Apollo 12 Faked Photographs

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm still waiting on some proof of how I attacked you or Jack. As I said before, I would be glad to take back any comments if you can prove your assertion.

The insults that you post on Jay Windley's Apollo Hoax forum apply to how you feel about ALL hoax believers in general , does it not ? ... Would you also be willing to take any of those back ?

"As long as there is paranoia and schizophrenia, there will be HBs."

And then there are these insults about Jack and me .

"On the education forum it was shown rather well that the rectangular imprint was in fact a partial bootprint. It was shown from previous photos that the astronaut stepped in that exact location with his toe. He did not appear to rest his weight on that foot hence the partial footprint. Jack of course ignored it and his lapdog Duane insulted those that supported the boot print theory."

"Duane is more of the same but he doesn't ever come up with his own stuff. He just repeats other's hoax nonsense no matter how bad it is."

Then there are these insults directed to a CT called 'Rocky"

"true. In most cases it can be said he doesn't but he still manages to dress and feed himself right? With all that paranoia, why does he ever go outside? "

"Funny how that list also describes the conspiracy theorists and pretty much any other person that posts on the internet! Got any more crap you want to throw at the wall Rocky?"

"How is this related to Apollo? Oh that's right. It isn't. If Jay chooses to only answer about Apollo then that is fine. This issue is completely unrelated and proves nothing but the fact that you are trying stupid tricks that would get you laughed out of any debate the same as everyone is laughing at you here."

"If the numbers of those seeing a hoax are really getting so large then where is all the support for Rocky? How come no one came out of the woodwork to support his views? If somehow, as I'm sure he thinks, their posts and memberships were being suppressed then why would he even be allowed to post here? Sadly he is not the most close-minded individual I have seen posting on the net but he does come close. His level of paranoia is astounding."

And then there is this one where you insulted this very forum .

"I'm not sure I'll be replying any more on that forum. It is just not worth it. I found another thread on "chemtrails" and one person's picture had an orb/lens flare that he said he knew were alien craft that used electromanetic pulses to spread the chemtrails out into clouds. Some of the people their are more out of touch with reality than GLP regulars. It just isn't worth my time to hang out there."

And this one to some poor CT, I assume Rocy, who had the audacity to post on Jay's forum of pro Apollo fanatics .

" Which viewers? You mean all the ones that already spoke up saying you were full of it and we did in fact go to the moon and the evidence proves it? Or the imaginary ones that only you seems to think exists?"

And another .

"As usual Rocky, you are agood for laugh. Not much else though. At least you're keeping everybody cool with all the handwaving though."

"And for the record, I have shown your rantings to two others that are not regulars of this board and they think you're nuts too."

" Keep posting Rocky. You provide endless hours of humor when you do. "

And I could go on and on but I think everyone will get the point as to what kind of person you really are .

As for your insulting posts to Jack and me on this forum, I will take a look and see what else I can find.

I've told you before that if you have an issue with another forum then you should bring it up on that forum. Your objections that you would be treated unfairly on other forums seems to hold no merit as there are plenty of hoax believers that have been treated fairly and lasted quite a long time. Some are still there. Others were only banned after they repeatedly broke known rules. But you know all this right? Or is your research there only to find something to take offense at?

Most of those are not insults. I see one about you calling you a "lapdog". Perhaps I should have said "supporter". One to Rocky where I said others think he is nuts but I don't see him complaining nor did he at the time and it was much tamer than anything he was throwing around. He had a much thicker skin than many though and wouldn't cry to the moderator at the drop of a hat. The one you say is directed to this forum was about the David Icke forum. I maintain my stance that many there are out of touch with reality. I'm sure many would agree.

So two and one about a forum in general? And none so far on this forum which is the only place it counts?

I'm sure you've never said anything disparaging about any of us outside this forum have you? What is it they say about glass houses Duane?

I will admit that I have made some comments about others on other forums. I have never denied this. But who hasn't? The issue here is whether I have attacked you or Jack here. You seem to be confusing the issue here.

Oh, and it is not Jay Windley's forum. He has no stake in ownership and never has.

[Duane Daman]

I'm sure you've never said anything disparaging about any of us outside this forum have you? What is it they say about glass houses Duane?

The difference between you and me is that I never claimed that I didn't post any insults .... You did .

What you post on another forum about conspiracy researchers might not have any bearing on this forum, but it does show what you're all about and why you joined this one .

So now that you're read some of your flame baiting tactics on this forum as well, will you be taking them back? ... <removed by Moderator>

Please do not make that accusation unless you have solid evidence. Even then, clear it with a Mod before you say such things. First and only warning.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Evan Burton
removed accusation

[Matthew Lewis]

Had to dig pretty deep to find stuff didn't you? None of these appear recent and your highlighting of a banned word is definitely from before the ban.

"Nobody else is making you look paranoid. You're doing that to yourself."

Not an insult. Definitely fact if I remember the situation correctly.

"So now you know what I will and won't believe? Wow! I didn't know you were psychic too! "

Not an insult or an attack. There is no way that you could know what I will or won't believe unless you are psychic or making an invalid assumption.

To Jack.

"Then please, show me this rule. And if you are so adamant about it, then am I to assume you will be buying me a camera? Further, if you can't find said rule, I may be tempted to interpret your repeated asking for a picture as both "harassing" and "invasion of my privacy," both which are against the rules."

"Now Jack, you know that is a lie. I have no personal objection to posting a picture, only a monetary one. I know of no rule saying I must post a picture, only a suggestion, and I have looked. * Oops, there's that forbidden word again .

This was long before the word was forbidden and neither of these are insults or attacks. Actually, Jack was attacking me. The constant request for a picture at a time when the picture was not required, was harassment.

"Maybe you should give yourself that award Jack. You can't even be bothered to see who's post you're quoting.

A comment made in jest as he responded to somebody else's comment with a different name. I don't see how this is an attack. But I apologize anyway.

"So do you have anything of substance to add or will it just be namecalling from you?"

A valid question, as Jack had responded to a thread with nothing but namecalling and nothing of substance. Maybe I should report him?

"Well if Jack says the weather is identical then weather.com must be wrong! Jack could never be wrong could he!? "

Dear me, a little sarcasm. I'm deeply sorry Jack.

"That's assuming that government hired disinformation agents actually exist and that's a huge assumption. Got any proof to back that up Jack? It is really too hard to believe that some people might not think the same way you do Jack? Are people not supposed to have their own opinions?"

A valid question that if I remember correctly went unanswered.

"I never claimed you did not watch this happening. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?"

Seems like a valid question. Perhaps it was a little harsh. I apologize.

So anybody that doesn't agree with you is automatically a "provocateur"? Gee it must be nice to live in your deluded little world. And is NASA psychic? Craig Lamson registered on this board on 15 November. That's absolutely amazing that he could have been sent here a full month before you even started posting about the supposedly faked Apollo photos on 18 December. As far as I can tell, Craig has done nothing more than point out that your research was in fact shoddy and incomplete. You claimed that only 2 pictures showed the scale on the window and Craig found 63. How do you account for that?"

I stand by the opinion that thinking that anybody that doesn't agree with a person must be a "provocateur" is deluded. It is clearly a false assumption. But again, this was in response to insults from Jack. Should he have been reported? Why are you not jumping on his case?

So I guess you can now take back those flame baiting insults that you posted on this forum to Jack and me, now that some of them have been pointed out to you .

So I see three here and all directed towards Jack. I have apologized. Happy?

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm sure you've never said anything disparaging about any of us outside this forum have you? What is it they say about glass houses Duane?

The difference between you and me is that I never claimed that I didn't post any insults .... You did .

I believe at first I didn't claim to have NEVER posted any insults. You said both of these about me "constant flame baiting attacks"

and

"...I rarely read any of your posts here where you just post information ... Instead, they contain attacks on those you disagree with .."

Both of which are untrue as most of my posts contain nothing more than information

I asked "where did I attack", a valid question as I had not remembered some of the stuff in the long distant past which you have dredged up, to which you responded not with an answer but instead by reporting my post.

What you post on another forum about conspiracy researchers might not have any bearing on this forum, but it does show what you're all about and why you joined this one .

Hardly. The only thing that shows why I joined this one is what it says in my Biography.

So now that you're read some of your flame baiting tactics on this forum as well, will you be taking them back? ... Or will you be untruthful about that also ?

Why Duane, you wouldn't be calling me a xxxx here now would you? As you can see, I have taken back those which are insults. Will you take back what you said about the attacks being "constant" or "rarely having information but rather attacks" as I'm sure you can see by researching my posts that the majority of them have information?

[Duane Daman]

Not an insult. Definitely fact if I remember the situation correctly.

Isn't that just like a typical Apollo defender, to never admit they're wrong, even when proven otherwise.

Okay, if we are finished with all of the flame baiting distraction tactics now, how about let's get back the more important subject of how NASA staged their Apollo 13 16 MM DAC footage .

[Kevin M. West]

Not an insult. Definitely fact if I remember the situation correctly.

Isn't that just like a typical Apollo defender, to never admit they're wrong, even when proven otherwise.

You'd need to go to a drive-in theater to see a bigger example of projection than that.

[Kevin M. West]

Watch again Duane, as the camera pans towards him, he turns to his left. He turns away from the crew as he turns the camera towards himself.

Watch again Kevin, at no time can Haise be seen turning away from the crew and turning the camera towards himself... He is never facing his crew mates in any part of this clip .

Do you wear glasses by any chance ? .... If so, please put them on the next time you view this clip ... If not, please go get your vision checked and buy some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY

Are you honestly saying that between :30 and :38 of that video, you don't think he is turning to his left as the camera pans?

[Dave Greer]

I'll repost Matthew's frame-grab from 34 seconds, I'm sure he won't mind. Please do feel free to post your own frame grab that shows Haise's back to the camera at 34 seconds. I can't wait for that one. (Munches popcorn).

Now look who's telling tall tales, as he munches his popcorn .... I don't remember ever saying that Haise's back was to the camera ... I said that his back was to the rest of the crew, and because he was facing away from them, he couldn't possibly have filmed them properly .... His arm was not the correct position to be operating the camera and neither was his body, that was facing away from his crew mates and towards the window, located to the left of the camera.... This is what we see at time stamp :34.

Look who's really tellng tall tales here .... Haise's back is to the camera and his arm is down by his side in NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING THE CAMERA BACKWARDS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SWIGGERT IS SEEN IN THE FRAME ..... Time stamp :34 .... Do I need to post a frame grab of that scene to show this fact , or are you capable of stopping the film at that point to see the truth about your "heros" ?

So who's telling tales now?

Still waiting on that frame grab (slurps coke... ran out of popcorn).

Edited February 18, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

When the bloke on the right makes the movement with his right arm that I assume is what is moving the camera, the handle(in your picture) doesn't look long enough.

Was the camera perhaps attached to a cable if it was floating about and that is what he is moving and not the handle?

I don't think the camera had a cable attached (it had a battery pack so didn't require an external power source).

Remember the lens being used is quite wide angle which is making everything seem further away than with a regular lens.

Also (and I don't want to get embroiled in the debate) I noticed in the footage I linked none of the clips last very long and always fade to black. They are definitely in a low gravity environment because you can clearly see stuff floating about.

I suppose its a possibility that they could have been filmed like the Apollo 13 Tom Hanks movie in the vomit comet.

I am only suggesting its possible.

I don't have a problem with your suggestion James. If they were going to fake the footage, using a mock-up of the LM in the vomit comet would make far more sense than some of the other scenarios being bandied about, for example Jack's proposal, endorsed by Duane, that it was filmed on a sound-stage with an entire film crew in attandance. Why not just create an inch-perfect mock-up of the LM cockpit in the vomit comet, and give the three astronauts a 16mm camera to film themselves with? No need for outlandish theories about mystery fourth people, or stage-sets with large film crews etc.

There are problems with this scenario from some conspiracists point of view though. Firstly, it isn't a "smoking gun". By that I mean that the footage would have been faked so well that it would be virtually impossible to discern it from genuine footage. Secondly, if they were using an accurate LM cockpit layout (which they would surely do for continuity, accuracy etc - otherwise why bother with the vomit comet), there simply is no room for the "smoking gun" of a fourth person. Some people arguing against Apollo seem hell-bent on shoe-horning the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notion of fakery, rather than folowing the evidence and seeing where it leads them.

Is it possible to fake the footage under discussion? I'm sure it is, and an accurate LM cockpit mokcup in the vomit comet would be the way to do it. Does the ability to fake footage mean that the Apollo 13 footage must have been faked? Of course not. There's also the distinct possibility that it was real. There's also the possibility that no HB has even mentioned that they just pretended there was an explosion, and filmed themselves in the LM cockpit while either in Earth orbit, or even on the way to the moon. Which seems strange of course. Why not just land if you're going to the moon anyway? What evidence is there that Apollo 13 even went to the moon? Well, there's the photos they took of the far side of the moon. There's the live TV transmissions during TLC. Duane has recently he can find no empirical evidence that radiation (Van Allen belts, Galactic Cosmic Rays, ambient lunar radiation) was an Apollo showstopper, so what exactly was stopping them from going, even if they didn't land?

[Duane Daman]

Why not just land if you're going to the moon anyway?

Who said they went to the Moon?

What evidence is there that Apollo 13 even went to the moon?

None that I have seen.

Well, there's the photos they took of the far side of the moon.

Those photos could have been taken by unmanned missions, just like the photos being taken today.

There's the live TV transmissions during TLC.

What is really live and what NASA claims is "live on TV" may very well be two different things.

Duane has recently he can find no empirical evidence that radiation (Van Allen belts, Galactic Cosmic Rays, ambient lunar radiation) was an Apollo showstopper, so what exactly was stopping them from going, even if they didn't land?

Just because I haven't found any figures or charts, doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that deep space radiation wasn't the show stopper for Apollo, or will be the show stopper for future manned missions.

[Are you honestly saying that between :30 and :38 of that video, you don't think he is turning to his left as the camera pans?

He's not turning to his left as the camera pans past him ... Haise is standing with his back to his crew mates and is in no position to have just filmed them ... Especially since we can clearly still see Swiggert in the shot while Hasise has his back to him.

You'd need to go to a drive-in theater to see a bigger example of projection than that.

More flame baiting? ... I would think you would try to refrain from this type of tactic after reading all of Matthew's insults that he said he never posted here.

You are wrong ... I have admitted several times that some of the hoax information I posted was incorrect .... Whereas you and you friends never admit to being wrong about anything ... The games you all play with some of the hoax evidence is unbelievable .... Pretending that stage light refelctions are "smudges on visors" , or that LM reflections are invisible, or that unidentifiable objects which resemble horns , are really astronaut's shadows etc. ... I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with nonsense like that, but hopefully some of the people reading these threads can see through your games.

Please do not make that accusation unless you have solid evidence. Even then, clear it with a Mod before you say such things. First and only warning.

I have no idea what you're referring to, or what you removed from my post ... Can you please PM me to let me know what caused this action, so I will know not to do it in the future ? ...Thanks.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Duane has recently said (edit) he can find no empirical evidence that radiation (Van Allen belts, Galactic Cosmic Rays, ambient lunar radiation) was an Apollo showstopper, so what exactly was stopping them from going, even if they didn't land?

Just because I haven't found any figures or charts, doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that deep space radiation wasn't the show stopper for Apollo, or will be the show stopper for future manned missions.

Which raises the question, why use this as proof that manned flight outside the Van Allen belts is impossible if you have no evidence to support the claim?

He's not turning to his left as the camera pans past him ... Haise is standing with his back to his crew mates and is in no position to have just filmed them ... Especially since we can clearly still see Swiggert in the shot while Hasise has his back to him.

Duane, he can't have his back to Lovell as he is looking out of the window at the end of clip, they are on opposite sides of the LM. He had his RHS toward Lovell. His back may have been turned toward Swigert, but why does that make it impossible for Haise to film him? Try it yourself - hold a camera pointing backwards in your direction, while someone else is just behind you and to the right. Are you really saying it's an impossible feat to do this? On top of that, it's impossible to know exactly which direction he was facing until he came into shot - he could easily have been turned to the right slightly.

You are wrong ... I have admitted several times that some of the hoax information I posted was incorrect .... Whereas you and you friends never admit to being wrong about anything ... The games you all play with some of the hoax evidence is unbelievable .... Pretending that stage light refelctions are "smudges on visors" , or that LM reflections are invisible, or that unidentifiable objects which resemble horns , are really astronaut's shadows etc. ... I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with nonsense like that, but hopefully some of the people reading these threads can see through your games.

Duane, regardless of your inability to respect other people's entitlement to an opinion, I for one am not "pretending" that stage lights are smudges or scratches. I can't understand why you continue to believe what you do about those visor images, but I wouldn't accuse you of lying about that, only of being very, very wrong in your visual interpretation of what you see.

But please feel free to keep up your accusations of lying, I wouldn't want you stopping and getting withdrawal symptoms.

[Matthew Lewis]

More flame baiting? ... I would think you would try to refrain from this type of tactic after reading all of Matthew's insults that he said he never posted here.

Let's be clear about a couple of things. Very few of my posts that you dug up were insults and nothing recent. Early on in your tirade about the "constant flame baiting", which you have yet to prove by the way, you mentioned attacks in the chemtrail thread towards Jack. There were none. I made the mistake, as I'm sure other would have as well, of assuming you were still thinking about that thread or something recent. Still, I apologized and a mature person would then let it go, move on and not bring it up less than 12 hours later. Your refusal to let it go speaks volumes.

I wouldn't say a comment about projection was flame baiting anyway. Especially since the majority of comments about projection have come from you, it is more just a valid response to things you have said.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[James Douglas]

When the bloke on the right makes the movement with his right arm that I assume is what is moving the camera, the handle(in your picture) doesn't look long enough.

Was the camera perhaps attached to a cable if it was floating about and that is what he is moving and not the handle?

I don't think the camera had a cable attached (it had a battery pack so didn't require an external power source).

Remember the lens being used is quite wide angle which is making everything seem further away than with a regular lens.

Also (and I don't want to get embroiled in the debate) I noticed in the footage I linked none of the clips last very long and always fade to black. They are definitely in a low gravity environment because you can clearly see stuff floating about.

I suppose its a possibility that they could have been filmed like the Apollo 13 Tom Hanks movie in the vomit comet.

I am only suggesting its possible.

I don't have a problem with your suggestion James. If they were going to fake the footage, using a mock-up of the LM in the vomit comet would make far more sense than some of the other scenarios being bandied about, for example Jack's proposal, endorsed by Duane, that it was filmed on a sound-stage with an entire film crew in attandance. Why not just create an inch-perfect mock-up of the LM cockpit in the vomit comet, and give the three astronauts a 16mm camera to film themselves with? No need for outlandish theories about mystery fourth people, or stage-sets with large film crews etc.

There are problems with this scenario from some conspiracists point of view though. Firstly, it isn't a "smoking gun". By that I mean that the footage would have been faked so well that it would be virtually impossible to discern it from genuine footage. Secondly, if they were using an accurate LM cockpit layout (which they would surely do for continuity, accuracy etc - otherwise why bother with the vomit comet), there simply is no room for the "smoking gun" of a fourth person. Some people arguing against Apollo seem hell-bent on shoe-horning the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notion of fakery, rather than folowing the evidence and seeing where it leads them.

Is it possible to fake the footage under discussion? I'm sure it is, and an accurate LM cockpit mokcup in the vomit comet would be the way to do it. Does the ability to fake footage mean that the Apollo 13 footage must have been faked? Of course not. There's also the distinct possibility that it was real. There's also the possibility that no HB has even mentioned that they just pretended there was an explosion, and filmed themselves in the LM cockpit while either in Earth orbit, or even on the way to the moon. Which seems strange of course. Why not just land if you're going to the moon anyway? What evidence is there that Apollo 13 even went to the moon? Well, there's the photos they took of the far side of the moon. There's the live TV transmissions during TLC. Duane has recently he can find no empirical evidence that radiation (Van Allen belts, Galactic Cosmic Rays, ambient lunar radiation) was an Apollo showstopper, so what exactly was stopping them from going, even if they didn't land?

I realised the handle was the battery power source. I was referring to the camera possibly being tethered to a cable to prevent it floating away. Is it floating in low gravity or is it in a fixed position? Its hard to tell.

[Duane Daman]

Duane, he can't have his back to Lovell as he is looking out of the window at the end of clip, they are on opposite sides of the LM. He had his RHS toward Lovell. His back may have been turned toward Swigert, but why does that make it impossible for Haise to film him? Try it yourself - hold a camera pointing backwards in your direction, while someone else is just behind you and to the right. Are you really saying it's an impossible feat to do this? On top of that, it's impossible to know exactly which direction he was facing until he came into shot - he could easily have been turned to the right slightly

When the camera pans past the A13 crew (first Lovell and then Swiggert ) the camera operator would have had to be FACING them, not only to get them in the frame correctly but also to see that the contrast was too dark and to lighten up the picture, which was what the photographer did in this particular clip.

As the camera pans the first two astronauts, the middle astronaut, Swiggert, is STILL IN THE FRAME AS THE CAMERA PANS ON HAISE, WHO NOT ONLY HAS HIS BACK TO SWIGGERT BUT HAS HIS ARM DOWN BY HIS SIDE AND IS IN NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING OR OPERATING THE CAMERA.

I don't know how to state it any clearer than that ... and this is exactly why I have accused all of you of playing games with the hoax evidence, no matter what it is.... I can't understand why you either can't see the obvious or refuse to see it .. Well, actually I do understand it, but that's another story.

Duane, regardless of your inability to respect other people's entitlement to an opinion, I for one am not "pretending" that stage lights are smudges or scratches. I can't understand why you continue to believe what you do about those visor images, but I wouldn't accuse you of lying about that, only of being very, very wrong in your visual interpretation of what you see.

But please feel free to keep up your accusations of lying, I wouldn't want you stopping and getting withdrawal symptoms.

It's not that I don't respect your opinion or believe that you're outright lying .. It's more like I can't fathom why you refuse to recognize a stage light reflection in a visor when it's staring you right in the face, or refuse to see that something shaped like a horn or possibly something even stranger, could NOT possibly be the shadow of an astronaut.

You can believe all you like that my visual interpretation of what I see is wrong , but I'm not alone in seeing certain anomalies in the Apollo photographs, which don't belong on the Moon ... But if those ridiculous looking photographs really were taken on the Moon, then it's by far a much stranger place than NASA has led us all to believe ... So strange in fact, that it looks exactly like a STAGE SET !

Millions of people can see how fake the Apollo photographs are ... but if you can't, then we will just have to agree to disagree ... again .

Edited February 19, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

I realised the handle was the battery power source. I was referring to the camera possibly being tethered to a cable to prevent it floating away. Is it floating in low gravity or is it in a fixed position? Its hard to tell.

I agree, it's hard to tell once the camera is pointing at Haise and he's looking out the window. I suspect he may have let go of the camera by then, but it's impossible (for me) to tell.