What happend on the moon?

[catfood]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503&hl=en-GB

[hagbard_celine]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503&hl=en-GB

I've got this on VHS. It's damn good! Thanks.:)

[gorana]

You know what i noticed?

Somehow each and every video on this topic always has same guys in it. You have that english guy talking about lighting, then that keysing guy and as last one that nasa spokesman. And all they do, they say same thing. No matter in which movie...

Starts to make me wonder...

G.

[crowd control]

New to this... First time I've saw the "pings(?)" the leads for the fake jumps. :D I know this kinda thing just shouldn't surprise me anymore but deary me...

[hagbard_celine]

New to this... First time I've saw the "pings(?)" the leads for the fake jumps. :D I know this kinda thing just shouldn't surprise me anymore but deary me...


The gravity effects are one of the best bits on this film. I like the scenes where the astonauts are so obviously hanging from something above them. You have to laugh!:D

[crowd control]

do you think we have ever went to the moon at all?

[hydra]

do you think we have ever went to the moon at all?


After watching vids like these, I'm really starting to have my doubts.

The main question that should bring up numerous red flags to anyone with half a brain is, if we could go 6 times no problem (and also make it 100% safe on the very first try), why have we not gone back since? The answers you always hear from those 'in the know' are 'we need to do more research'. Why? You already did it. Should be a piece of cake now....

[hagbard_celine]

do you think we have ever went to the moon at all?

Well I'd be surprised if no Earth human has ever been to the moon; especially if this talk of moon bases is true. What I dispute is that it was done when and how history claims it was: in 1969 by Project Apollo.

[vandalis]

The supposed "Moon Hoax" was started a loooong time ago by nasa itself. During a press confrence at nasa during one of Apollo missions. They had this shady looking guy hand out a piece of paper with a little american flag pin.
On this peice of paper it said that they never went to the moon and they had filmed the whole thing here. Which gave a few laughs at the time.

Now many years later when these people came across this "pin" it would remind them of what they read. This is what spawed the whole "faked moon landing" stuff.

Which means if somone said somthign about stuctures on the moon, somone else would say "well we never even WENT to the moon". Which would make people look the other way.

But they did film certain parts of the moon landing because the structures rising miles high behind the astornaughts in the real footage was plainly visible. Stanley Kubrict was the director of these films.

[de_shit]

I watched that video and it tears a new asshole in NASA. Good find catfood. Artificial light sources were used in the making of the moon footage and that video single handedly proves it.

[hagbard_celine]

The supposed "Moon Hoax" was started a loooong time ago by nasa itself. During a press confrence at nasa during one of Apollo missions. They had this shady looking guy hand out a piece of paper with a little american flag pin.
On this peice of paper it said that they never went to the moon and they had filmed the whole thing here. Which gave a few laughs at the time.

Now many years later when these people came across this "pin" it would remind them of what they read. This is what spawed the whole "faked moon landing" stuff.

Which means if somone said somthign about stuctures on the moon, somone else would say "well we never even WENT to the moon". Which would make people look the other way.

But they did film certain parts of the moon landing because the structures rising miles high behind the astornaughts in the real footage was plainly visible. Stanley Kubrict was the director of these films.

I wonder who the shady-looking guy was.:confused:

So did Stanley Kubrik actually go to the moon as well?

[somewarez]

Shameful tagging of the thread so i can watch the vids when i wake up :)

Watched 30 mins but to sleepy to stay up for the rest

[john67]

van allen belt?

[mercuryrapids]

Not only did they go to the Moon in 1969-1972, but they also went before and after... I wouldn't be surprised if there are permanently-manned bases up there right now, probably on the far side.

[hagbard_celine]

Not only did they go to the Moon in 1969-1972, but they also went before and after... I wouldn't be surprised if there are permanently-manned bases up there right now, probably on the far side.

If you watch or read some of the Disclosure Project testimony then it seems likely.

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/24/nmoon24.xml

This was published in 2002; does anyone have any updates?

I agree with both Marcus Allen and Dr Massey on this one. Whatever the telescope sees it will not count as proof. For all we know the Tranquility Base and other sites it sees could be balsawood models put there by the powers-that-be who anticipated this kind of investigation.

So Bill Kaysing (RIP) shouldn't have laid out the challenge he did on Fox TV: "Point the biggest telescope you have at the moon and if it shows the LM descent stage, the rovers and footprints you won't hear another word out of me, but if it shows just empty moonscape then I rest my case."

[mercuryrapids]

Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html)

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/coffin1.jpg

[chinchilla]

heard somewhere that there's a barrier around Earth to prevent a certain Alien DNA from leaving Earth (making it, it's prison) which DNA we suppose to have too. So if that is true, we never been :p

[mercuryrapids]

How do all these probes get out there then if there's a barrier? How do comets, asteroids and meteors get in? ;)

[nextristan]

heard somewhere that there's a barrier around Earth to prevent a certain Alien DNA from leaving Earth (making it, it's prison) which DNA we suppose to have too. So if that is true, we never been

How do all these probes get out there then if there's a barrier? How do comets, asteroids and meteors get in? ;)

if such a thing did exist, i imagine it being similar to the new crowd control weapons in the US. if a living organism passes thru this 'shield' then it experiences indescribable pain perhaps to the point of death.

but something that cant feel pain wouldn't have a problem.

and perhaps it gets even fancier than that to the point of singling out different species/races etc.



personally im in the boat that humans have been there, and probably occupy it. but who really knows.

[john67]

How do all these probes get out there then if there's a barrier? How do comets, asteroids and meteors get in? ;)

van allen belt

[mercuryrapids]

What about it? The Apollo spacecraft passed through the VA belt in an hour or so. As for the radiation dosage the astronauts received:

Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

from http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

[chinchilla]

How do all these probes get out there then if there's a barrier? How do comets, asteroids and meteors get in? ;)

Because I never said it stopped things getting in, only out. Also probes don't have DNA :p

[veritas2007]

heard somewhere that there's a barrier around Earth to prevent a certain Alien DNA from leaving Earth (making it, it's prison) which DNA we suppose to have too. So if that is true, we never been :p

Interesting concept I had not heard of previously. Do you have any sources on this?? (books or links)

Thanks

[mercuryrapids]

Because I never said it stopped things getting in, only out. Also probes don't have DNA :p

Ah well, that's alright then... :D

[chinchilla]

Interesting concept I had not heard of previously. Do you have any sources on this?? (books or links)

Thanks

I watched a set of videos called "2012" by Michael Tsarion which explains stuff such as:

An alien race came to Earth because it was nearly wiped out by another race, they were followed to our solar system, so they set up fake bases on a planet that was between Saturn and Jupiter. Then made real bases on Earth deep in caves.


The alien race that tracked them destroyed the entire planet between Saturn and Jupiter, creating the asteroid belt.


The alien race then after finding life on Earth (primitive us) they set a barrier around the entire planet to stop the race they were after from leaving if they were hiding amongst us (which they were).


Later on they made cities such as Atlantis and starting trying to make a slave race from primitive us, giving us their dna etc


Also talks about how they also created a "Reptilian" race since we were to uncontrollable, they found controlling the reptiles much more easier.


From that day on, the reptiles rule us, the aliens are frozen somewhere awaiting for us to break the barrier for them and we are still trying to break that barrier in secret.


The barrier is meant to be 300 miles up and around the planet.


I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it is interesting. :)

[mercuryrapids]

The main asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter. There are the Trojan asteroids that share Jupiter's orbit. There are a few, known as Centaurs, between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. And, of course, there are ones that seem to have independent orbits. The total mass of all the asteroids in the solar system is estimated at less than that of our Moon.

[adimon]

3 quick points

1. The Official Apollo 11 footage is undeniably a hoax. There are so many scientific flaws it's laughable. As for the subsequent missions, they are less dodgy, but I would still argue they are footage of hoax missions.

2. A great deal of hoax footage also originates on the side of the CTs. I would put the above footage in this category, after looking at it.

3. The Van Allen belt is actually stronger as evidence that the astronauts did go into space than evidence they didn't, due to the medical information showing signs of mild radiation damage. However, I still conclude that being in space is not the same as being on the moon. Gordo Cooper, John Glen et al certainly orbited, and others may have gone further. But I've not as yet seen incontrovertible evidence of humans on the moon. Where gravity is a fraction of Earth gravity, why did they not jump huge distances? It it was real,it would have been television heaven for the dumbing-downers. :)


I watched a set of videos called "2012" by Michael Tsarion which explains stuff such as:

An alien race came to Earth because it was nearly wiped out by another race, they were followed to our solar system, so they set up fake bases on a planet that was between Saturn and Jupiter. Then made real bases on Earth deep in caves.


The alien race that tracked them destroyed the entire planet between Saturn and Jupiter, creating the asteroid belt.


The alien race then after finding life on Earth (primitive us) they set a barrier around the entire planet to stop the race they were after from leaving if they were hiding amongst us (which they were).


Later on they made cities such as Atlantis and starting trying to make a slave race from primitive us, giving us their dna etc


Also talks about how they also created a "Reptilian" race since we were to uncontrollable, they found controlling the reptiles much more easier.


From that day on, the reptiles rule us, the aliens are frozen somewhere awaiting for us to break the barrier for them and we are still trying to break that barrier in secret.


The barrier is meant to be 300 miles up and around the planet.


I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it is interesting. :)

EDIT: It's interesting only if ANYONE could supply ANY evidence for this 'theory' whatsoever.

Until then it's not interesting, because anyone could construct an even barmier 'theory' which still adds up, and sell loads of books this way.

[chinchilla]

EDIT: It's interesting only if ANYONE could supply ANY evidence for this 'theory' whatsoever.

Until then it's not interesting, because anyone could construct an even barmier 'theory' which still adds up, and sell loads of books this way.


Nice mind you have, but I didn't ask for approval.

It is interesting because I said so, not because of evidence or anyone agreeing, because I think it's interesting, being my post it is my opinion. As stated, I don't believe in the theory and I am supplying information I know is interesting.

The main asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter. There are the Trojan asteroids that share Jupiter's orbit. There are a few, known as Centaurs, between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. And, of course, there are ones that seem to have independent orbits. The total mass of all the asteroids in the solar system is estimated at less than that of our Moon.

Ok maybe I had the wrong planets :p

[hagbard_celine]

Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html)

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/coffin1.jpg

Thanks for the update.

I said on the Aulis forum just before the Clementine launch that I wasn't holding my breath for some Earth-shattering revellation. If the Soviet space agency has collaborated with NASA then I don't doubt that the Japanese have too.

[hagbard_celine]

3
3. The Van Allen belt is actually stronger as evidence that the astronauts did go into space than evidence they didn't, due to the medical information showing signs of mild radiation damage. However, I still conclude that being in space is not the same as being on the moon. Gordo Cooper, John Glen et al certainly orbited, and others may have gone further. But I've not as yet seen incontrovertible evidence of humans on the moon. Where gravity is a fraction of Earth gravity, why did they not jump huge distances? It it was real,it would have been television heaven for the dumbing-downers. :)
.

The thing that bothers me about the whole radiation thing is that the Van Allen belts were only discovered in 1958 when the space programme was already underway. It was also just three years before President Kennedy officially launched the Apollo missions during his State-of-the-Union address in 1961. So they were dealing with a mostly unknown hazard. It seems that this uncertainty continues because in the 1990's a Reading University publication gave new figures for the Van Allen belts that were totaly different to the original NASA ones! Operation Starfish Prime in 1962 complicated the situation even further by creating a third belt inside the two main ones! this belt was even more instense than the natural ones and, even though it is fading slowly, will still be more intense than the natural ones for at least another 50 years.

And you're right, Ad; being in space (low Earth orbit) and being on the moon are very different because on the moon there is no protection at all from solar flares. The moon has no magnetic field to speak of and therefore has no Van Allen belts of its own. The Van Allen belts, though they can cause problems for astronauts, actually are essential for life on Earth because they protect us from the most harmful radiation from the sun. The Apollo missions took place during the solar maximum, the most active period of the sun's activity cycle. An X-type solar flare could have ended it all, killing the astronauts in a very grusome manner on live TV. Would you have risked it?... Me neither.

[withthespigotonhot]

I've been doubting the "official" Apollo moon landing as well. A question that has always arisen in my head was: Is it possible to see the flag that was allegedly placed on the surface with some sort of high powered telescope?

[frenat]

No. There is not a telescope on Earth or above it that has the resolution necessary to resolve any of the objects left on the Moon. The best have a resolution of a few hundred feet per pixel. However, in the next few years there will be a probe in orbit around the Moon that should be able to.

[adimon]

I've been doubting the "official" Apollo moon landing as well. A question that has always arisen in my head was: Is it possible to see the flag that was allegedly placed on the surface with some sort of high powered telescope?

No. There is not a telescope on Earth or above it that has the resolution necessary to resolve any of the objects left on the Moon. The best have a resolution of a few hundred feet per pixel. However, in the next few years there will be a probe in orbit around the Moon that should be able to.

I want proof of humans on the moon, though. Flags can be planted by automatons.

I don't doubt for a second that robotic missions have been all over our solar system, butas for humans anywhere other than orbit, I'm not convinced. Footprints are not proof, and as I say above, the Apollo footage is laughable.

[siliconpsychosis]

The Chinese sent a probe to the moon only last week so we ought to receive images of mans previous visits to the moon anytime soon. But because we never did send men to the moon we may not see these images. Or if we do see a flag or such they may have been placed at a later date to look like man had visited previous.

[veritas2007]

Has anyone seen this before?

301 Moved Permanently

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

[mercuryrapids]

I want proof of humans on the moon, though. Flags can be planted by automatons.

I don't doubt for a second that robotic missions have been all over our solar system, butas for humans anywhere other than orbit, I'm not convinced. Footprints are not proof, and as I say above, the Apollo footage is laughable.


Basically you're saying that no proof is good enough. If the flags and footprints are not proof enough, what else do you want? Anything that is found, you would say that they could have been planted there by robots, but this is not true. How would a robotic probe plant a flag without leaving evidence of it being there? Or are you saying that humanoid robots in boots went there?

Your mind is made up, it seems, anyway.:rolleyes:

[siliconpsychosis]

Sorry Mercuryrapids, but I find your idea preposterous! Robots wearing boots planting the flag on the moon! Thats silly.

However sending some ship to the moon hovering over the surface, whilst planting the flag with an extended armlike device, is far more plausible. Then strap a real boot to this limb and mimick the movement of spacemen. A perfect faked flag placing by human astronauts!

Im sure Ive seen a picture somewhere proving it!

;)

[veritas2007]

Mercuryrapids.

If you watch the video link I posted (and I see someone else has posted a clip from it in the General section), you'll see footage from Apollo 11 faking their distance from the earth.

As sad as it makes me (because I've loved the idea of space travel since I was a child), it would appear to be some pretty damning evidence that the whole Apollo mission was a fake.

Interesting comment is made on the Van Allen Belt which fits in rather nicely with what Michael Tsarion has said about the "Real Stargate" around the Earth (thanks for the pointer on that one Chinchilla - fascinating stuff).

[frenat]

They are not faking anything. If they were in low Earth orbit as the makers of the video claim, the clouds and land masses of the Earth would move by very quickly. Instead they are stationary. Also, the Apollo capsule would have been the brightest object in the night sky if they had stayed in low Earth orbit. Sibrel lies about the video being classified, lies about ti not being available elsewhere (it was available for sale through NASA for years the same way Sibrel got it and through spacecraftfilms.com long before Sibrel found it), and he lies that it hasn't been seen before (most of it was broadcast live on tv at the time). Sibrel heavily edits the footage to try to make the viewer think what he wants you to think. There is a section where the astronauts mention the camera is close to the glass then Sibrel shows the lights brighten and the camera is back further. What he edited out was the part where you can see the astronauts move the camera back and talk about it while doing so. Is that honest journalism? Sibrel can't even get the window correct. He says they are filming out a round window and it is obvious in parts that is instead a trapezoidal shaped window. The bluish glow you see in the windows in one part is not from the Earth but is sunlight refracting off of the coated glass.
More info here last one down.
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
and here
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
specifically this paragraph

Recently discovered video shows NASA staging part of the Apollo 11 mission. The astronauts, who never left low Earth orbit, used a camera trick to make viewers think that they were seeing a round Earth on their TV screens.

This claim can be credited to Bart Sibrel, who is more than happy to sell you (for a profit) this "never before seen footage" in his so-called documentary A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. I have recently viewed this video and find it to be a horrible example of journalism. Sibrel simply beats us over the head with his own interpretation and conclusions while not providing any evidence or data that would permit the viewer to evaluate Sibrel's claims or formulate an independent opinion. The purpose of the video is not to inform the viewer, but rather to manipulate. The NASA video to which he refers is neither "never before seen" nor evidence of fraud. Despite Sibrel's billing that this footage is the "smoking gun", very little of it is actually shown and that which is shown is highly edited and voiced over with commentary. The alleged "camera trick" is simply a figment of Bart Sibrel's imagination as there is nothing seen to suggest the slightest foul play on the part of NASA. This Web page, Apollo 11 TV Broadcasts (http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/), provides an excellent debunking of Bart Sibrel's claims; I invite you to give it a read.

[veritas2007]

Marvelous stuff Frenat!!!

I hadn't realised that Sibrel was responsible for the link I provided. I didn't watch the end of the film because it was just slow-mo of the JFK shooting and I didn't want to see that again.

I did watch though, after A funny thing..., a film called Astronauts Gone Wild which is a series of interviews with Apollo mission specialists by Sibrel and I have to say I thought his method of journalism stunk which is why I did not post that up too.

The bloke has an agenda which I believe has nothing to do with the truth.

So, are we all back onto the official story?? Hooray for my childhood dreams!! :D

[mercuryrapids]

They are not faking anything. If they were in low Earth orbit as the makers of the video claim, the clouds and land masses of the Earth would move by very quickly. Instead they are stationary. Also, the Apollo capsule would have been the brightest object in the night sky if they had stayed in low Earth orbit. Sibrel lies about the video being classified, lies about ti not being available elsewhere (it was available for sale through NASA for years the same way Sibrel got it and through spacecraftfilms.com long before Sibrel found it), and he lies that it hasn't been seen before (most of it was broadcast live on tv at the time). Sibrel heavily edits the footage to try to make the viewer think what he wants you to think. There is a section where the astronauts mention the camera is close to the glass then Sibrel shows the lights brighten and the camera is back further. What he edited out was the part where you can see the astronauts move the camera back and talk about it while doing so. Is that honest journalism? Sibrel can't even get the window correct. He says they are filming out a round window and it is obvious in parts that is instead a trapezoidal shaped window. The bluish glow you see in the windows in one part is not from the Earth but is sunlight refracting off of the coated glass.
More info here last one down.
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
and here
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
specifically this paragraph


Yeah, what he said... :D

[rwolf]

One of my favourite subject, flake Apollo moon landings

Was it only a paper moon? James Collier


video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


28:55 Minutes into the video - but watch it all anyway


When the moon rover is supposedly going over the lunar surface the dust being thrown off the wheels is in the shape of a chicken's tale as though it is coming up against resistance-an atmosphere, if the moon rover really was on the lunar surface with no atmosphere the dust coming off the wheels would be in the form of a perfect arc

All NASA astronauts are Freemasons. Also NASA itself is covered in Masonic symbolism (David Icke, Jordan Maxwell)

All I see are little specks, little specks that make up the television picture, little specks that make up the newspaper print, and some vibrating air for sound, nothing at that convinces me that man has been to the moon


How many more times do you need to be knocked over the head before you people wake up

[graflok]

They are not faking anything. If they were in low Earth orbit as the makers of the video claim, the clouds and land masses of the Earth would move by very quickly. Instead they are stationary.

I guess you haven't heard of a geostationary orbit that matches the Earth's
rotation and thus appears to remain in a relatively fixed position in the sky
such as is used by some communication satellites.


Sibrel lies about the video being classified, lies about ti not being available elsewhere (it was available for sale through NASA for years the same way Sibrel got it and through spacecraftfilms.com long before Sibrel found it),

That's not what is said in the video. It says that portions were not broadcast
live but were instead delayed, edited and then broadcast later as if they were live.


and he lies that it hasn't been seen before (most of it was broadcast live on tv at the time).

see comment above.


Sibrel heavily edits the footage to try to make the viewer think what he wants you to think. There is a section where the astronauts mention the camera is close to the glass then Sibrel shows the lights brighten and the camera is back further. What he edited out was the part where you can see the astronauts move the camera back and talk about it while doing so.

What is your point about this edit? How does this misrepresent anything?

[withthespigotonhot]

I want proof of humans on the moon, though. Flags can be planted by automatons.

good point.

is your avatar from Feel the Magic?

[mercuryrapids]

I guess you haven't heard of a geostationary orbit that matches the Earth's rotation and thus appears to remain in a relatively fixed position in the sky such as is used by some communication satellites.

That requires an altitude of about 22,000 miles to maintain geostationary orbit. It's impossible to do at only the 300 or so miles to remain below the VA belts.

They went to the Moon. It was risky and dangerous, but they did it.

[frenat]

I guess you haven't heard of a geostationary orbit that matches the Earth's
rotation and thus appears to remain in a relatively fixed position in the sky
such as is used by some communication satellites.

I have definitely heard of it. But as already mentioned by another poster, that would put them right in the middle of the Van Allen Belts and leave them there for far longer than their quick trip through on the way to the moon.

[frenat]

Marvelous stuff Frenat!!!

I hadn't realised that Sibrel was responsible for the link I provided. I didn't watch the end of the film because it was just slow-mo of the JFK shooting and I didn't want to see that again.

I did watch though, after A funny thing..., a film called Astronauts Gone Wild which is a series of interviews with Apollo mission specialists by Sibrel and I have to say I thought his method of journalism stunk which is why I did not post that up too.

The bloke has an agenda which I believe has nothing to do with the truth.

So, are we all back onto the official story?? Hooray for my childhood dreams!! :D


Ah yes, Astronauts gone wild. You have already noticed Sibrel's despicable "journalistic" practices. What you may not know is the reason behind most of the astronauts reactions. They know who Sibrel is. He has stalked them for years, been caught tresspassing on their property and makes a living by denegrating their greatest achievements. They know (as he has admitted in the past) that there is no right answer when speaking with him. If they agree to swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon, they are called liars and cheats, if they don't they are called liars and cheats. Why should they want to deal with a person like that?

[frenat]

What is your point about this edit? How does this misrepresent anything?

Perhaps Sibrel has changed what he says about it but he has claimed before that they were lying about the camera being close to the glass and his "proof" was the edit that neglects to show the viewer the part where the camera is moved.

[hagbard_celine]

They are not faking anything. If they were in low Earth orbit as the makers of the video claim, the clouds and land masses of the Earth would move by very quickly. Instead they are stationary. Also, the Apollo capsule would have been the brightest object in the night sky if they had stayed in low Earth orbit. Sibrel lies about the video being classified, lies about ti not being available elsewhere (it was available for sale through NASA for years the same way Sibrel got it and through spacecraftfilms.com long before Sibrel found it), and he lies that it hasn't been seen before (most of it was broadcast live on tv at the time). Sibrel heavily edits the footage to try to make the viewer think what he wants you to think. There is a section where the astronauts mention the camera is close to the glass then Sibrel shows the lights brighten and the camera is back further. What he edited out was the part where you can see the astronauts move the camera back and talk about it while doing so. Is that honest journalism? Sibrel can't even get the window correct. He says they are filming out a round window and it is obvious in parts that is instead a trapezoidal shaped window. The bluish glow you see in the windows in one part is not from the Earth but is sunlight refracting off of the coated glass.
More info here last one down.
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
and here
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
specifically this paragraph

I certainly don't buy the idea that the picture of the Earth was just the Earth seen through a round stencil like Sibrel suggests, but I'm more drawn to Percy and Bennett's idea that it was a transparent picture of the Earth, taped over the window.

[hagbard_celine]

Sorry Mercuryrapids, but I find your idea preposterous! Robots wearing boots planting the flag on the moon! Thats silly.

However sending some ship to the moon hovering over the surface, whilst planting the flag with an extended armlike device, is far more plausible. Then strap a real boot to this limb and mimick the movement of spacemen. A perfect faked flag placing by human astronauts!

Im sure Ive seen a picture somewhere proving it!

;)


There's no need for robots at all, real people could do it. They just have to build the wooden models at the nearest moon base and carry them to the correct location. Then plant the flag and "clear the set". Their footprints wouldn't be a problem because we've been told the Apollo astro-nots left footprints there any way that will last far longer than any spoor on Earth because there's no atmosphere to erode them.

[hagbard_celine]

Marvelous stuff Frenat!!!

I hadn't realised that Sibrel was responsible for the link I provided. I didn't watch the end of the film because it was just slow-mo of the JFK shooting and I didn't want to see that again.

I did watch though, after A funny thing..., a film called Astronauts Gone Wild which is a series of interviews with Apollo mission specialists by Sibrel and I have to say I thought his method of journalism stunk which is why I did not post that up too.

The bloke has an agenda which I believe has nothing to do with the truth.

So, are we all back onto the official story?? Hooray for my childhood dreams!! :D

Those stupid street interviews Sibrel did are counterproductive. He's reinfocing the public stereotype of the "conspiracy nut" and basically making a fool out of all of us. I actualy found myself taking the astro-nots' side while I watched this!:eek:

[frenat]

I certainly don't buy the idea that the picture of the Earth was just the Earth seen through a round stencil like Sibrel suggests, but I'm more drawn to Percy and Bennett's idea that it was a transparent picture of the Earth, taped over the window.

But then you have to figure out how the weather patterns on the transparent picture (which would have had to be made days before) matched the weather patterns on Earth that day. I've seen this shown on another forum. But it is good that you are thinking about it though. So many just watch the pro-hoax videos and believe everything in them because it fits their predefined conclusions without stopping to think if it even makes sense.

[veritas2007]

I certainly don't buy the idea that the picture of the Earth was just the Earth seen through a round stencil like Sibrel suggests, but I'm more drawn to Percy and Bennett's idea that it was a transparent picture of the Earth, taped over the window.

If I may offer this set of videos on YouTube on that subject:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[I can't find part 4 :( ]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I believe Part 5 covers the transparency claim.

On Bart Sibrel:

In the film Astronauts Gone Wild, he goes beyond journalism. If anyone remembers Roger Cook and The Cook Report; Sibrel tries to emulate this but without the respect that Cook had for investigative journalism. Sibrel is an arse of the first order and it is completely justifiable when 'Buzz' Aldrin punches him on the chin.

[hagbard_celine]

But then you have to figure out how the weather patterns on the transparent picture (which would have had to be made days before) matched the weather patterns on Earth that day. I've seen this shown on another forum.

It depends on what methods were available to the hoaxers. It might well be possible to rig up a far more up-to-date image of the Earth and fly it up to the Apollo craft. Then again, the mountain could always come to Mohammed. By 1969, weather manipulation control was already being experiemented with. How advanced it was then I'm not sure, but if it was as developed as some people say it was then it wouldn't be hard to engineer the cloud cover to match the picture of the Earth, if it had been drawn a few days earlier. the hoaxers would already have a rough idea of what the cloud patterns might look like from conventional met office reports, so it would only be a case of nudging the weather slightly, not completely creating it.

I'm actually ready to admit that it's likely that the Apollo "spacecraft" really was at the 130,000 miles up position. There's a piece of TV footage that shows the "Earth" as a solid object as the camera pans around the CM from one window to the other. But this could still be a studio, rigged up on board another larger craft, probably one using secret Illuminati propulsion technology. They could do the shoot in space from 130,000 miles up then whip Armstrong and the others down to Area 51 to shoot the moon scenes.

[hagbard_celine]

On Bart Sibrel:

In the film Astronauts Gone Wild, he goes beyond journalism. If anyone remembers Roger Cook and The Cook Report; Sibrel tries to emulate this but without the respect that Cook had for investigative journalism. Sibrel is an arse of the first order and it is completely justifiable when 'Buzz' Aldrin punches him on the chin.

Oddly enough, I agree with you here.:p

[hagbard_celine]

If I may offer this set of videos on YouTube on that subject:

.

I've seen these films by SVector. That was what I meant in my last post.

But the thing is SVector shows the scene of the supposed transparency or stencil then cuts to the next scene of the wide-angle panning shot of the "Earth". How can he claim that an effect used in one shot proves the veracity of the effect used in another entirely different shot?

[veritas2007]

Have you got a link to any of the supposed transparency footage?

[hagbard_celine]

Have you got a link to any of the supposed transparency footage?


I've been trying to find one. It's on Bennett and Percy's film What happened on the Moon. You can buy it here. It's worth watching: http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

[veritas2007]

Thanks H_C, I'll look into that.

Two points from the for and against camps I've seen presented recently that I struggle with:

1. Lunar Module Landing
Why didn't the rocket used to decelerate the module leave any scorching on the surface?

2. Moon Dust
When the astronauts displace the moon dust when they walk, why does it simply fall to the ground as one would expect in zero atmosphere?

[mercuryrapids]

Thanks H_C, I'll look into that.

Two points from the for and against camps I've seen presented recently that I struggle with:

1. Lunar Module Landing
Why didn't the rocket used to decelerate the module leave any scorching on the surface?

2. Moon Dust
When the astronauts displace the moon dust when they walk, why does it simply fall to the ground as one would expect in zero atmosphere?

1. On the descent to the lunar surface, the engines don't work like a rocket motor in Earth's atmosphere. The gases expand quickly when they leave the engine nozzle. Some of the photos from the missions show the lunar dust disturbed quite markedly under the LM, while others it hardly seems touched at all.

2. Because it's in zero atmosphere... :)

[veritas2007]

1. On the descent to the lunar surface, the engines don't work like a rocket motor in Earth's atmosphere. The gases expand quickly when they leave the engine nozzle. Some of the photos from the missions show the lunar dust disturbed quite markedly under the LM, while others it hardly seems touched at all.

I can understand what you are saying about the gases but would the heat have caused some sort of scorching of the moons surface? I saw some footage or photos recently that showed what I can only describe as 'lines' emanating outwards from where the LM lands. These are not apparent in the shots I've seen taken from on the moon's surface.

As an interesting aside, I'm just watching the Enigma Channel's Secret Space program. I've only seen parts 1 and 2 so far and it seems to be building up to a theory on the moon landing.

[mercuryrapids]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

[veritas2007]

Does the scorching only occur on take off or during landing as well?

[mercuryrapids]

I haven't seen any scorching in the photos. Doesn't mean it isn't there, though :) I've seen a couple (can't remember which missions) where the dust beneath the LM was discoloured, but it wasn't exactly scorched. When they leave the lunar surface, only the top section of the LM takes off, so that wouldn't leave any marks on the ground. Well, I wouldn't think it would, but I ain't an expert. :)

[mercuryrapids]

Apollo 12:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6908.jpg

Apollo 14:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9259.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9261.jpg

[graflok]

That requires an altitude of about 22,000 miles to maintain geostationary orbit. It's impossible to do at only the 300 or so miles to remain below the VA belts.


It wasn't necessary to maintain it more than a few seconds/minutes while the
footage was shot. That wouldn't require the altitude you mentioned.

[graflok]

I have definitely heard of it. But as already mentioned by another poster, that would put them right in the middle of the Van Allen Belts and leave them there for far longer than their quick trip through on the way to the moon.

No, it wouldn't. They would only need to maintain their position relative to the earth while the footage was shot.

[graflok]

Perhaps Sibrel has changed what he says about it but he has claimed before that they were lying about the camera being close to the glass and his "proof" was the edit that neglects to show the viewer the part where the camera is moved.

Show us where he said this please.

[frenat]

No, it wouldn't. They would only need to maintain their position relative to the earth while the footage was shot.

and they can't do that without being in a geostationary orbit (~22,000 miles up) or falling straight down.

[frenat]

Show us where he said this please.

and just how am I supposed to do that if he has changed his statement? It is mentioned in multiple reviews of his film across the internet and in older copies of his videos if he doesn't still say it. I can't confirm whether it is still in his films or not from my computer.

[graflok]

and they can't do that without being in a geostationary orbit (~22,000 miles up) or falling straight down.

Post a reference on this please.

[graflok]

and just how am I supposed to do that if he has changed his statement?

You made a claim. You must have gotten that form somewhere. I'm only
asking you to document it.

[frenat]

Post a reference on this please.
Prove they can. It is basic orbital dynamics. If you are not moving, you are falling.

[mercuryrapids]

When in orbit, you're not really flying around the world, you are falling around it, but you are going so fast that you stay at the same height. The object in orbit is continually falling towards the Earth, but it's going fast enough so that it keeps missing, essentially. That's why the proper term for zero-gravity is freefall. That's why spacecraft fire retro-thrusters to slow themselves down so they fall back to Earth. 'De-orbit burn', I think it's called.

[frenat]

When in orbit, you're not really flying around the world, you are falling around it, but you are going so fast that you stay at the same height. The object in orbit is continually falling towards the Earth, but it's going fast enough so that it keeps missing, essentially. That's why the proper term for zero-gravity is freefall. That's why spacecraft fire retro-thrusters to slow themselves down so they fall back to Earth. 'De-orbit burn', I think it's called.

Exactly, to be more correct in my post I should have said if you are not moving, you'll soon be hitting the ground.

[frenat]

To believe that they faked the footage by "stopping" the capsule in orbit you would have to explain how they suddenly lost a velocity of ~7 km per second, didn't fall to Earth, and then regained the ~7km per second velocity to continue their orbit. 7km per second is based on a typical orbital height of about 300 km above the surface of the Earth.

[optimus pigpot]

do you think we have ever went to the moon at all?

No proof, I wasn't there so it's all bullshit needed by needy people who don't like their own life and need to fill it with crap........

Same as religion just a different kind of religion....

[eternal_spirit]

Most amazing moon theory anyone?

[graflok]

Prove they can. It is basic orbital dynamics. If you are not moving, you are falling.

Here are some NASA videos showing the earth from the space station or shuttle.
The Earth appears to be moving very slowly to me. Slowly enough to fit what is
shown in the moon hoax video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxFOm8BC4GE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxd9SE4W4Ag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHyonFhWp6w

[frenat]

Not if you've seen the entire unedited clip where they focus on the Earth for 20+ minutes at a time.

[hagbard_celine]

and they can't do that without being in a geostationary orbit (~22,000 miles up) or falling straight down.

Sibrel's stencil theory is pretty weak actually.

[david c]

Has anybody seen this?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Soil kicked by the astronaut didn't make the flag move as the frame doesn't move. It wasn't static electricity because the flag doesn't move at all at the beginning of the clip when the astronaut is standing right next to it. He's too far away to have touched it--compare the size of the astronaut's head when he's standing right next to the flag at the beginning of the clip to its size when he walks past it at the two minute-thirty five second mark. He's obviously too far away to have touched it.

[hagbard_celine]

Has anybody seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

Soil kicked by the astronaut didn't make the flag move as the frame doesn't move. It wasn't static electricity because the flag doesn't move at all at the beginning of the clip when the astronaut is standing right next to it. He's too far away to have touched it--compare the size of the astronaut's head when he's standing right next to the flag at the beginning of the clip to its size when he walks past it at the two minute-thirty five second mark. He's obviously too far away to have touched it.


Yes!:) Well spotted by Greenmagoos!

Someone suggested to me that this is static discharge, but the astronaut doesn't get close enough for that. Also I don't see any other signs of static in the flag's cloth.

[weston white]

Sibrel is that the guy that actually got his ass kicked by the supposed moon invaders? hahaaa, I was laughing so hard I was crying when I watched that video awhile back.

[weston white]

What about the temperatures on the moon? How would they be able to sustain them not to mention their equipment... there was something I recall being mentioned that the camera or video would not function properly either.

[david c]

Hey frenat--

Are you still around?

I'd like to hear your analysis of this issue.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1194111920
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

[hagbard_celine]

What about the temperatures on the moon? How would they be able to sustain them not to mention their equipment... there was something I recall being mentioned that the camera or video would not function properly either.

The official story is that because the heat was all IR radiated then there was no need for any special heat protection. A reflective metal case was enough to keep the camera etc safe. There was no air to conduct heat and no convection currents. But I'd have thought that the metal case would heat up under the radiated heat and radiate its own heat from its inner surface onto the delicate plastic, phosphor and film inside. This is certainly a problem for larger objects like spacecraft. They sometimes have to roll slowly to prevent one side from getting too hot! And heat is not the worst problem; the big killer is cold. In the shade the temperature quickly drops to minus three-figures. The interior eletronics and film etc would be deep frozen. The astronomer Douglas Arnold has confirmed that, although the cameras were all custom-built, the film used in Apollo was quite ordinary Kodak roll-film; the kind you can buy over the counter of any chemists shop. It had no special emulsion or coating, as Brian Welch claims in his interview with Bennett and Percy.

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/11/mythbustin-the-moon-hoax-part-i/

This should be worth watching! I need a good laugh!:D

Go back to bed, America!

[shadowworks]

The gravity effects are one of the best bits on this film. I like the scenes where the astonauts are so obviously hanging from something above them. You have to laugh!:D

They would not be amused in the Hong Kong stunt industry, they would be positively upset at such bad wire work, Jet Lee and Jackie Chan would say this is amature night at the Apollo, boom boom;)

[kernelpower]

that guy has some quality vids on his google video page!!

[hagbard_celine]

They would not be amused in the Hong Kong stunt industry, they would be positively upset at such bad wire work, Jet Lee and Jackie Chan would say this is amature night at the Apollo, boom boom;)


:D:D:D

[david c]

Somebody just pointed this out to me in the comment section of a YouTube video.

Start watching this clip at the 50 second mark.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Collins' jacket moves just the way things move in gravity and they are supposed to be in zero-gravity.

[hagbard_celine]

Somebody just pointed this out to me in the comment section of a YouTube video.

Start watching this clip at the 50 second mark.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Collins' jacket moves just the way things move in gravity and they are supposed to be in zero-gravity.

Well spotted!:cool: It does look like there's some kind of pull downwards. That shouldn't happen in micro-G.

(BTW The theme the producer inteneded is a fallacious one. He's using an effect in one shot to dispove and effect in an entirely differnet shot. Just because a diferent method was used in the featured shot doesn't mean there was no transprency used in the first one.)

[david c]

Here's something else I found.

Compare the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave to the way the corner of collins' jacket behaves.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
(first ten seconds and last 30 seconds)


http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

(BTW The theme the producer inteneded is a fallacious one. He's using an effect in one shot to dispove and effect in an entirely differnet shot. Just because a diferent method was used in the featured shot doesn't mean there was no transprency used in the first one.)
Why don't you join the debate in the comment section of the video? I'm posting there under the name Cosmored.

[hagbard_celine]

Here's something else I found.

Compare the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave to the way the corner of collins' jacket behaves.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
(first ten seconds and last 30 seconds)


http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)


Why don't you join the debate in the comment section of the video? I'm posting there under the name Cosmored.

I've been too busy debating the issue in other places, but I'll join you.

Yes, the way fabrics behave in microgravity is very distinctive. Without the pull downwards, elastic and hems rise up like that. If there was any time when this effect was absent then you'd have to ask if the shot was really in microgravity?;)

[the itinerant shrubber]

Somebody just pointed this out to me in the comment section of a YouTube video.

Start watching this clip at the 50 second mark.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Collins' jacket moves just the way things move in gravity and they are supposed to be in zero-gravity.

Its behaving like that because Colins is constantly moving the jacket and changing the direction of the fabric. Newtons first law of motion in action. Look it up.

Why does a guy drive up a hill every day to an observatory to take measurements of the distance of the moon using a laser fired onto a mirror that according to fake moon landing theorists was never placed there? Is he part of this grand conspiracy?
Its also strange how so many of the astronauts have since turned to religion or become spiritual since their trip to the moon. Hanging around in a aircraft carrier doesnt do that to a man.

[3stepsahead]

then you maybe can answer this

why is it that we can look FAAAR into space oh was it closing in to the very start of the universe, and we cannot get detailed photos of the moon?

if things are going to be so contradictionary sp then its about time to seriously rethink this
the apollo photos looks fake btw




now the second thing about this is as usual why is it so much spent on traveling to space when there is so much to discover on earth.

[the itinerant shrubber]

then you maybe can answer this

why is it that we can look FAAAR into space oh was it closing in to the very start of the universe, and we cannot get detailed photos of the moon?

if things are going to be so contradictionary sp then its about time to seriously rethink this
the apollo photos looks fake btw




now the second thing about this is as usual why is it so much spent on traveling to space when there is so much to discover on earth.

Not sure I understand the question but if you mean why can we see the begining of the universe but not deatils of the moon... We cant physically see the beginings of the universe,only detect various spectrums that undergo the doplar effect or red-shift which shows us that the universe is expanding and from that we can point the radio telescopes further out into space and into the centre. (if their is such a thing)
We dont have detailed pictures of the moon becouse terrestrial optical telescopes can only see so much becouse they rely on collecting light. Thats why a typical 6 inch telescope can show you the rings of saturn millions of miles away but couldnt show you a house 5 miles away.
All of the space telescopes are aimed at deep space and not on our local system.The only good pics we have of our solar system are from the Voyager probes they used the sun to slingshot themselves into orbit and werent anywhere near the moon as its on our doorstep in the scale of things.
We went to the moon for the same reason we conqured Everest:becouse we wanted to. Why do the moon landing pics look fake? What do you think they should look like?

[talkingchimp]

nothing happened on the moon as we have never been there.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Not only did we go to the Moon, we brought a Car with us and drove around some.

Science Rocks!!! :D

[northern_light]

The following material is from a presentation by Alex Collier in January 1996.
"Far out" stuff to most I am sure, but definatley interesting. Worth the read.

"Q: Could you elaborate more on the nature of Earth's moon?

AC: The moon is quite the enigma. Apparently, it was brought here 11,213 years ago. It came here as a base,
carrying extraterrestrials coming here to colonize. They did in fact
colonize. Many of who are left of them are living underground on Earth from
100-200 miles beneath the surface. Now, I've gotten a lot of crap for
talking about this, but I'm just not going to shut up. The beings that
brought this satellite in orbit around Earth are responsible for over
31,000 human children disappearing from the surface of the Earth. Over
100,000 children per year are vanishing from the surface of the Earth, and
the world governments know about this. There was a full-out war on the moon about 9,600 years ago between the Orion Group and the Pleiadians. They are now at war again, and there are skirmishes happening now outside our solar system between the Pleiadians and the Greys.


Q: Did our astronauts really go there?

AC: I know there has been a lot of talk about this. Many of the pictures
that you have seen from the surface of the moon were faked, because the
actual pictures showed that there was "stuff" all over the place. Yes, they
did go, but there was manipulation of the result involved. Morenae has told
me that the United States government has 53 of its own disks stationed on
the moon. The astronauts were told to shut up and not say anything. The gravity on the bottom of Copernicus crater is equal to that in Chicago, Illinois. Apparently, it is not the rotation of planets that creates gravity, but some aspect of solar radiation. I know this flies in the face of what you have been told, but it is a fact.

Now, our moon does not turn on its axis. We always see only 59% of it. Our moon is the only one that does that. The depiction of NASA's view of how moon bases would look in a 1958 issue of National Geographic is in fact exactly what they actually built on the moon in February 1958. When Kennedy said "we are going to send men to the moon," part of our government - the NSA - was already there. The humans on the moon are Aryans by birth, they're with extraterrestrials. You can read between the lines to guage the implications of that last statement.

Now, you don't hear much about the Russian space program, but let me tell
you something. They are also a major player on the moon. They don't work
for us, but for the international bankers, who are the new "priesthood".

According to the Andromedans, there were 9 huge domed cities on the moon on the far side, and these domes housed up to 5 million extraterrestrials at
one time. There was water, vegetation and everything. These covered
hundreds of square miles. When Richard Hoagland shows you pictures of the
"shards" that are miles in height, he's right. There's an atmosphere on the
far side of the moon. The astronauts took pictures of clouds."

I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but he also states that the Greys had to assist the astronauts, mainly because of a type of energy grid that surrounds the earth.

More on the moon, an extract from his book (He has released it for free here (http://www.exopolitics.org/collier-dsg1.pdf) btw, very much recommended)

"Artificial Terra environments are being created all
the time to house and support hand-picked personnel by the World Government.
The human leader of this base or facility is called Mr. Secretary. The Moon now houses approximately
36,719 human beings from Earth, a small colony; only Aryans by birth. According to the work that is being
done above and underground to expand the facilities, the Andromedans foresee a population of 600,000 in
the very near future. Much contact is taking place on the moon between regressive aliens and World Order
humans.
Currently, the World Order has fifty-three Earth built UFO type space craft on the moon. Also, other
weapons beings built on the moon are particle beam weapons, lasers, nuclear bomb satellites, and
anti-matter weapon systems. Anti-gravity anomalies on Earth were used to send equipment and hardware
to the Moon. Pine Gap, Australia and Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean were the primary launching
areas. Also, Siberia in Russia is another location.

There is an atmosphere on the far side of the Moon being created on the surface for extended habitation.
There is also water, lakes, and vegetation. They are literally turning it into a habitable colony. From there,
the World Government decided to go to Mars in March of 1959. This ultra secret space program was
developed and launched largely from the Soviet Union, simply because of its natural resources and size.
They could virtually do everything in secret. Upon first arriving on the moon, the World Order astronauts,
with help from the Grays, reopened the ancient underground facility. We've had a working colony on the
moon since 1961 according to the Andromedans.
When the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, the World Order had been there for some time. This
knowledge and technology was withheld from the lower levels of NASA and our military. NASA has been
used as a blind to keep the people from truly knowing what was going on out there. The astronauts were
silenced under threats and they remain so today."

[hagbard_celine]

nothing happened on the moon as we have never been there.

I think we probably have been there. What I doubt is that we've been there when, how, why and by with the personnel that history tells us we did.

[skyline]

I listened to a recent interview on Project Camelot with John Lear who stated he had just recieved a picture from a British astronomer showing a power station or some kind of reactor on the visible side of the moon.Apparently its the area at the top which seems very white in most published pics

Lear has some strange idea's especially the Soul catcher theory and the fact the moon has an atmosphere and you can breath but to be honest the worlds mad and anything is possible

[hagbard_celine]

I listened to a recent interview on Project Camelot with John Lear who stated he had just recieved a picture from a British astronomer showing a power station or some kind of reactor on the visible side of the moon.Apparently its the area at the top which seems very white in most published pics

Yes, that was a good interview!:)

The bloke designing it was told to just do it and not ask awkward questions: like "How are you going to get thjis huge thing to the moon?"

[bipolar bear]

I listened to a recent interview on Project Camelot with John Lear who stated he had just recieved a picture from a British astronomer showing a power station or some kind of reactor on the visible side of the moon.Apparently its the area at the top which seems very white in most published pics

Lear has some strange idea's especially the Soul catcher theory and the fact the moon has an atmosphere and you can breath but to be honest the worlds mad and anything is possible

How did the astronomer come by this picture and has it been shown?

[redskywalker]

wow I love your pic pmsl total KITT(y) love it :D

thought this would show up at the place i meant but it went to the end I was refering to Crowd controls pic

[graflok]

The supposed "Moon Hoax" was started a loooong time ago by nasa itself. During a press confrence at nasa during one of Apollo missions. They had this shady looking guy hand out a piece of paper with a little american flag pin.
On this peice of paper it said that they never went to the moon and they had filmed the whole thing here. Which gave a few laughs at the time.


In his latest book, Dark Mission, Richard Hoagland states he was a
witness to this. He said there were 2 men handing the material out at a press
conference. One was a NASA PR guy, the other guy was unknown to him.
Hoagland did not know the reason.

Personally, I think it's a pretty bizarre thing for them to do and I can't think of
an honest reason for doing it.

BTW, Hoagland believes the Apollo missions did go to the moon but that NASA
faked certain aspects to hide what they found.

[drc_]

Hoagland believes the Apollo missions did go to the moon but that NASA
faked certain aspects to hide what they found.

I believe this too. They found shit, or they knew they were gonna find shit in advance...

I still think the moon was the object that the Reptilians used as a 'spaceship' to get to this planet. Nowadays there are probably bases of some kind.

[redskywalker]

still waiting for disclosure :(

[pilgrim]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[cheeb]

Well Me And This Feller Called Droinke Have Been Thrashing This Out On Various Forums...

http://***************/v3/viewtopic.php?t=701

http://*************************************/general-chat-f4/signs-that-the-moon-astronauts-were-mind-controlled-t103.htm

Nasa Moonscape

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6827/moonpanapollo17big.jpg

I Have Isolated The Mountain In Question...

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/205/robotsarecrap.jpg

Buzz Aldrin In Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1969.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2541/apollohawaiish2.jpg

It Is The Same Mountain...!!!


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/205/robotsarecrap.jpg

The Girl In The Background Is Even In The Same Scale As The Astronaught Running Towards The Mooncar...!!!

They Look Like Film Crew Vans To Me...!!!

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3346/filmcrewvans.jpg

The C4 programme 'The Worst Jobs In History' programme with Tony Robinson has recently been aired.
A sizeable film crew has also visited for a production featuring Johnny Vegas.

From An Non Conspiracy Railway Entheusiast Site...

http://www.peakrail.co.uk/archive.htm

It May Be A Bit Disjointed But I Couldn't Be Bothered Editing It Properly...!!!

:rolleyes:

[cheeb]

I Am Just Concentrating On The Official Nasa Photos...

Which Would Not Have To Be Filmed In A Vacuum...!!!

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2541/apollohawaiish2.jpg

Pictures Are On The NASA Photo Site,

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Now That Buzz Aldrin Photo Bothered Me A Bit Because I Found It On A Conspiracy Site...
Not An Official NASA Site...

And We All Know What Frauds "Them Lot" Can Be...!!!

But Doing A Bit If Digging It Does Seem That The "Astronaughts" Were In Hawaii...

"In 1965, NASA Astronauts came to Hawaii for training.
Among them were:
Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin (Apollo 11, Gemini 12),
Alan Bean (Apollo 12, Skylab 2),
David Scott (Apollo 9 & 15, Gemini 8),
Charles Conrad (Apollo 12, Gemini 5 & 11),
Richard Gordon (Apollo 12, Gemini 11),
Don Eisele (Apollo 7)
and Roger Chaffee (who was in the Apollo 1 tragedy).

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4861/apollosignaturesqg1.jpg


(There Is A Bit Of A Discrepancy With The Dates Though...???)

Signatures from MLO's(Mauna LOA Observatory, Hawaii) guest book...:
From A Federal Government Site:

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/webmuseum/timeline/1967astronauts.html

So Muana Kea Can Be One Possible Site For Fake Moon Photos...

Possible Locations For The Moon Landings"Set"

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7420/apollomuanakeafr5.jpg
Mauna Kea, Hawaii

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2394/apolloicelandna6.jpg
Iceland

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6766/apollosetjd6.jpg
Studio In Area 51 Nevada...!!!

Here Is Another More Likeley Location...!!!

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4778/apollocinderlake.jpg
(Cinder Lake Crater Field #2, Flagstaff, Arizona.)

A few years before the first landing of an Apollo crew on the moon, scientists recontoured a volcanic field just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona, with artificial impact craters resembling those found on Mare Tranquillitatis, the proposed first manned American landing site.

With high explosives, they terraformed a lunar surrogate right here on the surface of the earth.

It Has Got That Look Of This About It...:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3112/apollomountain.jpg

Both video and still shots were taken at many different places, and the actual video's were indeed shot in remote desert locations many years before the actual mission dates.

One of the places chosen by NASA and the USGS, was Chezin Chotah in the Hopi Butte volcanic field.

The USGS (United States Geological Society) were heavily involved in assisting NASA to perfect the fake Moon scenario's, after all they were being funded by none other than NASA.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9155/apolloschmittmoonwalk.jpg

Jack Schmitt on a Moonwalk
Scientist-Astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt is photographed standing next to a huge, split boulder during the third Apollo 17 extravehicular activity (EVA-3) at the Taurus-Littrow landing site on the Moon.

(Split boulders are either caused by boulder falling from a rocky crag, or ingress of moisture which later freezes and expands. Neither of these are possible on the Moon.)

The picture shown below is just such a test at Chezin Chotah.
Note that astronauts are suited up for the simulation.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8158/apolloschmittsplitrock.jpg

Note the crew are congregating around a large boulder shown just below center of photograph.
This is the split boulder, (Tracy's Rock), where Apollo astronaught Jack Schmitt had his picture taken for the Taurus Littrow valley shot on the Moon.

Again Apologies For The Editing,
But It Would Take Up Too Much Of My Precious Time...

Life On Mars Is On The Telly...!!!

:rolleyes:

[theodoric]

I have heard that they did not go to the moon on the apollo missions , but that they did go in an extra-terrestrial spacecraft .

[edit]

I have heard that they did not go to the moon on the apollo missions , but that they did go in an extra-terrestrial spacecraft .
....because there is no moon
or... there isnt any moon at all

[edit]

I have heard that they did not go to the moon on the apollo missions , but that they did go in an extra-terrestrial spacecraft .

Conoscopic holography

In a Conoscopic system, a laser beam is projected onto the surface and then the immediate reflection along the same ray-path are put through a conoscopic crystal and projected onto a CCD. The result is a diffraction pattern, that can be frequency analyzed to determine the distance to the measured surface. The main advantage with Conoscopic Holography is that only a single ray-path is needed for measuring, thus giving an opportunity to measure for instance the depth of a finely drilled hole.

[edit] Hand-held laser 3D scanner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/3D_scanner
Technology

There are a variety of technologies for digitally acquiring the shape of a 3D object. A well established classification[2] divides them into two types: contact and non-contact 3D scanners. Non-contact 3D scanners can be further divided into two main categories, active scanners and passive scanners. There are a variety of technologies that fall under each of these categories.
[edit] Contact

Contact 3D scanners probe the subject through physical touch. A CMM (coordinate measuring machine) is an example of a contact 3D scanner. It is used mostly in manufacturing and can be very precise. The disadvantage of CMMs though, is that it requires contact with the object being scanned. Thus, the act of scanning the object might modify or damage it. This fact is very significant when scanning delicate or valuable objects such as historical artifacts. The other disadvantage of CMMs is that they are relatively slow compared to the other scanning methods. Physically moving the arm that the probe is mounted on can be very slow and the fastest CMMs can only operate on a few hundred hertz. In contrast, an optical system like a laser scanner can operate from 10 to 500 kHz.


Other examples are the hand driven touch probes used to digitize clay models in computer animation industry.



Functionality

The purpose of a 3D scanner is usually to create a point cloud of geometric samples on the surface of the subject. These points can then be used to extrapolate the shape of the subject (a process called reconstruction). If color information is collected at each point, then the colors on the surface of the subject can also be determined.

3D scanners are very analogous to cameras. Like cameras, they have a cone-like field of view, and like cameras, they can only collect information about surfaces that are not obscured. While a camera collects color information about surfaces within its field of view, 3D scanners collect distance information about surfaces within its field of view. The “picture” produced by a 3D scanner describes the distance to a surface at each point in the picture. If a spherical coordinate system is defined in which the scanner is the origin and the vector out from the front of the scanner is φ=0 and θ=0, then each point in the picture is associated with a φ and θ. Together with distance, which corresponds to the r component, these spherical coordinates fully describe the three dimensional position of each point in the picture, in a local coordinate system relative to the scanner.

For most situations, a single scan will not produce a complete model of the subject. Multiple scans, even hundreds, from many different directions are usually required to obtain information about all sides of the subject. These scans have to be brought in a common reference system, a process that is usually called alignment or registration, and then merged to create a complete model. This whole process, going from the single range map to the whole model, is usually known as the 3D scanning pipeline.[1]File:Laserprofilometer ENhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Laserprofilometer_EN.svg

here is Poincaré conjecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/P1S2all.jpg

thet might be as well read backwards... erutcejnoc e`ra c niaP
And......//////// to point further (Lorenz Poincaré)
there is a the theory ...try to read this (chaos theory) Management - 12manage
Register a free membership (http://www.12manage.com/methods_lorenz_chaos_theory.html)


Now ..about Grigori..http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Perelman%2C_Grigori_%281966%29.jpg ..In particular, he proved Thurston's geometrization conjecture. As a consequence, this solved in the affirmative the Poincaré conjecture, posed in 1904, which before its solution was viewed as one of the most important and difficult open problems in topology.
and,,,,,,,...... there was is Millennium Prize Problems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia