Duane Daman Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 And once again spoken like a ... oh nevermind . Refusing to answer my question I see ... So that must mean you did vote for that paranoid , delusional freak ... Well, you know what they say about birds of a feather and all that ... Hey , since you voted for ole' '' Tricky Dick " , I just bet you voted for that dangerous dummy Bush too ! ... I do believe I have found a picture of you watching him give one of his 'brilliant' off the cuff speeches on TV .... Say , since that dummy thinks that nasa is going to 'return to the moon' in 2020 , I found a super duper astroNOT spacesuit that he can wear to make the trip along with our new 'heros' to be ... I think he looks great in it , don't you ? Of course if he and the new nasaNOTS really do try to get anywhere near the real Moon , they will end up glowing like a Las Vegas neon sign , when they land on the radioactive lunar surface ...That is if they somehow manage to stay alive traveling through the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts . Oh , to answer your question about that studio fake A17 photo ... I guess it would be that weird 90 degree shadow angle on one rock and the double dasher shadow on another rock , which makes it look as though a second light source was used for that particular photo shoot . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Bravo boys ! ... That little performance would have to be some of your best tap dancing yet ! Jarrah is very busy at the moment but if he has made a mistake with any of his analysis , he will admit it because he is an honest person , unlike most of you . Great, I look forward to him retracting his video series where he forgot that film format directly affects angle of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) And once again spoken like a ... oh nevermind .Refusing to answer my question I see ... So that must mean you did vote for that paranoid , delusional freak ... Well, you know what they say about birds of a feather and all that ... Hey , since you voted for ole' '' Tricky Dick " , I just bet you voted for that dangerous dummy Bush too ! ... I do believe I have found a picture of you watching him give one of his 'brilliant' off the cuff speeches on TV .... (image removed by Evan Burton) Say , since that dummy thinks that nasa is going to 'return to the moon' in 2020 , I found a super duper astroNOT spacesuit that he can wear to make the trip along with our new 'heros' to be ... I think he looks great in it , don't you ? (image removed by Evan Burton) Of course if he and the new nasaNOTS really do try to get anywhere near the real Moon , they will end up glowing like a Las Vegas neon sign , when they land on the radioactive lunar surface ...That is if they somehow manage to stay alive traveling through the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts . (image removed by Evan Burton) Oh , to answer your question about that studio fake A17 photo ... I guess it would be that weird 90 degree shadow angle on one rock and the double dasher shadow on another rock , which makes it look as though a second light source was used for that particular photo shoot . Well Duane I did not answer your question because it was a STUPID question, that and the fact that I was 14 when Nixon was elected, which makes your powers of observation appear to be pretty lame. Of course that has been very clear to anyone who has followed your posts on this forum and others. The VPA shows the shadow you claim to be at 90 degrees is perfectly consistant with a single light source from behind the photographer, I'm sorry that your limited skillset does not allow you to understand this simple fact. As to the "double dasher" as you "silly tubers" like ot call it, it appears to be a shadow of a rock next to the shadow of a small crater, which is consistant with the light source in the photo...the sun behind the photographer. The silly notion that it is the result of two light sources cannot be reproduced because of the problem of double shadows also being required on the surounding landscape AND the fact that the second light source would erase PART of the first shadow. You and your "silly tubers" would know this IF you had even a basic understanding of the process of photographic lighting. BUt since the ignorance is the stock in trade of the 'silly tubers" what else can we expect? Edited May 14, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Sorry Duane, but I don't have any faith in your statement about Jarrah correcting mistakes. Other people have made similar claims, and failed to live up to them. Based on Jarrah's attitude so far, I think he'll join that ignominious group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Duane, Please don't clog the thread with irrelevant images. The occasional humorous image is quite okay, but a number of them like the above becomes tiresome. Dave, Craig: If you have no objection, I intend to edit your posts to remove the quoted images from Duane's posts. It just takes up bandwidth to repeat them for no good purpose. Thanks people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Duane,Please don't clog the thread with irrelevant images. The occasional humorous image is quite okay, but a number of them like the above becomes tiresome. Dave, Craig: If you have no objection, I intend to edit your posts to remove the quoted images from Duane's posts. It just takes up bandwidth to repeat them for no good purpose. Thanks people! Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Duane, All you are doing is answering rebuttals with frivolous images, claims about how people have voted, and generally insulting people (though you are not alone in the last). How about addressing the rebuttals? Not just repeating your own claims again, but providing evidence why the rebuttal is incorrect? To be fair, I haven't seen you do this yet. You simply repeat your claims or shift to a new claim. Prove me wrong - address the rebuttals, giving evidence why the rebuttal is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) I was just having some fun here with the joke pictures ... but I agree that there is no reason to copy my entire post to reply . Craig ... Even though you have never posted your age here , I assumed by looking at your personal profile picture that you would have been old enough to have voted for "Ticky Dick " ... but if not , then I guess that just leaves the dummy Bush that got your vote . I have admitted that I don't know the technical aspects of photography but Jarrah White does and so does Jack White ... So I would assume the only reason the Apollo propangandists continue to character assassinate both of these gentlemen, is because they fear their ability to expose the Apollo photography was the fraud it so obviously is . I sent this thread to Jarrah so could see what was being said about him here ... Here is his reply . ........................................................ Accusation : "Well Duane, Jarrah has had ample opportunity on his Youtube forum to admit his error ( which is substantial and has been proven wrong with uninpeachable evidence) and yet all he has done is to attempt to shift the argument AWAY from his error. The only honesty in question at this point is his." Reply : Tell these gentlemen that I will address these issues come MoonFaker Exhibit C, in the mean time, they can address the issues as to why I can't get the shadows to converge at a near right angle with Greer's camera. Edited May 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Tell these gentlemen that I will address these issues come MoonFaker Exhibit C, in the mean time, they can address the issues as to why I can't get the shadows to converge at a near right angle with Greer's camera. Jarrah's inability to do something is not proof of anything! I've mentioned previously, he needs to look at the shape of the object casting the shadow, and the terrain the shadow is on, as well as sun angle, field of view etc. I still don't see how he measures the angle of the shadow to be "nearly ninety degrees" - for starters the front edge of the shadow is a curve. IMO he really needs to be looking at a vanishing point analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) I will send your reply on to Jarrah ... but I think you might have to wait for his next video for all of this to be properly answered . Then all of you "gentlemen" can perform a new tap dance for that one too ! Edited May 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hey Duane, you realize that the apollo program started YEARS before Nixon was elected, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Yes I do ... and you do realize that Nixon was president when nasa faked the Apollo moon landings , right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 How would I realize that if they didn't fake them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 It's not my problem that you don't realize they were faked ... Most people go along with the status quo or follow a huge lie because they don't have the ability to think outside the box or even think for themselves . The only reason you believe the Apollo moon landings were real is because the powers that be have led you to believe so ... and the only reason more people in the scientific communtiy haven't come forward to blow the whistle on nasa's Apollo debacle , is fear of the obvious repercussions that would inevitably occur if they did . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 No Duane, no matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. I don't believe in Apollo because I the 'powers that be' told me to, I believe it because the evidence points to it being the truth, and every single little bit if evidence against it that you guys come up with doesn't stand up to the simplest examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now