Apollo Panoramas are Complete Fakes

[Dave Greer]

Nice work Dave .... Once again you took a great deal of time and effort in defending your cause ... I hope you get a bonus in your nasa paycheck this month .

I see you've nicely dodged the issue I was addressing.

No other professionals or even laymen , disputes any of nasa's other missions or space photography ... Only Apollo .... So not everyone was fooled by the faked moon photos ... Only those who can not conceive that such a thing could have been done , or are part of the cover-up to keep the lid on the hoax evidence .

Not strictly true.

On this very forum, you yourself have questioned the validity of several unmanned lunar missions - including Surveyor and Zond. Specifically when photographic evidence from several of those missions concurred with Apollo photos. You have every right to question their validity - but that doesn't rest easily with your quote from above.

EDIT - Zond was of course a Russian space programme - but the point still stands.

SECOND EDIT - it was in this thread where you claimed that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission borrowed Apollo photos to pass off as their own. That's three different missions where you claim the photographic record must be wrong because it bears strong similarities to the Apollo photographic record.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... Since nasa so obviously faked the Apollo photographs , it is quite possible that they faked others as well from other missions .

The point I was making was simple .... No one is debating or discussing the reality of nasa's unmanned missions , or their missions in LEO .

It is only the Apollo record that has been in question ever since nasa pretended to land men on the moon in 1969 .... and it is only Apollo which millions of people have sadly accepted as being a monumental hoax .

I have read both sides of this argument .... I still read the Bad Astronomy forums to this day ... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Shills like Jay Windley and Phil Plaitt keep insisting the scientific evidence exists , but so far I haven't seen any proof that the moon landings were real .

And after listening to the few Apollo astronot interviews available , it is even more evident from their lack of knowledge about their alleged missions and their conflicting stories , that none of these men ever got anywhere near the moon .

Edited February 16, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Now this is an interesting comment. Based on your lack of scientific credentials, how would you be able to assess if any evidence presented was valid or not?

This is not an ad hom, I'm not saying you are stupid or anything like that, but if you lack expertise in a subject - how can you judge how credible it is?

[Jack White]

... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Now this is an interesting comment. Based on your lack of scientific credentials, how would you be able to assess if any evidence presented was valid or not?

This is not an ad hom, I'm not saying you are stupid or anything like that, but if you lack expertise in a subject - how can you judge how credible it is?

Well I'm not saying YOU are stupid or anything like that, but that is one of the

most stupid remarks I have ever seen. Intelligence can surpass scientific credentials

or "expertise". Having a PhD does not make somebody smart. Lamson is very

expert in photography, but that does not keep him from making comments lacking

credibility. I was never a chess* expert, but I used to be able to play two games

simultaneously with good opponents and win both. I could visualize games in

my mind, but would never say I was an expert; I was pretty good without

expertise or credentials.

Jack

*I taught several friends how to play chess. One guy picked it up quickly,

after I showed him several key stratagems. Within six months he could beat

me three out of four times. Never read a book...just a smart guy.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Intelligence can surpass scientific credentials

or "expertise". Having a PhD does not make somebody smart.

I tend to agree, but my point is that intelligence will often have nothing to do with being able to assess if something is valid or not. It is the knowledge that counts, not the intelligence.

For instance, a guy produces a bar of light metal and tells you it is Aluminium Alloy 123 with 15% Incredium and can support one million times its own weight.

Can you tell if that is true or not? I couldn't. I'm pretty sure Duane couldn't. A metallurgist or structural engineer, however, probably could - because they have the expertise in that field.

So Duane says he has never seen any "hard scientific evidence" to convince him of the Moon landings - but could he properly assess scientific / technical data and determine if it is valid or not?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along.

Jack

Just how funny is that comment from the man who gave us this among others:

I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting.

I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times

of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN

MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a

computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"?

How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes

into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously.

Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack

him within minutes of any posting.

I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally.

They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word.

Jack

Edited February 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along.

Jack

Just how funny is that comment from the man who gave us this among others:

I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting.

I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times

of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN

MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a

computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"?

How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes

into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously.

Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack

him within minutes of any posting.

I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally.

They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word.

Jack

EXACTLY...thanks for reposting that. I would have been criticised had I reposted it.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along.

Jack

Just how funny is that comment from the man who gave us this among others:

I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting.

I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times

of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN

MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a

computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"?

How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes

into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously.

Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack

him within minutes of any posting.

I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally.

They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word.

Jack

Craig,

Jack was warned about that. There is no sense in raising the matter again.

[Duane Daman]

... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Now this is an interesting comment. Based on your lack of scientific credentials, how would you be able to assess if any evidence presented was valid or not?

This is not an ad hom, I'm not saying you are stupid or anything like that, but if you lack expertise in a subject - how can you judge how credible it is?

Evan .... Aside from moon rocks , can you provide any physical proof or show any real hard scientific evidence that the Apollo spacecraft really performed as nasa claimed it did and landed men on the moon six times ? ... Aside from the fox source ( nasa) , that is .

Oh , and the phony moon set photos don't count as evidence either .

[Dave Greer]

Evan .... Aside from moon rocks , can you provide any physical proof or show any real hard scientific evidence that the Apollo spacecraft really performed as nasa claimed it did and landed men on the moon six times ? ... Aside from the fox source ( nasa) , that is .

Oh , and the phony moon set photos don't count as evidence either .

Am I correct in the following statements?

The moon rocks can't be used as evidence.

The thousands of high resolution Hasselblad photos can't be used as evidence.

The hours of TV footage taken in 1/6th g vaccuum can't be used as evidence.

The hours of DAC footage can't be used as evidence.

The DAC footage of each of the landings can't be used as evidence.

The DAC footage of each of the take-offs can't be used as evidence.

The hours of audio recordings can't be used as evidence.

The testimony and integrity of the twelve astronauts who landed on the moon can't be used as evidence.

The testimony and integrity of the six astronauts who orbited the moon in the CSM can't be used as evidence.

The testimony and integrity of the three astronauts who orbited the moon on Apollo 13 can't be used as evidence.

The results from the multitude of scientific experiments performed on the lunar surface can't be used as evidence.

The independent optical observations of Apollo craft in TLC by independent amateur and professional astronomers can't be used as evidence.

The statement by Dr James van Allen that the Van Allen belts would not have prevented the Apollo missions can not be used as evidence.

The similarity of some Apollo photos with photos from other missions can't be used - i.e. Zond photos, and Lunar reconaissance Orbiter photos.

The integrity and professionalism of the thousands of designers, engineers and technicians who worked for the contractors in designing, building and testing the various components can't be used as evidence.

The testimony of the staff who manned the various tracking stations e.g. Honeysuckle Creek in Australia, can't be used as evidence.

If you won't accept any of this as evidence then I don't think we can really have a sensible debate on the issue.

EDIT - What sort of hard scientific evidence would you be prepared to accept?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... You're right ... None of the above evidence can be used to bolster nasa's claims of landing manned missions on the moon , because it all comes directly from the fox source, as usual .

As for Dr. Van Allen changing his initial radiation findings , I have read where he was rather illusive about his latter claim .... I think he only went along with the pretense of manned moon landings for reasons none of us might understand ... He never really refuted his initial claims about the extreme dangers of the radiation belts that he discovered but did change his story about the amount of radiation shielding which would have been needed after the alleged Apollo missions .... But up until the end of his life he was completely against manned space flight to other planets ... Maybe he knew something we don't ?

I posted an interesting article here by James Collier about this very subject called the Van Allen Enigma , but no one cared to reply to it ..

I don't think any of us have been told the truth about the Van Allen belts , the dangers they present to human space flight , or the amount or type of shielding which would really be needed to keep astronauts safe .... Deep space radiation is going to be the show stopper for all future manned missions , whether they be to the moon or to Mars ... Just like it stopped the manned missions 38 years ago .... "If you can't make it , fake it " ....

There is no technical , scientific proof that Apollo landed men on the moon ... outside of the fox .

[Craig Lamson]

Dave ... You're right ... None of the above evidence can be used to bolster nasa's claims of landing manned missions on the moon , because it all comes directly from the fox source, as usual .

As for Dr. Van Allen changing his initial radiation findings , I have read where he was rather illusive about his latter claim .... I think he only went along with the pretense of manned moon landings for reasons none of us might understand ... He never really refuted his initial claims about the extreme dangers of the radiation belts that he discovered but did change his story about the amount of radiation shielding which would have been needed after the alleged Apollo missions .... But up until the end of his life he was completely against manned space flight to other planets ... Maybe he knew something we don't ?

I posted an interesting article here by James Collier about this very subject called the Van Allen Enigma , but no one cared to reply to it ..

I don't think any of us have been told the truth about the Van Allen belts , the dangers they present to human space flight , or the amount or type of shielding which would really be needed to keep astronauts safe .... Deep space radiation is going to be the show stopper for all future manned missions , whether they be to the moon or to Mars ... Just like it stopped the manned missions 38 years ago .... "If you can't make it , fake it " ....

There is no technical , scientific proof that Apollo landed men on the moon ... outside of the fox .

Actually EVERYTHING Dave listed is perfectly good evidence and it proves beyond any reasonable doubt the Apollo missions were as advertised. That you fail to understand the evidence and or choose to ignore it is YOUR problem.

As for the VARB, there are many BILLIONS of dollars of commercial hardware in and around the VARB. Those who's living depends on designing this hardware know EXACTLY what is going on and they USE THE SAME DATA AS USED BY APOLLO.

To say:

"I don't think any of us have been told the truth about the Van Allen belts , the dangers they present to human space flight , or the amount or type of shielding which would really be needed to keep astronauts safe .... "

Its simply a massive mistake on your part. The correct term just might be ignorance of the subject matter.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... You're right ... None of the above evidence can be used to bolster nasa's claims of landing manned missions on the moon , because it all comes directly from the fox source, as usual .

As for Dr. Van Allen changing his initial radiation findings , I have read where he was rather illusive about his latter claim .... I think he only went along with the pretense of manned moon landings for reasons none of us might understand ... He never really refuted his initial claims about the extreme dangers of the radiation belts that he discovered but did change his story about the amount of radiation shielding which would have been needed after the alleged Apollo missions .... But up until the end of his life he was completely against manned space flight to other planets ... Maybe he knew something we don't ?

I posted an interesting article here by James Collier about this very subject called the Van Allen Enigma , but no one cared to reply to it ..

I don't think any of us have been told the truth about the Van Allen belts , the dangers they present to human space flight , or the amount or type of shielding which would really be needed to keep astronauts safe .... Deep space radiation is going to be the show stopper for all future manned missions , whether they be to the moon or to Mars ... Just like it stopped the manned missions 38 years ago .... "If you can't make it , fake it " ....

There is no technical , scientific proof that Apollo landed men on the moon ... outside of the fox .

I'll ask again, what evidence would you accept as proof?

Re the van Allen belts - astronauts on the ISS spend about 3-5% of their time in space in the South Atlantic Anomaly, as did Mir astronauts. They receive a far higher radiation dose due to the Van Allen belts than the Apollo astronuats in their quick trip through them.

In 2004 Dr Van Allen was against a manned mission to Mars due to financial reasons - he thought unmanned missions were far more cost effective. He's very probably right.