A photo of a mountain in Ara 51 that resembles a moon mountain.

www.alien-ufos.com...

Chech the photo above. Then check the first photo in this site

www.geocities.com/apolloscam/

If you consize the mountain in the APOLLOSCAM, wouldn't it look exactly like the Area 51 mountain. You can see the crater highlighted just to the right of the mountain. You can see the curvature of light highlighted, albeit switched. It has the same shape.

I might be mistaken, but I would like to hear the idea of ppl here. Preferable if one can do us overlaying of the photos or something.

Please take it with open mindness,
regards

Here's an idea....

Craters usually happen when an area is a bombing range...

Sorry to be so blunt, but the "Area 51 used to fake Apollo moon landings idea" comes up so often, without people bothering to find out that the environs are one of the oldest continuous bombing ranges used.

1. The Russians had fully infiltrated the US intelligence services at the time. This is FACT due to captured agents. Surely, Russia would have easily called this bluff.

2. Despite the Fox special, the allegations made are bad astronomy, and a lack of knowledge. See www.badastronomy.com... for more, or search "moon landing hoax" at www.nasa.gov...

3. Clementine (a moon orbitting satellite, military) took pics of the landing site, capturing an image of the blast mark from the module. I've posted it at least half a dozen times, so not looking for it again, hehe...

4. There is a continuing experiment to measure lunar distances based upon reflectors placed there during the Apollo missions....that are still in use today.

www.geocities.com/apolloscam/

First you should have some consideration for others and make sure your links work.

Now the edit stuff...

Like it or not you can find hundreds and thousands of mountains with the slope you describe, there is a rule of thumb for 'fall lines' and 'slope angles'.
As far as all the "bomb craters" you find near area 51 and in Nevada, USA, the big ones that you see are from the Nuclear Weapons Test site. The craters are the result of the topside dirt collapsing into the hole made by the underground explosion. Next time do some research.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Chuck Stevenson]

lack of credibility dude... give it up!

Dear Gazrok,
What has this to do with the resemblance of the mountain with the moon photo? Just consize the moon photo, look for the light curvature that is switched in the moon photo, but has the same shape if you expand the mountain of Area 51. Even the outline of the mountain looks so similar, of course when the moon photo is consized. But it might be a coincidence, though it is hard to be.

As for the link, yes it sometims doesn't open, sorry for that, visit it another time and I am sure it will work. This happens often.

Edited to add


www.futuresunltd.com...

visit this site. It is long, but worthwhile reading. The author says lastly that he was attacked by someone from NASA bcz of the laser stuff, but he says that everything comes from NASA computers. I have posted this site in another thread, but I am sure few have read it since it is long.

As for the landing site, it is the credbility of the photos that we are asking. You can't say this doubted photo is real bcz this other doubted photo is real, can you?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Wind]

Chuch Stevenson
I don't know why I need to repeat my point till the end of the threads in this forum for ppl to understand it although I don't speak nuclear physics. Next time, please understand the point made by me before replying. What has the nuclear stuff to do with the point I am making? I am saying that the crater highlighted in the site of Apolloscam (that I am told is not opening, so I wonder how could you check it), resembles a lot in its place and position the photo of Area 51. The outline of the mountain looks too similar to me, after the photo is consized. Similarly the outlined curvature of light...now don't make me repeat myself
regards and sorry for getting nervous

Do you really think for one minute that the technology existed to doctor photos to fake a moon landing in 1969? Most computers available were IBM 300 series and older. Sophisticated programing was limited to languages such as Cobol, Fortran, Report Program Generator and custom jobs. The only people doming airbrushing were either doing advertising or working for Playboy.

There are few pictures of Area-51 showing a 'moon crater' and those have been debunked as poor photoshop frauds.

The cut angle that you see on the hills behind area-51 is caused by nothing more than the slope angle and gravity. Any steeper and it would be a rock face. I am discounting erosion due to the "moon" factor.

Now don't make me post again as you do not deserve the points.

"Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How? Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space. "

I still don't think that you got my point, probably bcz my first language is not English. I will wait until you can open the APOLLOSCAM site and see the highlighted features by arrows, then, maybe you will get me. I am not speaking about thing behind the Area 51 mountain, but the mountain itself, with a small hill that has a crater to the right of it..etc..

Edited to add
I will make my self clearer. It is not only a crater in the same position. It is also a mountain that if consized will give a similar outline to Area 51 mountain. Also, a small curved hill at the bottom of that mountain that if stretched and reversed will give the same shape as the moon photo. Of course, I have heard about the craters stuff in Area51 and Nevada desert being created by NASA to "resemble the moon" and for training purposes. I haven't seen the photos though to see if this is the same crater they are speaking about. What I find at odds is the multiplicity of things mensioned above to be similar to the moon mountain(you need to go to powerpoint and try to consize, switch,etc..). After doing them on powerpoint, I would like to get the idea of the members on this forum, maybe I am mistaken. If the mountain is the same, surely NASA didn't create a mountain in Area 51 that is the same as the moon mountain..
regards

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Wind]

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
Do you really think for one minute that the technology existed to doctor photos to fake a moon landing in 1969? Most computers available were IBM 300 series and older. Sophisticated programing was limited to languages such as Cobol, Fortran, Report Program Generator and custom jobs. The only people doming airbrushing were either doing advertising or working for Playboy.

There are few pictures of Area-51 showing a 'moon crater' and those have been debunked as poor photoshop frauds.

The cut angle that you see on the hills behind area-51 is caused by nothing more than the slope angle and gravity. Any steeper and it would be a rock face. I am discounting erosion due to the "moon" factor.

Now don't make me post again as you do not deserve the points.

I just found my first misinformant.
Tell me Chuck, if we had the technology to send a shuttle clear off this Earth, and onto the moon (supposedly) had the technology to design them in the first place, create space suits, etc, your trying to tell me we didn't have the technology to doctor a photo?

Please remove yourself from this thread, and stop spreading misinformation.

This mountain is not a strong proof. I suggest that if we start seaching were they got trained we might find something interesting.

Okay, I've heard this for many years, & I don't know if it's true or not, but whether the Moon Landing was faked or not, you will find it extremely hard to prove that, without someone who had something to do with to come forward.

I have heard, that we faked the Moon Landing, so we could show up the Russians, because if Russia put a flag on the Moon first, the USA would be shamed throughout the whole World.

I've also heard, that that was the real reason that Kennedy was assasinated. He found out about that, found out about Area 51 & the Military Industrial Complex, & was going to go public & shut them down.

I do know I've seen the Moon Landing on reruns of it on TV & video, & that logic points out, that the rooster tail from the Rover falls way too quick to the ground after getting shot out from the tires of said vehicle. Knowing that the Moon's gravity is supposed to be what...a 1/3 of Earths....you'd think it either would take a lot longer, or we wouldn't have seen it falling, by the time they moved the camera. Is this a trick of light, a video camera quirk, or just a plain cover-up by our government? I do not know, guess we will see....someday.

Please excuse me if I seem tetchy, but this gets a little tedious sometimes.

Please check the following thread and sites for more info, I suggest reading ALL of the ATS thread to stop old ground being repeated and as it was started first it might be good to simply add to that one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.badastronomy.com...

www.apollohoax.net...

www.clavius.org...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.hq.nasa.gov...




[edit on 27-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

That website "ww.geocities.com/apolloscam/ " has to be one of the worst about moon mission hoaxes I have ever seen. C'mon...claiming to see used condoms, footprints from stillettos on the moon? How could anyone take it seriously???

Originally posted by sensfan
That website "ww.geocities.com/apolloscam/ " has to be one of the worst about moon mission hoaxes I have ever seen. C'mon...claiming to see used condoms, footprints from stillettos on the moon? How could anyone take it seriously???

I frequently ask myself the same question, to be fair some HBs have come up with what are (at first) good arguments - though they can of course be explained using a little science and research. But some of the stuff they believe is ridiculous.

1) It's not that I absolutely want to believe in a conspiracy just to annoy the NASA, but frankly there are too many incoherences with the color photos; only with the color photos, but not with the photos of Surveyor which look normal and coherent to me.
The luminosity on the color photos is totally abnormal; on the photos of Surveyor, as well as on the Russian photos, it is normal; when there is a darker part, it is explainable, you can see there is a hole hiding the sunlight.
But when you see a hill behing the lem and an astronaut, that you can see the direction of the sun by the direction of the shadow, and that you see that the part of the hill which is logically exposed to the sunlight is very obviously darker than the foreground, there is clearly a problem, and it's not my imagination, neither the fact that the moon would be an "alien" world.
When you see hills in the background which are much too dark compared with the foreground which is totally abnormally luminous in comparison, that you find the same hills, totally recognizable by the perfect match of all of their parts, but with another luminosity, I can't find it normal, even with the best will of the world.
When you also see that there are several clearly duplicated rocks on the photos (there is a video on youtube about that), even the "alien" world can't explain that.
When you see that the reflection of the sun in the visor on an astronaut who is really floating in space (very regularly circular, with regular marked spokes) is very different from the ones we see on the visors on the astronauts supposedly on the moon (pentagonal, irregular, poor spokes), you can always try to explain me it's an effect of the camera, my eyes see it differently.
When you see that the moon reflectivity only acts on the astronauts but never on the moon rocks which are supposed to produce this reflectivity, you can call it logical, but I don't.
All this doesn't derive from a conspicacy but from pure and simple logic.

2) There are people who use these incoherences to promote the theory that the NASA faked everything, that the man never left the earth, or that the astronauts just orbited the earth for some days before coming back to earth, I say that it isn't necessary to go that far.
Faking the photos doesn't mean that the missions are necessarily faked; it can also mean that the American government was not trusting the photographic material shot on the moon, and that it was wanting to totally master the communication.
This leads me to my third point.

3) How could the NASA and the American government be sure that the astronauts would plant the American flag on the moon?
The photos of Surveyor show a rather rocky ground; the astronauts might not ne able to plant the flag on the lunar ground; this ground might be rock, or a layer of sand with rock underneath, unproper for planting the flag.
There is no way, that the American government could be sure the astronauts would be able to plant the flag on the moon, and if you tell me that it had the means of knowing it, I will tell you that your level of delusion is extremely high.
In these conditions, what were the options of the American government?
If the astronauts could plant the flag, bravo, it was won.
But what if they couldn't?
Fake it in the last moment?
Impossible! in order to fake it, it absolutely had to be planned in advance, it could not be hastily improvised in case of impossibility of planting the flag.
So, if the American government wanted to be sure that the American flag would be gloriously planted on the mooon, and not just thrown on the lunar ground for impossibility of planting it, the only solution was to plan it in advance, to stage the event, in order to be sure to master it, to leave nothing to chance.
So, in any circumstance, the American government was sure to show a glorious event, the American flag pompously planted on the moon.

You'll tell me: You are screwing if you think that the American government would cheat that way!
Really?
If, before the watergate, somebody had told you that Nixon would tap the democrats, what would you have told him?
Don't tell me you would not have said him he was screwing.
And when Bush made a speech to the congress about a nigerian letter proving Saddam had attempted to obtain nukes, the whole American population believed it; yet it was a badly forged piece of evidence.
Yes, the American government was perfectly able of it: Fake in order to master the communication, to show to people what they wanted them to see.
It doesn't mean the lunar missions were not real, but what were the real photos the astronauts took? probably closer to what Surveyor shows us, more realistic.

4) Once they started that game, thay had no choice than carrying it on on the other missions.
If they had shown real photos of the moon to people, they would have seen the difference, and would have questioned the first landings.

It's logic, just logic, nothing but logic.


Since you asked me about the repeated lunar rocks, here is a video which shows them

www.crustysocks.com...