.arc.nasa.gov/aboutames-imagegallery.cfm

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/ (includes non-photo graphics)

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html (great planet images)

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/

http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/ (Earth images)

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/Clickmap/default.htm (searchable Earth images)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/~sirs/scripts/xmlWelcome.pl

http://www.larc.nasa.gov/larc_images/images.htm

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/paogalry.htm

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ (Human Spaceflight)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ (earth images)

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Suckow

Contract Archivist

History Division

NASA Headquarters

Did you notice that ALSJ is not listed? Maybe it because its not a NASA site as some of the CT's like to claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these YOUR claims Duane, or are you repeating them from someone else?

What a strange question to ask .... Isn't it obvious that the whip antennia info came from Rene's book and that the book review article I posted here was written by Thomas Brown ? ...So I obviously repeated them from someone else....and that someone else is Ralph Rene'.

Are you able to reply for yourself, Duane, or do you prefer to use others? I dislike using intermediatories; I would prefer that i directly respond to the person whose claims I am addressing.

Are you able to be a bit more polite , or is that not how a moderator should behave on this forum of "higher standards" ?

I posted Jarrah's PM to clear up any confusion ... I thought that might be helpful for everyone , including myself , as I hadn't bothered to read Oberg's letter ... I have so little time now to research Apollo and argue with all of you about it , that when I do, I tend to rush through the propagandist's lies which don't interest me much ... Oberg's letter being one of them .

NASA allegedly shot tens of thousands of pictures of the lunar landings, yet it is very difficult to procure even a decent percentage of these, and the same ones show up in most publications.

You must have misread what Rene' stated above ... He was NOT referring to what is posted on the internet , as he apparently doesn't use the internet very much, if at all .... He was referring to PUBLICATIONS where the same handful of silly staged Apollo photos are paraded about over and over again .

This quote is absolutely absurd and is a good representation of your illogical thinking.

If you think it's absurd , then you have Neil Armstrong to blame for that , not me... I just repeated his description of the moonset terrain .

Slanted surface proven in both the photographicand film record. Will you now withdraw the claim?

It looks flat to me ... and it looked flat to Neil Armstrong ... He even stated that it was flat ... So since he was there and you and I weren't , I think he would be a better judge of how flat the ground was at TRAIN-QUILITY Base.

No wonder you have no credibility Duane.

According to whom ? .. You and the rest of the defenders of the lie of the official Apollo record ?

It's not my credibility you need to worry about Gavin ... It would be NASA's and the Apollo astronots who you need to worry about , because they are the one's who have NO CREDIBILITY NOW and never have .

Here's another PM from Jarrah which might clarify why that photo of Collins was misrepresented in his book and had no business being there .

"The photograph is not captioned, but much like the Moon Shot photograph IT IS DISPLATED ALONG SIDE OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WITH NO DISCLAIMER. In addition to being featured among official photos, the 1975 edition's cover illustration has the exact same image of Collins floating against the earth during an EVA - and we all know Collins only had one spacewalk, not unless you include his stand-up EVA, both took place on Gemini 10.

According to Ralph, the original photo's ID is S66-40127.

Jarrah"

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...