NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER

[Duane Daman]

No Jack I think that maybe they decided not to feed the kooks.

Is character assassination of the conspiracy researchers all they ever taught you at the clavius moon base school of NASA disinformation ?

Your program of ad homium attacks and ridicule of those exposing U.S. government lies ( like the Apollo Program ), is as old as you are .

You should try a different approach once in awhile, and then maybe you won't look as much like the internet predator that you so obviously are .

[Craig Lamson]

No Jack I think that maybe they decided not to feed the kooks.

Is character assassination of the conspiracy researchers all they ever taught you at the clavius moon base school of NASA disinformation ?

Your program of ad homium attacks and ridicule of those exposing U.S. government lies ( like the Apollo Program ), is as old as you are .

You should try a different approach once in awhile, and then maybe you won't look as much like the internet predator that you so obviously are .

How about my approach of providing empirical evidence produced by real world testing that the Apollo CT kooks cannot debunk?

How about you attempt to debunk this:

www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

Why not try a different approach yourself instead of being a cut and paste parrot for the disinformation brigade.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

How sad ... All you have to offer besides insults and ridicule is ONE study that pretends to debunk ONE of Jack's studies .

As important as you must believe your "evidence" is , ONE STUDY in no way proves that the Apollo photographs are anything but what they really are ... Moonset studio fakes .

[Craig Lamson]

How sad ... All you have to offer besides insults and ridicule is ONE study that pretends to debunk ONE of Jack's studies .

I've provided quite a few more but this one is the most fun.

As important as you must believe your "evidence" is , ONE STUDY in no way proves that the Apollo photographs are anything but what they really are ... Moonset studio fakes .

Never said it did Duane but it underscores a far more important point...and that is the complete lack of honesty, intellectual and otherwise of the people you choose to trust and who's work you can only parrot because of your complete lack of knowlege about the subject matter.

Don't you mind being used a a dupe for these guys? Don't you ever ask yourself why you should believe them after it has been proven that they have lied to you?

Most everyone on the pro apollo side have made a sincere attempt to help you educate yourself in this subject matter.

You should take us up on this. Then perhaps you would not trash you own character quite as often...and in the process learn the real truth.

[Duane Daman]

You should take us up on this. Then perhaps you would not trash you own character quite as often...and in the process learn the real truth.

The only one attempting to trash my character on this forum would be you ....But then that's what internet predators do best ... Attack and insult those they disagree with and wish to silence .

I personally don't give a damn about that one study, as it in no way proves or disproves if the Apollo photographs were taken on the Moon or not ... So far, all the evidence I've seen has proven that the Apollo photographs are F A K E .

[Craig Lamson]

You should take us up on this. Then perhaps you would not trash you own character quite as often...and in the process learn the real truth.

The only one attempting to trash my character on this forum would be you ....But then that's what internet predators do best ... Attack and insult those they disagree with and wish to silence .

Why in the heck would I want to silence you Duane? You are the comic relief!

I personally don't give a damn about that one study, as it in no way proves or disproves if the Apollo photographs were taken on the Moon or not ... So far, all the evidence I've seen has proven that the Apollo photographs are F A K E .

You can't make an educated decision on the "evidence" you have seen because to don't understand the subject matter and don't seem to care to learn. All you can do is take on faith the words of yor "leaders". The problem with that apporach is that your "leaders" have been shown to be liars, like they have in the study you don't give a damn about. And that of course is where you trash your own character. You should give a damn about the that study becuase you have taken to parroting the work without understanding why. If you were intellectually honest you would spend the time to see exactly who is right and who is wrong. The process is simple, just recreate the study I produced and see if it is true. When you find that it is, ask yourself why it is that the likes of White and Percy have chosen to lead you astray.

Its time for you to take off the ct colored glasses Duane and walk in the light of truth.

[Duane Daman]

Why in the heck would I want to silence you Duane? You are the comic relief!

I don't think you could be any more transparent if you tried ... Your pretense of finding what I post here funny is just about as transparent as you pretending that you have any "work" to do, other than constantly insult everyone on this forum who you disagree with .... I can't help but wonder if you have this particular personality flaw in real life, or just on the internet where it's so easy to be a bully and a predator.

As I have mentioned several times before , I believed that Apollo was a hoax long before I ever saw any of Jack White's or David Percy's evidence also proving that it is .

For you see, the real hoax evidence is on NASA's self serving web sites of disinformation, and also in the interviews with the Apollo astronots, where they never can quite manage to get their "landing on the Moon" stories straight .... and of course in all the distraction tactics and character assassinations that people like you use on these discussion forums .... If you were so sure about Apollo then you obviously wouldn't feel the need to insult those who see it differently .

[Evan Burton]

Duane, your PM box is indicating full so I'll post this here:

You should be made aware of the fact that James Oberg has joined the Forum.

As he is now a Forum member, you may not call him a xxxx or anything similar unless you have undeniable proof, and you should clear your accusations with a Mod before you make any such accusations.

Since your previous comments were made prior to him joining, I see no need for them to be edited and the accusation removed. If Mr Oberg objects to you having previously called him a xxxx, we'll discuss the matter amongst the Mods and come to a consensus.

FYI

[Duane Daman]

Duane, your PM box is indicating full so I'll post this here:

You should be made aware of the fact that James Oberg has joined the Forum.

As he is now a Forum member, you may not call him a xxxx or anything similar unless you have undeniable proof, and you should clear your accusations with a Mod before you make any such accusations.

Since your previous comments were made prior to him joining, I see no need for them to be edited and the accusation removed. If Mr Oberg objects to you having previously called him a xxxx, we'll discuss the matter amongst the Mods and come to a consensus.

FYI

Thanks for letting me know about my PM box .. I have now deleted several messages to make room for future ones .

FYI ... Was it really necessary to post your messge to me on the boards though? .. You could have easily sent me an e-mail instead of throwing your misguided moderator weight around by always playing games with Jack and me , your two biggest adversaries concerning Apollo .

There is some rather conflicting evidence about Jim Oberg and his alleged contact and offer to Ralph Rene' ... As you already know , I tought he was asking Ralph to prove that the phony Collins photo was in the book, not that it might have a caption with it as to it's reality .... But as we all now know , there was no caption with the photo, nor was there any disclaimer either that the PICTURE WAS A FAKE.

If you want to delete any reference I made to him being a xxxx , I have no problem with that .

Edited January 11, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Why in the heck would I want to silence you Duane? You are the comic relief!

I don't think you could be any more transparent if you tried ... Your pretense of finding what I post here funny is just about as transparent as you pretending that you have any "work" to do, other than constantly insult everyone on this forum who you disagree with .... I can't help but wonder if you have this particular personality flaw in real life, or just on the internet where it's so easy to be a bully and a predator.

It is funny! The world of woo woo's is filled with characters just like you and you all make for such wonderful entertainment! So now you think I don't have any "work" to do"? Sheesh, NASA does not pay me that much...LMAO! Duane, guys lkiek you and Jack are just such a target rich environment...its hard not to fire away. Of course if youactually took the time to learn the subject matter you too could find some of those targets in your formar CT pals. Of couse that would require you to see the light of day and understand you are being coned by these guys.

As I have mentioned several times before , I believed that Apollo was a hoax long before I ever saw any of Jack White's or David Percy's evidence also proving that it is .

Well if you are using WHite and Percys "evidence' you are simply being taken for a dupe. None of it holds any water.

For you see, the real hoax evidence is on NASA's self serving web sites of disinformation, and also in the interviews with the Apollo astronots, where they never can quite manage to get their "landing on the Moon" stories straight .... and of course in all the distraction tactics and character assassinations that people like you use on these discussion forums .... If you were so sure about Apollo then you obviously wouldn't feel the need to insult those who see it differently .

If you are using your personal interpretation of this kind of information as "proof" you go well beyond being a dupe....well beyond. We have all seen your ability to devine the truth form your reading....does "Dr. Jones" ring a bell?

Sorry Duane but the doucmentation and more importantly the photographic records shows Apollo to be true. None of the pack of woo woo's has been able to prove the photos fake yet...and you never wil.

[Evan Burton]

Duane, your PM box is indicating full so I'll post this here:

You should be made aware of the fact that James Oberg has joined the Forum.

As he is now a Forum member, you may not call him a xxxx or anything similar unless you have undeniable proof, and you should clear your accusations with a Mod before you make any such accusations.

Since your previous comments were made prior to him joining, I see no need for them to be edited and the accusation removed. If Mr Oberg objects to you having previously called him a xxxx, we'll discuss the matter amongst the Mods and come to a consensus.

FYI

Thanks for letting me know about my PM box .. I have now deleted several messages to make room for future ones .

FYI ... Was it really necessary to post your messge to me on the boards though? .. You could have easily sent me an e-mail instead of throwing your misguided moderator weight around by always playing games with Jack and me , your two biggest adversaries concerning Apollo .

There is some rather conflicting evidence about Jim Oberg and his alleged contact and offer to Ralph Rene' ... As you already know , I tought he was asking Ralph to prove that the phony Collins photo was in the book, not that it might have a caption with it as to it's reality .... But as we all now know , there was no caption with the photo, nor was there any disclaimer either that the PICTURE WAS A FAKE.

If you want to delete any reference I made to him being a xxxx , I have no problem with that .

No, that has been pointed out several times. Jim's original letter to Rene said it, and we have repeated it several times here:

He wants to know where NASA has ever said it was an "official" image, that it was taken during a mission, etc. I'll iterate part of the letter, just to refresh everyones memory:

First question: Where does Collins or anyone else allege that this image shows him on his EVA, as you state that he does and is this “a xxxx”. Please provide citation to the book’s text or to any public statements made by Collins in discussing his book. You write that the picture was “allegedly taken during a space walk”. Please cite that allegation. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?

Second question: where does NASA present this image as portraying the Gemini-10 EVA? Is there any press release photograph, any publication, any non-NASA publication citing NASA as source of this image, any website, that presents this image with NASA’s explicit description of it as showing the Gemini-10 EVA. You claim they have done so, and your exact words: “Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?” Please cite exactly where this lie originally occurred. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?

Third question: If in fact there is no documentation for either Collins or NASA asserting that this image is an actual photograph of the Gemini-10 EVA, how can you allege that they IMPLIED it when in fact Collins explicitly states (on page 254 of the Ballantine edition) that there WERE no photographs of his EVA: “One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]” Therefore, by Collin's own account, can’t we conclude that any picture of him in a spacesuit is not that of the Gemini EVA?

Pretty clear-cut to me. I'm not surprised Rene never answered. He'd either have to face losing $10,000 or admitting he was wrong... something that many of these Hoax Believers seem loathe to do. Instead he just ignores it.

Way to go, Rene.

[Evan Burton]

Was it really necessary to post your messge to me on the boards though? .. You could have easily sent me an e-mail instead of throwing your misguided moderator weight around by always playing games with Jack and me , your two biggest adversaries concerning Apollo .

As I said, your PM box was full. It was necessary to ensure you knew that James Oberg was now a member, so anything you now said about him must fall within Forum guidelines. Although his biography is posted, and is noted as our newest member, you might have missed this and said something about him which would have contravened Forum rules regarding another member.

I posted here on this thread (where you made your initial accusations) as a courtesy to you in order to avoid such a situation... but you would seem to dislike such courtesy. Fair enough; I won't give you a heads-up about any matters in future. I expect you will note whatever changes / situations occur yourself and react to them appropriately.

[Evan Burton]

The television footage of the first Moon landing was very poor. While having access to the finest of technology, NASA would not allow a direct feed of the footage, but forced networks and news services to film through an optically enlarged television screen, adding quite a bit of distortion.

No, Rene has got it wrong again. Bandwidth limitations forced the use of what was called Slow Scan TV (SSTV). The priorities for transmission at the time were something like:

- Biomedical data

- Systems telemetry

- Voice

- Television

There were people who thought that television should have been given a higher priority, but mission planner put crew safety and mission success first. There would be plenty of photographic images to study; television would be a bonus. This meant that only limited bandwidth was available for the TV. This meant a system of 320 lines per scan (frame), and 10 frames per second.

This was transmitted LIVE to Earth. Commercial standard in the US, however, was 525 lines and 30 frames per second. The conversion process was done on-site and then transmitted to the world. The conversion system, though, is not dissimilar to what Rene says.

In essence, a commercial TV camera filmed the SSTV transmission being displayed on a monitor. This was a reliable conversion system for local formats (the Australian TV format was different again from the US).

Full details can be found here.

During the Apollo 16 lunar lift-off the camera followed the ship up off the surface. No one was left on the Moon, so who panned the camera?

There was a camera on the LRV which could be remotely controlled from Earth. This was used to film the ascent stage liftoff from Apollos 15, 16, and 17. It was also used to film the landing site after the astronauts had left.

NASA later claimed that the camera was radio controlled from Earth, but how could they have followed the ship so closely given the transmission time lag? Kentucky windage?

The man responsible for the camera was Ed Fendell, otherwise known as 'Captain Video'. Trying to judge the correct timing for the commands to the TV camera was very difficult. He got it pretty well perfect on the final mission (Apollo 17).

Some further details can be found here.

[Evan Burton]

If one were to add up all the astronauts’ stated observations of the appearance of space above the atmosphere one would come to the conclusion that they were either crazy, incompetent or they never went, or, perhaps some of them were lying???

Now this is the opinion of Mr Brown... but he doesn't show evidence of this (though he gives quotes later). If one understand the circumstances, then his statement would be obviously flawed. I also have to ask - is he saying that none of the orbital missions ever happened? Reading on, this would appear to be the case.

Alan Sheppard[sic], first American to be catapulted up reported seeing no stars, ditto for Virgil Grissom. John Glenn reported seeing some brighter stars only (and he saw those weird “fireflies”).

Some quick background: Shepard's flight was sub-orbital, as was Grissom's. These were high-altitude 'lobs', lasting about 15 mins. Glenn's flight was orbital. That's why Shepard is first American in space, but Glenn was the first American in orbit.

Secondly, Shepard's Mercury capsules did not have a window; it only had a periscope to view with. Grissom and Glenn's capsules (as well as all following capsules) did have windows.

The sub-orbital lobs probably did not allow the astronaut's eyes time time adjust and see the stars; they may not have even been looking at them, concentrating on ground features and the horizon.

The 'fireflies' were determined on later flights to be ice crystals being dislodged from the spacecraft.

[Evan Burton]

To quote some astronauts on the subject:

Neil Armstrong: “The sky is black, you know,” “It’s a very dark sky.”

At times it is to the astronauts. Nothing strange.

Mike Collins on Gemini 10:: “My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” This was written 14 years after, and remember that the Gemini 10 space walk photo shown here has now been proven fake.

No, as we have been saying many times, the photo is NOT "fake"; it is the image from the C-135 with the background blanked out. Mr Brown continues to follow Rene's lead.

Mike Collins on Apollo 11: “I can’t see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena,... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds...” “What I see is disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it is difficult to recognize them when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars...”

Mr Brown has shot himself in the foot here; the quote mentions the Agena. The Agena target vehicles were used on the Gemini flights, not Apollo. This was probably during Gemini X again. During the EVA, Collins had to go over to the Agena and retrieve a scientific package. The second quote may have been from Apollo 11, where they had a star sighting telescope in the CM.

Gene Cernan on Apollo 17: “When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it’s black. I didn’t say it’s dark, I said black. So black you can’t even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn’t strike on anything, so all you see is black.”

This is a good description of what happens when you are in sunlight in space; you eyes are adjusted to bright light levels, so you don't see any of the stars because they are too dim in comparison.

Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut: “Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows.”

I'm unsure of when in the flight he said this, but in this case his eyes had adjusted.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Evan Burton