AS14-66-9306....

[Pimander]

The 'Secret' was NASA HAD TO GET TO THE MOON before the end of the decade. Come hell or high water, they were going to fullfil Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade.
They were a little short, so they faked the first landing and then subsequently went to the moon. Just my opinion but hey...

That would not surprise me.  I think from Apollo 14 (my memory might be wrong) the images look better and I have also seen convincing images of the landing site.

Was Apollo 13 the first real attempt?

I think it's highly likely that there was some kind of secret.

About those "suspicious looking images", if you haven't (I don't remember) why not start a thread about them?

I think we have been there on ATS years ago.  If I am in the mood and have a few hours free, I will look at some of the stuff I have stored on my old external hard drive.

The biggest problem is that it often comes to opinions about the images rather than facts.  A lot of the controversy is because although the images are suspicious they are not conclusively fakes in a lot of peoples opinion.

[Lunica]

Remember back when we got Jack(RIP) on board?  Remember the McMoon Missing LO Tapes?  Well the fellow from JPL who had them (Dr X from the ATS threads) also was at Kwajalien at the time of the Aquila launch to the moon, 3 months before Apollo 11  He told me there was a glowing craft watching them for EVERY launch

I think it is a simple as this.

[Pimander]

I think it is a simple as this.

Of course there is a strong possibility that there might be "ET" interest in the missions.  However that does not mean that the missions were not completed.  I think we would go ahead anyway to be honest.

It is the other things we discussed here that points to possible fraud, especially Apollo 11 and 12.

[Lunica]

Of course there is a strong possibility that there might be "ET" interest in the missions.  However that does not mean that the missions were not completed.  I think we would go ahead anyway to be honest.

It is the other things we discussed here that points to possible fraud, especially Apollo 11 and 12.

yes i agree.

I was pointing to the fact there was another agenda at that time. For me such testimonies are well, fact.
And since that agenda was there... expect everything. Including faked photos.

I think the whole Apollo program had to be serious in some way, since you just cannot have ALL people get into a fraud.
Enough evidence we went up, a lot of evidence we didnt went to the moon. (the public version that is)

[Somamech]

Remember back when we got Jack(RIP) on board?  Remember the McMoon Missing LO Tapes?  Well the fellow from JPL who had them (Dr X from the ATS threads) also was at Kwajalien at the time of the Aquila launch to the moon, 3 months before Apollo 11  He told me there was a glowing craft watching them for EVERY launch

Jack RIP... Man his section is a Testament to his desire to understand what he saw and experienced.  LEGEND. 

If I recall correctly The Furry Texan retold an experience/experience's growing up at Kwajalien where the Mil Folke's would send everyone inside and confiscate camera's on a forum or his blog in the past.   

The first days of the Apollo story  the ham radio operators picked up the transmission speaking of having company on the moon... I heard those live at the time... but I didn't record it  At that time no one had and idea that NASA and the government was covering things up

Witness testimonial... nothing better than that! 

In fact the very term "Conspiracy Theorist" was only coined by the CIA in 1967 We TRUSTED NASA back then  We TRUSTED the government back then and we thought the Cop on the street was our friend in time of need

Boy were we ever wrong

Yeah I saw that info about the CIA floating around of late but have not looked at it.  That is probably because I trust the myriad of people who know what they saw or experienced not to be quite normal refraining from BS'ing.     Its a bit like all this odd creature stuff in the forest type story's from people who seem to know their stuff and tell credible account's I've been reading over the last year or so whilst in read mode... 

Weird time's now huh ?  NASA can't launch anyone to the space station yet are on Mar's supposedly.  The Logic coming from "Earth's" space programs make little sense.     

[Pimander]

Weird time's now huh ?  NASA can't launch anyone to the space station yet are on Mar's supposedly.  The Logic coming from "Earth's" space programs make little sense. 

Yeah, makes so much sense doesn't it.

You could launch humans into LEO with the newer modified Delta IV Heavy launchers easily IMO.  That means the military have the capqability so why are we pretening only the Ruskies can do it?  Forked up sh1t  if you ask me.

[Aemilius]

Interesting comments.... a good read.

....it would help if you answered my question.

Are you basing your theory on the colour of the marks?

Tonal values are an important factor. I've done quite a few experiments now and in all cases where I printed a black reticle on a sheet of clear transparent plastic or a rigid glass plate, in photographs, the black reticle I printed invariably appeared black as it should, and the shadow it cast invariably appeared gray as it should (below right). No printed black reticle ever ended up appearing gray in a photograph casting a darker black shadow, not once (that's how I know you'll fail). That same observation applies to the observed defect (below left), it's unmistakable....

If you do manage to come up with a replication that illustrates the effect as you described it earlier though I'd like to see it, but I'm not going to hound you about it.... it's not that important.

I will try.

I will wait.

[zorgon]

You could launch humans into LEO with the newer modified Delta IV Heavy launchers easily IMO.  That means the military have the capqability so why are we pretening only the Ruskies can do it?  Forked up sh1t  if you ask me.

Well I agree and have said so

and we can fix that if we want to follow up on this

I am a military member of the Air Force Space Command community at Vandenberg AFB, CA.  I found your webpage interesting, but grossly out of date.  Onizuka AFS shut down more than 7 years ago and the 21SOPS has been here at Vandenberg about that long.  I can provide unclassified updates of units located here if needed.  Let me know.

I have not invited him here and not gotten info yet because I am already impossibly behind

[ArMaP]

Interesting comments.... a good read.

That's one thing I like on this forum, when people are not worried with doom porn of any kind they usually use their brains and come up with interesting things.

Tonal values are an important factor. I've done quite a few experiments now and in all cases where I printed a black reticle on a sheet of clear transparent plastic or a rigid glass plate, in photographs, the black reticle I printed invariably appeared black as it should, and the shadow it cast invariably appeared gray as it should (below right). No printed black reticle ever ended up appearing gray in a photograph casting a darker black shadow, not once (that's how I know you'll fail). That same observation applies to the observed defect (below left), it's unmistakable....

The problem is that when we photograph the shadow we are not replicating the original NASA photos, as in those photos the shadow was projected on photographic paper, it was not just a photo of a shadow. In fact, my sister, when she saw the photo, said that it was expected that a shadow projected directly on the film would look darker than the object projecting it, as the object was reflecting some light but when the part of the film is in the shadow it means that it was not getting light, so the shadow becomes darker than the reseau plate mark.

I will wait.

Thanks, I will try to do something on the weekend.

And thanks for the answer.