Apollo 12 Faked Photographs

[Matthew Lewis]

Matthew ... This is an ad homuim attack .

Can't comment on the facts then? Incidentally, the idea that the world is flat is opposed rather greatly. Does that mean the flat Earthers are correct? Or does it mean your rule of thumb really doesn't hold well.

So is calling me a xxxx ... Your post has been reported .

Not sure what an "ad homium" is as it doesn't exist. I would think you would know that as you have been corrected before. No matter though for I know what you mean. As for an ad hominem, how exactly? Jack did not comment on the facts, he still hasn't. He instead chose to insult those who opposed him. If anyone is guilty of an ad hominem attack it would be him. So you still have yet to prove that I have attacked him or you. If you can show this, I would be glad to take any comments back. Go ahead with your report. You and I both know it has no substance.

You only know that he has his back to them when he is shown. How is he positioned before that? If it is obvious that he is doing the filming in other parts, why is it not logical to assume he is here as well, especially as his arm is extended toward the camera? Or is he feeling up this mythical fourth person?

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" ?

There is absolutely NO WAY that Haise was filming that STAGED "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM " SCENE.

34 seconds right here

I've also uploaded the image to the forum in case photobucket is not working for anyone.

His back is definitely not toward the camera (as you can see his front) and his arm is extended toward it. Or are you going for the feeling up the mythical fourth person option? Why are you so vehemently opposed to people having different opinions than you?

Edited February 18, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Dave Greer]

The handle doesn't look long enough. Was it perhaps attached to a cable?

There is more footage here.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBcqPZ5zp4

Not sure I understand the question James. The handle wasn't long enough for what?

Thanks for the other clip. I've had a brief look, and it does seem to support the fact that there was no room for a fourth person. I'll try to post some more evidence tomorrow.

[Dave Greer]

Haise holding it is a reasonable explanation. He's in the right position. The camera is a lot closer to his face than it was Lovell's. The camera was being held quite close to the centre console, in between the two glare shields, but to the left of middle. When he twists the camera round to face it's possible that Lovell reached an arm out to steady the camera, or he could have been loosely holding on to the camera by the bottom of the battery pack, or he could have let go of it so it as floating free for a second or two.

Like I stated before ... It's a lame excuse ... Actually, after reading this new detailed "explaination", it's not really lame but more like ... ABSURD !

How can it possibly be absurd for one of the astronauts on board the LM to be operating the film camera? The absurd suggestion is that there is a mystery fourth man, especially when there is no evidence for him!

I don't have to prove that a 4th person is filming this part of the A13 "mission" because the film itself (showing the position of Haise as Swiggert , the middle astro-actor, is being panned ) has already proven that ..

No it hasn't! Where is he? This mystery fourth person, who is strangely invisible?

As to exactly where they were when they staged this ridiculous drama, is quite another matter ... One which would be extremely difficult to prove , if not impossible.

Since there's no evidence it wasn't staged, I agree - your task is quite literally impossible. Good luck trying though...

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" ?

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).

There is absolutely NO WAY that Haise was filming that STAGED "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM " SCENE.

You've got one thing right, it wasn't staged.

Check out the rest of the footage James linked. No mystery fourth astronaut required.

Edited February 18, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

I believe that the entire Apollo 13 mission was staged and that NASA's story about the the CM blowing up was all part of the plan to get people interested in the "Moon landings" again ...

You believe in a lot of stuff that has been proven wrong. Why should this be any different?

You are already being inaccurate: it was never claimed the CM "blew up".

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

For a change, let's see YOU bring some verifiable details into the argument. Why is that too much to ask? Asking you to bring some verifiable facts to support your claim?

[Duane Daman]

Go ahead with your report. You and I both know it has no substance.

It looks like you're wrong about that statement ... If it had no substance , then a moderator wouldn't have removed it and replaced it with this ...

"BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. "

Oh, and thanks for correcting my spelling of "ad hominem" ... A term I never even knew existed until I started "discussing " the Moon hoax on discussion forums with people like you.

You are already being inaccurate: it was never claimed the CM "blew up".

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

Using semantics again I see ..." Blew up" means the same thing as "explosion"... Your "rebuttals" are getting weaker all the time.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

And exactly where would this "verifiable data" come from ? ... Another self serving NASA site ? ....Thanks, but no thanks.

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.

Edited February 18, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Go ahead with your report. You and I both know it has no substance.

It looks like you're wrong about that statement ... If it had no substance , then a moderator wouldn't have removed it and replaced it with this ...

"BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. "

Oh, and thanks for correcting my spelling of "ad hominem" ... A term I never even knew existed until I started "discussing " the Moon hoax on discussion forums with people like you.

You are already being inaccurate: it was never claimed the CM "blew up".

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

Using semantics again I see ..." Blew up" means the same thing as "explosion"... Your "rebuttals" are getting weaker all the time.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

And exactly where would this "verifiable data" come from ? ... Another self serving NASA site ? ....Thanks, but no thanks.

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.

Duane...these guys never heard of a STAGE SET. In the movie A13, they think Ron Howard

crowded camera, lights, director, gaffer, best boy, et al into a real CM. In reality, it was stage sets

with open sides...SO THE FOURTH PERSON IN THE MODULE was actually a large group of people.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Go ahead with your report. You and I both know it has no substance.

It looks like you're wrong about that statement ... If it had no substance , then a moderator wouldn't have removed it and replaced it with this ...

"BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. "

Oh, and thanks for correcting my spelling of "ad hominem" ... A term I never even knew existed until I started "discussing " the Moon hoax on discussion forums with people like you.

The word was removed as it is not allowed on the forum. Your claim that I attacked you or Jack is still baseless as you have yet to show it. As I said in an earlier post, If you can show this, I would be glad to take any comments back. You could have handled this civilly Duane as I would have been glad to take my comments back if shown to be wrong. You still could and I would be happy to apologize. You would however have to show where I attacked you or Jack and I'm afraid that will be hard for you.

As for your misspelling of ad hominem, it just shows that you don't really read the posts with opposing viewpoints as I corrected you just a few posts back. But that's not really a surprise for anyone here now is it? It would be nice though if you actually read the posts in the forum as we all do for you.

[Duane Daman]

As for your misspelling of ad hominem, it just shows that you don't really read the posts with opposing viewpoints as I corrected you just a few posts back. But that's not really a surprise for anyone here now is it? It would be nice though if you actually read the posts in the forum as we all do for you.

I admit that I rarely read any of your posts, as they hold no interest for me.... Whereas you appear to hang on every misspelled word I post here.

Duane...these guys never heard of a STAGE SET. In the movie A13, they think Ron Howard

crowded camera, lights, director, gaffer, best boy, et al into a real CM. In reality, it was stage sets

with open sides...SO THE FOURTH PERSON IN THE MODULE was actually a large group of people.

Jack

I couldn't have said it better myself !

Edited February 18, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

... 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.

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.

[Matthew Lewis]

As for your misspelling of ad hominem, it just shows that you don't really read the posts with opposing viewpoints as I corrected you just a few posts back. But that's not really a surprise for anyone here now is it? It would be nice though if you actually read the posts in the forum as we all do for you.

I admit that I rarely read any of your posts, as they hold no interest for me.... Whereas you appear to hang on every misspelled word I post here.

Hardly. I'm sure there are plenty of misspelled words that I have missed or not commented on. However, when you misspell something so badly that it loses all meaning, you are corrected once and still do it, it becomes more significant. Your admittance that you rarely read any of other's posts further proves that you are not really hear to learn but just to try to be right. But that's not really a surprise to many I'm sure. 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.

[Duane Daman]

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

[James Douglas]

The handle doesn't look long enough. Was it perhaps attached to a cable?

There is more footage here.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBcqPZ5zp4

Not sure I understand the question James. The handle wasn't long enough for what?

Thanks for the other clip. I've had a brief look, and it does seem to support the fact that there was no room for a fourth person. I'll try to post some more evidence tomorrow.

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?

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.

[Duane Daman]

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

It's more than a possibility, since that's exactly where the Apollo astronots trained for their "missions" and where they conducted part of the Apollo Simulation Project.

[Duane Daman]

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.

Edited February 18, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Part 2.

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

Here are some of your flame baiting posts on this forum Matthew.

To me .

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

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

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 .

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

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

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

"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?"

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

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?"

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 .

Edited February 18, 2008 by Duane Daman