Check out the images below. In the first one you can see footprints galore in the foreground. But there are no footprints in the area of the flag! So how or who or when was it placed there?
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/as16/images/AS16-113-18342l.jpg)
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6543/apollofootprints2.jpg)
Zoomed...
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/Moon1.jpg)
So, where are the footprints? If the flagpole could just be pushed through the surface (As there's no sign of digging the pole in) it means it's soft ground. All the more reason there should have been footprints around it. But zilch! Is it another cut and paste job? Or am I getting old with a failing eyesight? :-\
Cheers!(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Smoking/smoking-030.gif)
Ah! No answers yet!! Ok, so here's another one...
Where are the tire tracks of the rover in the image below? Just a couple of feet away and we don't see nothing! Was it placed there by a crane? ::) Or is it rocky surface? But then, a footprint is clearly visible nearby indicating otherwise.
(http://apolloreality2.bravehost.com/index_files/084277d0.jpg)
Cheers!
Haha, these ones i didnt know of 8)
Ah well, there are way tot many inconsistencies in this moon thingy.
They surely dont want to give us THE images from the moon.
But...
This vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axvMg3MTs7o
And this post from member Saint Exupery on ATS:
-----------------
Bart Sibrel's video argues that this television footage was made in low Earth orbit, rather than on the way to the Moon. The images of Earth, he claims, are either black cardboard with a round hole cut out, or a transparency. Note right there that these are mutually exclusive - If he doesn't know, then he is just guessing without evidence. In fact, there is evidence, but it doesn't support either of Sibrel's conjectures.
The website & videos Phage referenced show that the behavior of the Earth images is in no way consistent with something attached to the window itself. I looked at the content of the Earth images.
In the first day-and-a-half of the mission there were three live television transmissions from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, which showed the Earth out the window. At about the same time as each of these transmissions, the astronauts also photographed the Earth using a 70mm Hasselblad camera. These provide exceptionally high resolution images. Here are frame grabs from each of the three transmissions, with a photograph taken at about the same time for comparison.
Note that the cloud patterns match:
(http://i11.tinypic.com/447lbis.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/4c8k5jo.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2qv5g7m.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2nc0y2d.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/4hs2hs8.jpg)
The features I highlighted are:
A.) Summer monsoons over Arizona
B.) Rain over the Midwest
C.) Rain over western Canada
D.) A cold front moving down from Canada into the northcentral and northeastern US.
E.) Summer thunderstorms over the southeastern states
F.) A separate storm cell over southern Florida
G.) A separate storm system over the Texas gulf coast.
---------------------
Apparently they did come further then expected that day? Apollo 11 it is.
or?!?!
I am confused
Lunica
Quote from: Lunica on January 15, 2012, 12:32:44 PM
Haha, these ones i didnt know of 8)
Note that the cloud patterns match:
(http://i11.tinypic.com/447lbis.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/4c8k5jo.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2qv5g7m.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2nc0y2d.jpg)
(http://i11.tinypic.com/4hs2hs8.jpg)
Now that IS a good find!!! Never seen that comparison before, thanks very much for that!! ;) ;) ;)
Good one that, Lunica! Well, I'll be darned! There seem to be lots of fishy goings-on out there!
And then what about the Japanese JAXA probe to the Moon, photographed in true HD!! Oh yeah? Now take a peek at this image taken from the official JAXA video. I noticed strange similarities around many craters there. This one is near the Apollo 17 landing site, the photographs of which were supposedly beamed down by JAXA. This has been enunciated further by Keith Laney when I sent it to him for his comments...
(http://www.keithlaney.net/images/6similarJAX.jpg)
Notice the similar little objects around all those craters? So was it a paste job sitting in a studio here? And why? Was the video meant to be just eye candy for the public? But why fudge it?
Cheers!
HAHA Mike,
What a show!! ;D 8)
I am actually crying :'( :'(
And check out craters No 2 and 5. Look carefully. THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE SAME!!! WTF is going on??
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/pumpkin-008.gif)
:o :-\
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 16, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
And check out craters No 2 and 5. Look carefully. THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE SAME!!! WTF is going on??
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/pumpkin-008.gif)
:o :-\
No, they are not the same. There are subtle differences. IMO 8)
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 12, 2012, 09:49:37 AM
Check out the images below. In the first one you can see footprints galore in the foreground. But there are no footprints in the area of the flag! So how or who or when was it placed there?
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/as16/images/AS16-113-18342l.jpg)
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6543/apollofootprints2.jpg)
Zoomed...
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/Moon1.jpg)
So, where are the footprints? If the flagpole could just be pushed through the surface (As there's no sign of digging the pole in) it means it's soft ground. All the more reason there should have been footprints around it. But zilch! Is it another cut and paste job? Or am I getting old with a failing eyesight? :-\
Cheers!(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Smoking/smoking-030.gif)
Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Different angle could show prints. Also a different topo, less dust could be a factor too...IMO 8)
I am NO expert at all about such matters...
However, I do see 'something like' foot prints behind the flag.
(Look at the zoomed photo)
Then again I am not on a very good PC.
I am on one that has no video card and it has an old CRT monitor. (15")
Sorry couldn't help myself... ;)
Maybe the caption should be "Hang on Houston I didn't step there and now we are screwing up the story...'This is Houston over, shut up, the story will wash for many a year" ;D
(http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/10/80/81/apollo11.jpg)
Well, I don't know if anybody here was watching MTV back in the 80's, but they used footage like that all the time. Footprints there/ Footprints gone - a decent artist can create all the subtle nuances to make the viewer see what ever they want.
Look at movies like Transformers - Shows like StarGate...
To me the question is how long have we had the tech to manipulate photography extensively? I would say since photography was invented. By the time moon missions rolled around, we were Pro's at it.
In todays age, as an artist, and a tech, I know for fact that I can work in pixel layers using existing photography and create a forgery so real that no one could prove it wasn't real. Ergo, my philosophy is to not believe what I see (though it is great fun to let my imagination run wild because to me imagination is the key to the everything).
If it was first created by a human then it can be manipulated and changed by another human.
Like a chess game, how many moves ahead are you thinking...
If I wanted to fool somebody using photography then I would be adding things and sloppily "removing" them so as to lead the viewer down a "primrose path" - leading them to whatever conclusion I wanted them to have. Psych 101
Every medium is a "canvas" of some sort that can be manipulated - Sight-Sound-Auto Suggestion Etc...
Sooo, where is the Truth then? Where is the Proof then? I suppose the answer would be in the greatness of your own need to know, and how far you are willing to go to find it.
WARNING
Once you go through some doors, you aren't allowed to come back. :-X
Psh, I could be wrong though... after all, I'm just trillions of cells working together to form a biological machine that lives on a planet floating in space somewhere in the Universe.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7796/nasaman.jpg)
From an artists perspective I think they do an Awesome job.
(at distracting - ball and cup - bait and switch...)
But this is 2012... The term "way beyond your wildest dreams" comes to mind.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 16, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
No, they are not the same. There are subtle differences. IMO 8)
Sgt! Here it is again. Look Carefully. You've gotta have an eye for detail. Since I have done a lot of interpretation of sat as well as aerial pics (For identification of targets) for CAS and interdiction, I do feel there is a lot of similarity - in fact the two craters and surroundings are the same with the upper one rotated approx 5 degrees to the left. Check out the arrows on both images ...
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/JAXASFakeImages.jpg?t=1251103319)
Cheers! 8)
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6407/jaxasfakeimages.jpg)
Blue= Mirrored image flipped
Red= Duplicate with modification
Green= Duplicate with modification
(just picked out what I thought looked obvious)
Oh, wow Dave!! You've really blown the cover off that fake JAXA video!! (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/dead-025.gif)
I particularly liked the craters that I've marked in white squares.....
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/Fake.jpg)
Now the question is, why has JAXA fudged? Have they erased some stuff from the original and superimposed fake terrain there? In other words, were they trying to hide something? :o
Thanks Mike, just following your lead. ;)
"Now the question is, why has JAXA fudged?"
International space co-operation?
Intergalactic space co-operation?
Covering up evidence of current operations on the moon?
Covering up evidence of past civilization on the moon?
Covering up evidence that human-kind has risen an fallen multiple times including past travel to and from the moon?
Archaeological evidence of humankinds true past has been exposed over time including high tech technologies/information that they don't want the "public" to know about?
Because it could expose countless lies created over thousands of years by groups that became powerful because they knew the truth? ie Churches/Governments/Illuminati/Templars and many more - that all wish to remain in control of humankinds destiny?
Did some dude invent a "super-suit" billions of years ago that allowed him to live forever and now he's running the show with tech way beyond our own and we can't stop him? ;D lol thats right I said that!
Have the people from the future been traveling back in time to help fix human kinds past so their future will turn out better?
Hidden base on the moon so the "Secret World Government" can conduct business with beings from "elsewhere" in the Universe?
Plausible deniability?
I say we build a drone with a camera that feeds directly to YouTube and go ask them?
Next on the Captain Dave Show - Live interview with billion year old dude who created a "super-suit" that allows him to live forever!
(Eat your heart out Jacques Cousteau!)
Quote from: Captain Dave on January 17, 2012, 09:04:55 PM
Did some dude invent a "super-suit" billions of years ago that allowed him to live forever and now he's running the show with tech way beyond our own and we can't stop him?
I don't even want to know how the 'waste disposal' system works :o
Imagine the smell of 1 billion year old farts! :o :P
LOL Cpt. ;D
QuoteDid some dude invent a "super-suit" billions of years ago that allowed him to live forever and now he's running the show with tech way beyond our own and we can't stop him? lol thats right I said that!
Hah...truth might be stranger than fiction in what you said (minus the super suit part) But that is for an entirely different thread.
Quote from: starwarp2000 on January 18, 2012, 12:56:41 AM
I don't even want to know how the 'waste disposal' system works :o
Imagine the smell of 1 billion year old farts! :o :P
:o
Why would they even bother wasting money faking all these pictures when they could just omit them or just destroy them and say they never turned out or whatever. Why go through such meticulous means of deception to supposedly mask details that might get spotted and yet leave tell tale signs of tampering? I fail to see the motive here.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on January 18, 2012, 02:27:18 AM
Why would they even bother wasting money faking all these pictures when they could just omit them or just destroy them and say they never turned out or whatever. Why go through such meticulous means of deception to supposedly mask details that might get spotted and yet leave tell tale signs of tampering? I fail to see the motive here.
Why? Because they'll have nothing left to show!! The surface is probably littered with the stuff! For example, Dave mentioned one of the reasons as,
QuoteCovering up evidence of past civilization on the moon?
Well that could be true. Check out these images taken by the Lunar Orbiter in the sixties, which I found some time ago and which I've highlighted. NASA couldn't have done much airbrushing here as discovering them wouldn't have been easy. These were taken from Prof Robinson's album and therefore probably escaped their scissors!
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/MoonB.jpg)
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/MoonA.jpg)
There's more but these will have to do for now! ::)
Cheers! :)
Looks like a pictograph representing a story and mathematical equation.
First pic/far right symbols... looks to me something like...
Infinity and a point in space is contained between overlapping and opposing points both inwards (-) and outwards (+). Or... infinity is alpha overlapping omega (space/subspace/time overlapping form an infinite cycle - a point or place is a variable degree within the cycle) Or Beginning overlapping Ending. Dunno, I see numerous possiblities lol.
If I was all that was left of a civilization after a major cataclism or I accidently got beamed to the wrong place and couldn't get back I'd try to leave a simple equation to explain a complex thing. Could be bluprints to a coffee maker too though.
First pic left side equation looks similar to something I've been playing around with to beam electricity from place to place and help create/repair ozone. Could be a design for a water mill though too.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 16, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
No, they are not the same. There are subtle differences. IMO 8)
To the eye of one humble Photoshop guru...they are the same. The "subtle differences" can be accounted for by the fact that the image was not placed "pixel perfect" into another spot - in other words, when Photoshop (or any such raster program) places a "cloned" image down, if the pixel grid is not perfectly aligned, the program will shift the pixels marginally to place the clone where specified.
So I have tp agree with Mike.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 27, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
To the eye of one humble Photoshop guru...they are the same.
So I have to agree with Mike.
Hi buddy! One doesn't even have to be a Photoshop guru to see that the craters are the same! Even an ordinary mortal like me can see the obvious!
The million dollar question is: WHY has this been resorted to by JAXA?
> Did their tin-can actually go to the Moon?
> Did their cameras fail and thus to avoid embarrassment made a video here on Earth by melding photographs together taken by other probes and Photoshopping them?
> Did they find huge anomalies along the photographic cone of the probe that were difficult to hide, and thus erased those areas with those from other parts of the image?
> Is there some sort of 'rules of engagement' of the space consortium which includes NASA, ISRO, CSA, JAXA, and ESA banning them from showing anything on the Moon that can cause a flutter?
Check out India's Chandrayaan. Nearly 70,000 close-up hi res photographs taken and ONLY A HANDFUL PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN? On querying some associated with India's space program as to why all the images haven't been released as yet as promised, there was that stony silence of the lambs! Not even a goddamn acknowledgement!
Are these dudes hiding something? Probably! And this sucks!
Cheers!
Mike
They are hiding something.
I have asked Jim Oberg about code words and what the astronauts and mission control use. Stony silence. Bear in mind that I have corresponded with Oberg on other stuff and he has been forthcoming. Something like that that might provide me with the clues I need and NOTHING.
If they aren't hiding something then why are the code words quite obviously classified? Oberg is happy to chat about non-classified stuff.
Oh yes, don't these look like computer generated landscapes?
> Is there some sort of 'rules of engagement' of the space consortium which includes NASA, ISRO, CSA, JAXA, and ESA banning them from showing anything :
that's what John is telling us for years !
He says even the cold war was ignored by those hiding the truth about the Moon ...
Even if I don't buy everything John's writing, I must say that he is quite
right and logical about that " secret " !
All the best :)
Guerande
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 12, 2012, 09:49:37 AM
Check out the images below. In the first one you can see footprints galore in the foreground. But there are no footprints in the area of the flag! So how or who or when was it placed there?
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/as16/images/AS16-113-18342l.jpg)
So, where are the footprints?
Excellent!
very good observation, Mikesingh.
One more clue that the photographs were taken in a studio.
My take on the issue is the same of Jay Weidner's.
(you probably all know his essay, in case some of you don't, I can post the link - a very interesting read)
In other words, they probably went on the Moon,
but most of the photographs and video clips were made in a Studio.
By Stanley Kubrick?
Possible...
There are too many things which do not add up, in the photographs and in the video clips.
And... how possible that all these photographs are perfectly in focus?
The Hasselblad 70mm has a very reduced depth of field,
the Astronauts were wearing helmets, how could they possibly put the camera always perfectly in focus?
As Weidner points out:
in the photographs everything is in focus, from the astronauts and objects in the near field, to the landscapes in the far field.
And that is
IMPOSSIBLE !!
(except in a studio)
More: the photographs are far too "Professional" - not like they are taken by amateurs...
Weidner explains this in this radio interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssnlbnAGGV0
EDIT: That isn't the one I meant to post actually. It's interesting though so I'll leave it where it is.
Hi Mike,
Just getting on board here and getting to know all. I have done a lot of work on Apollo 17 and not much on 16.
I allways figured, if they got it right at least one that, is all that really mattered to me. Saying that, I have also worked on many other Apollo shots over the years and my opponents or colleagues have all agreed to set the information up so we can check it out. I don't know if you do it here on the living moon but I can't find it on this thread. What we did was to make sure that every NASA photo had the link under the photo. We could then click it and follow up. We all also agreed to use the Hi Res photos where ever possible.
You probable already know this and used the low res for the forum photo but I bet many viewers would like to know. For the Apollo photos a good web site I use most of the time is listed below along with directions.
Try this site http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
Look for your flight 16 in the journal menu, click it,
Find the Image library in the Background choices, click it,
Find your magazine ( this was 113/A ), click it.
Scroll down or use find to locate you NASA number.
Find the photo number and you will see 2 photos
You can see the story also
John borrows the Camera and takes 3 portraits of Charlie.
18341,42 & 43 Your topic was based on 18342
On this photo there are 2 different resolution photos. The first one is 236k ( very low res )
The second photo is 1300k or what they are calling HR. They have added these letters to the end of the photo number. So the better photo is called AS16-113-18342HR
( I would forget the other one. The link in the photo img link in your post directs to the low res photo from another site.)
If you click on the red 1300k it will open that photo in hi res. I hope you can see the difference is a lot and worth the HR. This is the photo I would either link to or download and work with. Also need the link so copy out the URL regardless and post it for us to check out on our own.
http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18342HR.jpg
At this time I would also get the entire 3 photo set for reference. See what is different between them.
In the hi res photo I see that the ground to the left of the flag has been disturbed a lot. You will have to calculate the distance from the foot steps to the flag. Rather I would call them foot prints is in question. Like at the beach and wiggling your feet into the sand destroys all prints, what should we call them?
Over the years I have not once found a technical error on my own. It is of my opinion that the photos were taken on the moon. I am not closed for discussion and I am still open for discussion. I don't know about the videos. Never worked on any of them. In a nut shell from my point of view if the photos were faked I have never found one that holds up to that notion. I have found many that have been altered and can show why.
They have been there and are hiding things is more likely. Hiding what ?
Deuem
I'd also agree that "they" have been to the Moon. I don't think the Apollo story is the whole truth. The technology is there so they have been there. As I have already said, I also think they are hiding something.
Indeed. What? That is the million dollar question. Maybe Mike is right about humanoid history. Maybe evidence of ET is an intriguing possibility too.
ETA: I forgot to mention, more recently, they may be hiding evidence of a secret space program.
Quote from: deuem on May 15, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
If you click on the red 1300k it will open that photo in hi res. I hope you can see the difference is a lot and worth the HR. This is the photo I would either link to or download and work with. Also need the link so copy out the URL regardless and post it for us to check out on our own.
http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18342HR.jpg
In the hi res photo I see that the ground to the left of the flag has been disturbed a lot. You will have to calculate the distance from the foot steps to the flag. Rather I would call them foot prints is in question. Like at the beach and wiggling your feet into the sand destroys all prints, what should we call them?
Over the years I have not once found a technical error on my own. It is of my opinion that the photos were taken on the moon. I am not closed for discussion and I am still open for discussion. I don't know about the videos. Never worked on any of them. In a nut shell from my point of view if the photos were faked I have never found one that holds up to that notion. I have found many that have been altered and can show why.
Deuem
Here is a good video/film "What happened on the moon" They look carefully at photos and analyze them. Particularly direction of shadows. This one photo you reference above, doesn't have parallel shadows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKainIQiaKA&feature=related
I've used Photoshop for a decade. I do think the photo referenced, when examined, does have footsteps on the other side of the flag. Why is there no disturbance where the flag pole was stuck in? I don't know.
Reflections in the helmet shields can be interesting. In this photo, it shows something large, blurred, to the left side, on the face. And a point of the origin of the source of light is just above this large item. Is it a studio light? Is it the sun? Is it a flash?
When I examine the helmet shield reflection, I notice something distinct. The shadow of the visor cuts a clean dark line across the shield, as it should. But there is an exception. The reflection of the large object overlays the shadow on the shield, under the visor. And it is on the top of that large object that the bright light source shows. Taking into account that the visor is shaped like a baseball hat, the shadow should have a identical shape as a baseball hat. Yet there is something large which has shown up on the reflection, both in the lower part and upper part, with the bright light source at the top. Astronaut? Polar bear? LOL! Since it would be to the left, it would be it's shadowy side giving the reflection on the shield. How come it's not dark, where did it get it's lighting to throw the reflection? Is it throwing a lit reflection because there is a secondary light source?
Kathy, when you are on the moon in daytime, like they were there is more than 1 light source. The sun is the number one, then Earth, then stars. At night on a clear night you can go outside and read a paper by star light, Yes? OK, during the daytime they are still there, still giving us light but the sun is overpowering them. Again at night with a full moon, you can drive your car with no head lights on. Tons of reflection power! Now the Earth is how much larger and we have all that water reflecting. That adds up to a lot of light bouncing from the sun off of Earth and landing on the moon. remember they always faced the Earth on all missions. Now we can add in local light, LEM bounce, moon dust bounce, star light and the other astronaut if near by. All most forgot to add in any UFO bases, LOL. But I hope you get the point that light is everywhere up there. It all depends on how much we are talking about.
On shadows, why does everyone think that shadows have to be straight or perpendicular? That is not how shadows work. Take 2 pencils out and hold the together to get two straight line shadows on your desk. OK, now tweak one of them off on an angle and the shadows will now be skewed. One rock is straight, one is on an angle. Shadows are not parallel. If they had a test like parallel gym bars, they should create good honest parallel shadows. Nature is never parallel. Why should the moon be? Also depending on the contour, the shadows can even look bent or jagged. The best shadow to look at is the flag pole.
On your helmet questions, you should present a marked up photo.
Just so you all know, a long time ago, I did a massive study of every hour of moon time on each flight with the shadow length and where they should be in orbit at the exact time and direction. Wow, lots of time. Every single shadow worked out perfect. So my guess is that they did it right.
When you get really deep, you can even figure out which day they should lift off and why. Where was the moon in relationship to the Earth and Sun and what shadows would you expect to see in what direction and what length. All perfect.
Deuem
There is no flag on the moon. No Apollo mission ever went to the moon. No Apollo mission ever orbited the moon. It was a scam, a hoax using video fakery produced by Stanley Kubrick.
Dr. Van Allen with the information from Pioneer 1 and 3 in the late 50's found the radiation belt surrounding the earth would required about 3 feet of lead to protect any astronauts attempting to penetrate the belt.
Since that time NAZA has gone to extreme lengths to attempt to prove that the Van Allen belt is harmless. In fact, it is worse than when Pioneer 1 and 3 did the measurements and the reason is that NAZA tried to blow a hole in the belts by launching hydrogen bombs from Johnston Island in the early 60's.
If that is not enough, the gravity on the moon is 70% that of earths which would be far too much to get to the moon, land, then takeoff, reorbit, re-dock and come back with the amount of fuel that was avaialble to them. And not only that but NAZA could never get the Saturn V rocket to work. The rocket that you saw faking the Apollo missions were Saturn IV's dressed up to loook like Saturn V.
If that is not enough our entire scientific concept of Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation is based on the false concept that gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity and density of matter. New ton proposed this theory but never assigned an equation to it. It was some years after Newton died that an unknown person added the G=m1m2/r2 equation which bases gravitational force of quantity and density of matter.
In fact, the true gravitational force of the moon is about 70% that of earth figured by Pari Spolter using the Bullialdus Law of Inverse Square worked as a 3 body problem, sun, moon and earth for the exact time of the alleged landing of Apollo 11.
Stanley Kubrick produced the fake moon walks for NAZA as outlined by Jay Weidner in his video about how Kubrick did it.
The purpose of faking the moon landings was for one:
Provide money for the U.S. Navy orbiting weapon system, and
Two: to give the U.S. a psychological morale boost.
But no. No Apollo spacecraft went to the moon, or orbited the moon.
In addition to all that I have a handwritten paper which a former Apollo technician wrote and handed to me about 4 months ago detailing how they faked all of the Apollo reliability tests.
Have a nice day. :)
Danm John, nice to see you! ;D
who put the structures on the moon? ive heard about mineral/mining rights being owned; is that happenin now or a back burner possible plan?
Mr John Lear...speaking the truth!
How refreshing and disturbing all at once..thanks you sir.
Le
Quote from: johnlear on September 11, 2012, 02:43:11 PM
There is no flag on the moon. No Apollo mission ever went to the moon. No Apollo mission ever orbited the moon. It was a scam, a hoax using video fakery produced by Stanley Kubrick.
Dr. Van Allen with the information from Pioneer 1 and 3 in the late 50's found the radiation belt surrounding the earth would required about 3 feet of lead to protect any astronauts attempting to penetrate the belt.
Since that time NAZA has gone to extreme lengths to attempt to prove that the Van Allen belt is harmless. In fact, it is worse than when Pioneer 1 and 3 did the measurements and the reason is that NAZA tried to blow a hole in the belts by launching hydrogen bombs from Johnston Island in the early 60's.
If that is not enough, the gravity on the moon is 70% that of earths which would be far too much to get to the moon, land, then takeoff, reorbit, re-dock and come back with the amount of fuel that was avaialble to them. And not only that but NAZA could never get the Saturn V rocket to work. The rocket that you saw faking the Apollo missions were Saturn IV's dressed up to loook like Saturn V.
If that is not enough our entire scientific concept of Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation is based on the false concept that gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity and density of matter. New ton proposed this theory but never assigned an equation to it. It was some years after Newton died that an unknown person added the G=m1m2/r2 equation which bases gravitational force of quantity and density of matter.
In fact, the true gravitational force of the moon is about 70% that of earth figured by Pari Spolter using the Bullialdus Law of Inverse Square worked as a 3 body problem, sun, moon and earth for the exact time of the alleged landing of Apollo 11.
Stanley Kubrick produced the fake moon walks for NAZA as outlined by Jay Weidner in his video about how Kubrick did it.
The purpose of faking the moon landings was for one:
Provide money for the U.S. Navy orbiting weapon system, and
Two: to give the U.S. a psychological morale boost.
But no. No Apollo spacecraft went to the moon, or orbited the moon.
In addition to all that I have a handwritten paper which a former Apollo technician wrote and handed to me about 4 months ago detailing how they faked all of the Apollo reliability tests.
Have a nice day. :)
I don't know the true sequence of events but I find that hard to believe.
Firstly It assumes the Van Allen Belts have a fixed high value of energy at all times everywhere.
Secondly It assumes that only Lead can shield a Spacecraft.
The Electron and Proton belts fluctuate in energy , there may be a stretching of the Earths magnetic field between it and the Moon allowing a region of lower energetic levels.
The Inner Electron belt has energies exceeding 500 keV but is easy to shield as it is Electrons.
The Outer Proton belt has kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 microns of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).
So the Proton belt can fluctuate wildly.
I believe Apollo got to the moon, It just wasn't the same trip twice because of the variability of the Proton field and It very definitely wasn't the way NASA describe it.
C..
Quote from: variance on September 11, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
who put the structures on the moon? ive heard about mineral/mining rights being owned; is that happenin now or a back burner possible plan?
The moon was manufactured inside Jupiter 38 billion years ago. It has made many journeys throughout the galaxies. It has been orbiting Earth (this time) about 15,000 years.
The population of the moon I estimate to be between 1.5 and 2.0 billion people similar to us but much more technologically and socially advanced than us.
The grays have their laboratories underground and there are thousands of them.
The moon people occasionally invite and provide transportation to Earth people to see what is really going on however the invitees rarely talk about their experiences.
The temperature extremes that NAZA reports are not as much as NAZA says. There is a breathable atmosphere that covers the moon,.
The daytime sky is a saffron-yellow.
This information is a secret which must never be allowed to get to Earth inhabitants. Why? It's none of their business.
Earth people have only to live their lives with integrity; and without envy, hate or greed and to express their love for their families each and every days.
You won't believe me now but when you die you will see the truth. Just as Steve Jobs did. "Oh wow. OH WOW. OHH WOW!!!!!" (Direct quote.)
I believe you John but what about the lasers that were supposedly left behind and what about the Russians ? they must have known it was all a fake why didnt they say anything ? so many people still believe it happened iv seen some folks getting real upset over the topic
John that is fascinating! Why is it such a secret? Is it the aliens that want it that way, or our governments? With that many inhabitants there, they must be incredibly efficient to not leave trash everywhere!
...and I have to ask, have you, or anyone you know been there? 8) Thanks for visiting!
I bet the aliens have Jim Oberg bobble-head dolls on their dash boards!
I sure wish I'd get an invite so I could stop looking at all those badly focused photos for evidence that someone took out the trash on the right day. ;) ;D
Rock 8)
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
I don't know the true sequence of events but I find that hard to believe.
You are in the majority
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
Firstly It assumes the Van Allen Belts have a fixed high value of energy at all times everywhere.
ET tech is infinitely advanced from ours. Van Allen Belts having a fixed value of energy everywhere is childs play to them. This is a prison, not a kindergarten.
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
Secondly It assumes that only Lead can shield a Spacecraft.
Lead was the example that Dr. Van Allen used.
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
The Electron and Proton belts fluctuate in energy , there may be a stretching of the Earths magnetic field between it and the Moon allowing a region of lower energetic levels.
"There MAY be? " More NAZA nonsense. But thanks for your opinion.
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
The Inner Electron belt has energies exceeding 500 keV but is easy to shield as it is Electrons.
Yes, this is NAZA misinformation.
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
The Outer Proton belt has kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 microns of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).
So the Proton belt can fluctuate wildly. [/quote]
Of course. But remember you are only quoting NAZA who has a nasty habit of rearranging the facts.
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 04:38:26 PM
I believe Apollo got to the moon, It just wasn't the same trip twice because of the variability of the Proton field and It very definitely wasn't the way NASA describe it.
C..
Ah yes. The majority believes Apollo got to the moon. That was the objective.
Thanks again for your opinion.
Quote from: variance on September 11, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
who put the structures on the moon? ive heard about mineral/mining rights being owned; is that happenin now or a back burner possible plan?
Yes. 3 people own (or think they own) the majority of mining rights on the moon. There is a section on thelivingmoon.com on the owners and how they did it.
Quote from: mutchie6g on September 11, 2012, 07:24:42 PM
I believe you John but what about the lasers that were supposedly left behind and what about the Russians ? they must have known it was all a fake why didnt they say anything ? so many people still believe it happened iv seen some folks getting real upset over the topic
When a laser beam gets to the moon it is 3 miles in diameter the area of which could contain reflectors of any kind of moon surface.
Not just the diaper sized reflector which was allegedly left by missions which allegedly went
We have been allies of the Russians since the end of WW2. As such we trade info and secrets and plans and objectives. We lie and they swear to it. They lie and we swear to it.
The 'Cold War' was a mutual agreement between the U.S. and Russians to deflect information about UFO's with DEFCONS, threats, shoes being banged on tables, The Strategic Air Command. (Not the one with James Stewart and June Allyson. The fake one).
Yes, people really believed in the nail-biter Apollo 13. Even made a movie about it. Ho-ho-ho.
How deep does the rabbit hole go?
Reminds me of the story that up at S-4 where Bob worked some wag got a rabbit shaped doll, dressed it with waistcoat and top hat and gave it a stop watch. Then he securely placed it above the main entrace to S-4 where it resides today. "I'm late....I'm late....for a very important date....."
Quote from: Primus58 on September 11, 2012, 07:46:08 PM
John that is fascinating! Why is it such a secret? Is it the aliens that want it that way, or our governments? With that many inhabitants there, they must be incredibly efficient to not leave trash ev[erywhere!
Yes. They have been in existence forever. As has the universe. Which is infinite. They are perfect. No errors of anykind. No screwups. The ET's direct everything. You get a joke every once in a while called free will, or whats the other one...oh yeah, freedom of choice. HAH!!!
You know how they produce those super high tech UFO's? They grow 'em. On a vine. Each one perfect.
Quote from: Primus58 on September 11, 2012, 07:46:08 PM
...and I have to ask, have you, or anyone you know been there? 8) Thanks for visiting!
We have all been there many times in our lives. We are just not allowed to remember it because it is none of our business.
Quote from: Primus58 on September 11, 2012, 07:46:08 PM
I bet the aliens have Jim Oberg bobble-head dolls on their dash boards!
That's true. But since there is no movement inside a flying saucer the bobble-heads don't move so they have to flick it every once in a while with those 6 inch long fingernails.
As you say John I only have NASA facts and not my own ... there's no disputing that ... and now there are John Lear facts which are also impossible for me to dispute.
I'm afraid for now I will have to doubt you both as there is no way to verify who's making poop up......until I set foot on the Moon I am forced to say to both you and NASA...... I deny your reality and substitute my own. :o
I like the idea of the Moon being constructed inside of Jupiter 38 billion years ago but how old is the Universe ? Even assuming a typo 38 million yrs ago, built by whom ?? for what ??
Tell me more .... I am genuinely interested because i don't know... just don't expect a free ride .... an ancient Moon constructed for a purpose .... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence , you know that.
Cosmic..
Lol what the hell ... I did not write poop...I was courser..haha...Is there a program doing that ????
UFO's growing on a vine...for some reason that is the best explanation Ive heard..bar none, John. Are we talking like the supposed ones in the rings of Saturn which Mr Bergrum says they grow?
When we look at the Moon through our telescopes..are we really seeing it as it is, or is the view we get some sort of cloaked scene?
It seems so innocent but for years now Ive known in my heart something was up because of how it is locked in facing Earth..not so odd for ancient peoples, but as for modern folks it must be getting a bit hard to explain.
Fascinating words in your posts, sir, most fascinating!
Le
"They have been in existence forever. As has the universe. Which is infinite. They are perfect. No errors of anykind. No screwups".
Hmmm and no uncertainty and no surprises......they must be bored out of their minds.
Cosmic..
Hi John, nice to see you back on forum !
Tell me ,please , did you ever read Velikovski ? And what's your feelings about it ?
I have just re-read it, and think it's really a great book ...
All the best
Guerande
Quote from: guerande on September 11, 2012, 09:22:50 PM
Hi John, nice to see you back on forum !
Tell me ,please , did you ever read Velikovski ? And what's your feelings about it ?
I have just re-read it, and think it's really a great book ...
All the best
Guerande
He has a lot of good information. I got some of my moon info from him.
I have PROOF POSITIVE that there is a flag on the Moon...
I found it in a picture on the internet so it must be true ;D
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090608214816/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/6/60/UKLanding01.jpg/250px-UKLanding01.jpg)
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 09:22:27 PM
"They have been in existence forever. As has the universe. Which is infinite. They are perfect. No errors of anykind. No screwups".
Hmmm and no uncertainty and no surprises......they must be bored out of their minds.
Cosmic..
They are happy beyond belief. So much to do, so much to see, so much to learn, so much to give.
It tough explain that to a 3Der. Just wait. You'll see. And will you ever be surprised. Everyone is. But it seems you can't tell them anything here because they just can't comprehend.
Quote from: johnlear on September 11, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
They are happy beyond belief. So much to do, so much to see, so much to learn, so much to give.
It tough explain that to a 3Der. Just wait. You'll see. And will you ever be surprised. Everyone is. But it seems you can't tell them anything here because they just can't comprehend.
Maybe we shouldn't comprehend as that would reduce the imposed restriction of 3D space......"we are not here to change the world but for the world to change us......"
A raw spirit sees only dreams that can be altered at will.......Earth imposes restrictions that teach the raw spirit the existence of self and other, the benefits of constructive creation.....I get that, it has a logic to it....but how far does it go ?? is perfection desirable or even attainable ?? One would be as a Crystal if perfect were attainable, but perfect would be the end of time as well.
Time is the measure of the uncertainty wave that pulses through our 3D existence, that 4% in constant flux that is required for change to occur.
Are these perfect beings physical or ethereal ??
What is the program ?? As release of information would destroy the program does that mean that the program is coming to an end like a graduation to a new level....and a new program....one with retention of past life and after life memory.
So many questions...
Cosmic..
I guess the problem lays with the Producer involving a total lack of organization re.
the Stage "Support Crew".
They should have had Peter Jackson take control. It would have made it more Convincing.
I wonder if we will ever be shown footage regarding the activity of the human species
on the Moon ?
I do accept the human species has involvement on the Moon but I just see
poor coordination between the real deal and the Staged events...
This is the "Producers" Responsibility.
They certainly should have employed Peter Jackson. :D
Thanks to all who commented of my first comment about the shield reflection. Someone else helped me understand the upper dark portion was likely the dark sky behind the camera person. And the unknown figure I didn't understand, was probably the astronauts arm.
I really appreciate John's comments.
This is not exactly "Vine Grown" but interesting any way!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/nasa-funds-research-self-building-spaceships-005656003.html
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 09:10:59 PM
Tell me more .... I am genuinely interested because i don't know... just don't expect a free ride .... an ancient Moon constructed for a purpose .... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence , you know that.
The moon itself might be that evidence. Click the image for a link.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41LNdlOKgFL.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636)
QuoteThe authors of Civilization One return, bringing new evidence about the Moon that will shake up our world. Christopher Knight and Alan Butler realized that the ancient system of geometry they presented in their earlier, breakthrough study works as perfectly for the Moon as it does the Earth. They found a consistent sequence of integer numbers that they can apply to every major aspect of the Moon; no such pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system. In addition, Knight and Butler discovered that the Moon possesses few or no heavy metals and has no core—something that should not be possible. Their persuasive conclusion: if higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is, it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object—an idea with profound implications
SOURCE: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636
Quote from: guerande on September 11, 2012, 09:22:50 PM
Tell me ,please , did you ever read Velikovski ? And what's your feelings about it ?
Velikovsky was a brilliant man. What parts of the scientific community did to him were deplorable. He may not had been right about everything (who is?) but he hit the nail on the head with the idea that Earth has been through multiple catastrophes. Some of the survivors may be what are popularly though to be aliens.
Quote from: Pimander on September 16, 2012, 05:30:58 PM
Velikovsky was a brilliant man. What parts of the scientific community did to him were deplorable. He may not had been right about everything (who is?) but he hit the nail on the head with the idea that Earth has been through multiple catastrophes. Some of the survivors may be what are popularly though to be aliens.
Pimander, thanks for the book tips, I look forward to new material! I believe there were ancient civilizations more advanced than ours; who knows, maybe some of them went to the stars. Perhaps a better title for this thread would be, "Under which flag was the moon built?"... assuming the builders have a flag!
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 11, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
So many questions...
Cosmic..
Oh yes, I forgot...
While we're on questions, how many times have you remote Viewed the Moon? If you were successful, you must have a few answers by now. ;)
Quote from: Pimander on September 17, 2012, 06:17:35 PM
Oh yes, I forgot...
While we're on questions, how many times have you remote Viewed the Moon? If you were successful, you must have a few answers by now. ;)
Well actually I have never RV'd the Moon or Mars for that matter....always something else to do here on crazy Planet Earth...
Anyway, RVing these places on my own is pretty pointless.....we need at least 10 people viewing it simultaneously to compare results and define commonalities.
It is an OddBall...no doubt about that...composed mostly of Aluminium and Titanium, and hollow :o
It could very well be a Generation ship...who knows...at this point I am in the dark looking for the light switch.
C..
Quote from: Cosmic4life on September 19, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Well actually I have never RV'd the Moon or Mars for that matter....always something else to do here on crazy Planet Earth...
Anyway, RVing these places on my own is pretty pointless.....we need at least 10 people viewing it simultaneously to compare results and define commonalities.
It is an OddBall...no doubt about that...composed mostly of Aluminium and Titanium, and hollow :o
It could very well be a Generation ship...who knows...at this point I am in the dark looking for the light switch.
C..
Good point on the multiple viewers, especially with the Moon which we have no proof of how and what it really is.
I like the hollow theory, though..very interesting. VERY!
Personally I Rv the Moon for relaxation and dont really go for any definite exacting facts about it, just drift across the surface and admire the anomalous features...very soothing.
Cosmic, you never finished the RV thread and I have an idea..why not we get any here who wish to, RV the moon at a preset time on a specific night when it's full(my favorite) and see what happens. Ive already checked out Antarchus crater, and find it to be very odd and unusual compared to the phtos of it Ive seen..not quite what it appears in them...
Im game, are you? :D
Cheers!
Quote from: Littleenki on September 19, 2012, 05:07:21 PM
Good point on the multiple viewers, especially with the Moon which we have no proof of how and what it really is.
I like the hollow theory, though..very interesting. VERY!
Personally I Rv the Moon for relaxation and dont really go for any definite exacting facts about it, just drift across the surface and admire the anomalous features...very soothing.
Cosmic, you never finished the RV thread and I have an idea..why not we get any here who wish to, RV the moon at a preset time on a specific night when it's full(my favorite) and see what happens. Ive already checked out Antarchus crater, and find it to be very odd and unusual compared to the phtos of it Ive seen..not quite what it appears in them...
Im game, are you? :D
Cheers!
Waiting for the membership to increase....at the moment only about 5 members have expressed an interest in RVing...that's not enough.
In time as the membership swells we will probably get to a level of interest that makes a Moon session viable...until then I have delayed producing more of the RV manual as it needs to be approached in stages....members need to read and understand what is already there before moving on to greater detail...there is enough written to enable a simplified Viewing Session should anyone wish to do so....but until we have at least 10 players none of it can be verified by comparisons which is the only method we have regarding the Moon.
C..
Well, Cosmic, now that I can be a regular again, count Me in.
John, spidy sense says Your version of the moon landings come closest to truth. Not sure where or if they deviate, even. But the NAZA story is bollux, by the same spidy sense.
We need to be careful not to reveal when we run RV sessions. Don't forget about some of the risk of remote influencing.
I have no problem sharing our results but it would be sensible to keep times and who to ourselves. Even experienced folk may not know how to protect themselves.
Good point, Pim. We need a way to ensure integrity and privacy. This means that We should no accept just anyOne asking to join... They may have ulterior motives.
Quote from: Pimander on September 19, 2012, 07:59:18 PM
We need to be careful not to reveal when we run RV sessions. Don't forget about some of the risk of remote influencing.
I have no problem sharing our results but it would be sensible to keep times and who to ourselves. Even experienced folk may not know how to protect themselves.
Right on, Pimander, safety first especially with a tool as sharp as the mind!
Le
Quote from: johnlear on September 11, 2012, 02:43:11 PM
There is no flag on the moon. No Apollo mission ever went to the moon. No Apollo mission ever orbited the moon. It was a scam, a hoax using video fakery produced by Stanley Kubrick.
Dr. Van Allen with the information from Pioneer 1 and 3 in the late 50's found the radiation belt surrounding the earth would required about 3 feet of lead to protect any astronauts attempting to penetrate the belt.
Since that time NAZA has gone to extreme lengths to attempt to prove that the Van Allen belt is harmless. In fact, it is worse than when Pioneer 1 and 3 did the measurements and the reason is that NAZA tried to blow a hole in the belts by launching hydrogen bombs from Johnston Island in the early 60's.
If that is not enough, the gravity on the moon is 70% that of earths which would be far too much to get to the moon, land, then takeoff, reorbit, re-dock and come back with the amount of fuel that was avaialble to them. And not only that but NAZA could never get the Saturn V rocket to work. The rocket that you saw faking the Apollo missions were Saturn IV's dressed up to loook like Saturn V.
If that is not enough our entire scientific concept of Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation is based on the false concept that gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity and density of matter. New ton proposed this theory but never assigned an equation to it. It was some years after Newton died that an unknown person added the G=m1m2/r2 equation which bases gravitational force of quantity and density of matter.
In fact, the true gravitational force of the moon is about 70% that of earth figured by Pari Spolter using the Bullialdus Law of Inverse Square worked as a 3 body problem, sun, moon and earth for the exact time of the alleged landing of Apollo 11.
Stanley Kubrick produced the fake moon walks for NAZA as outlined by Jay Weidner in his video about how Kubrick did it.
The purpose of faking the moon landings was for one:
Provide money for the U.S. Navy orbiting weapon system, and
Two: to give the U.S. a psychological morale boost.
But no. No Apollo spacecraft went to the moon, or orbited the moon.
In addition to all that I have a handwritten paper which a former Apollo technician wrote and handed to me about 4 months ago detailing how they faked all of the Apollo reliability tests.
Have a nice day. :)
Good evening John, Nice to read you on line again.
The last time we discussed this issue we left off at this point, the barycenter
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/barycenter.gif)
I have seen since then that your friend Dr. Pari Spolter has also joined this forum.
Can you please ask her if she could explain the gravitation reason behind the bary center and by simply using this, can one determine the gravity of the moon? Going back to the Olimpic sport of the throw. Where they spin around with a ball on the end of a rope. The person in the center starts to wobble because of the other weight circling them. There must be a way of figuring out the 2 weights. Maybe not to an exact weight but a ratio should be found. Myself, I have no idea how they can determine the actual weights of the Earth. It has to be a guess.
Another thought to add. I don't understand why the gravity of the Earth would stop at that point talked about and the moon take over. Does not the moon always have to be in the gravity field of the Earth or it would just spin off. We are in the gravity field of the Sun, no? So would the moon not be affected by 3 fields, The Sun, Earth and itself. 3 gravity fields in all?
As far as the Van Allen belts.With all of the research I have done to date, I would still to this day consider them to be belts. Like the name says. They are not spheres of radiation. If that is true and they are belts as we are told, then I see no reason why one can not just fly up and over them to get out. Back in the Apollo days the magnetic north pole was located near Alaska, somewhere in Canada. If you use that as a start, then the belts were very low on the equator, far away from Florida. Add the Earths tilts and the idea of going up and over them is not too hard to believe. I would go that way. Why go through them if you don't have to.
There is a step by step flight path on line somewhere that I can't find, ( sorry ) but did years ago that showed the flight path for every minute or so and it showed the path going out over Canada and not through the belts. I find that most people are looking at the 2D pictures of the flight paths ( the ones in all the school books ) and taking that as the actual path someone would take. IMHO I would not go that way, why would anyone else. Ok, regardless if Apollo is real or fake this topic is as open for me as any.
Back to the shadows, Again I would state that rather Apollo was fake or real all of the shadows and lenghts from photo time to photo time, trip to trip were as correct as I could check. I would say they are perfect. If they were faked, then someone had to do a better job at the calculations then I did because I could not finad any problems. In other words, no smoking gun on the shadows. I was very impressed. You can look at that two ways. They were real or the lighting guy was very smart. Either way they are correct.
Deuem