Secret Bases On The Moon .

Originally posted by jra
I compaired it to other photots of the same area and I honestly don't see anything odd in that photo. it's very blurry and low res though. Could you or anyone else point it out exactly?

EDIT: Also, what do you mean exactly when you ask how dust/smoke can remain intact in a vacuum? Intact in what way? Like staying above the surface in a cloud or something? I just want to make sure i'm understanding you correctly.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by jra]

I have spent literally thousands of hours looking at moon photos. So whats instantly apparent to me may not be apparent to someone else. And in fact may not be apparent or exist at all.

But the photo intrigued Richard C. Hoagland who said it was 'definately interesting' but that he didn't believe it was smoke. He thought it might be glass.

If it is smoke or dust or both from an explosion it could not exist or stay intact in a vacuum or drift as it appears to be doing.

Originally posted by johnlear
Can someone please tell me how to make the picture appear in the post instead of just the words "external image"? Thanks.

Here you go, this should help.

I have spent literally thousands of hours looking at moon photos. So whats instantly apparent to me may not be apparent to someone else. And in fact may not be apparent or exist at all.

Well I too have looked at tons of photos of the Moon as it is a big interest of mine, but I'm still just not seeing anything odd in the photo. But again, like I said before, the photo is very blurry. To me it seems like the image has been enlarged, which would give it that fuzzy look. Here are some sharper images of the same area.

www.regulusastro.com...
digilander.libero.it...

But yes you are correct that dust wouldn't stay suspended for very long if was knocked upward by an explosion or impact.

Originally posted by jra

Well I too have looked at tons of photos of the Moon as it is a big interest of mine, but I'm still just not seeing anything odd in the photo. But again, like I said before, the photo is very blurry. To me it seems like the image has been enlarged, which would give it that fuzzy look. Here are some sharper images of the same area.

www.regulusastro.com...
digilander.libero.it...

But yes you are correct that dust wouldn't stay suspended for very long if was knocked upward by an explosion or impact.

JRA, your photos are nice but appear to have been taken from orbit many years past 1947. It is unlikely that the dust/smoke from the explosion would still be there. I'm not sure what your point was in posting them. However in the top photo it does shows indications of some sort of explosion with radiating white marks from the area of the dust/smoke in the Lick Observatory photo.

Yes, the photo I put up is a little blurry for one thing it was taken from earth and for another I cropped it from the oiriginal. The original is about 2 mgs. Let me see if I can upload it for you. Then you can tweak it yourself.

Incidentally the 'arch' just east of de la Rue is barely discernable in your photos but is much more clear in the Lick Observatory photo from earth. Odd, huh?

Hello John. I consider it to be an honour for you to be around ATS, and a contributor. Having said that, I would hope you are here on your own free will. Nuff said. I would like to ask you a question. Or, if anyone else on this sight may know. From my understanding, Nasa used a Plantronics MS50 headset for commu nications when Neil Armstrong went to the moon in July of 1969. The question I have is in the video, it looks as though Neil was talking out of a microphone. Could that be possible? Was that the communications used while on the moons surface, and the MS50 used in flight? Here's a link to the video. Unless it's authenticity isn't credible, I'd have to seriously say this appears to be a microphone. Which leads me to the question. Was this just a stage? Had we already landed on the moon prior to that day? Thank you. Don't mean to highjack the thread, hopefully this will be contributive.

www.nasa.gov...
That's the link for the headset.

video.google.com...

That is the link where if you look closely, you can see something that very much resembles a microphone in his hand.

Originally posted by maximusX

The question I have is in the video, it looks as though Neil was talking out of a microphone. Could that be possible?

Sure looks like it but, no, I don't think so. Of course I wasn't there so anything is possible.

For a very, very interesting film sequence of the Neil Armstrong's 'One small step'... find a copy of Anthony Hilder's "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" and skip to 6 minutes and 35 seconds from the beginning of the video. The part I am talking about lasts 13 seconds and is priceless.


john

Originally posted by johnlear
JRA, your photos are nice but appear to have been taken from orbit many years past 1947. It is unlikely that the dust/smoke from the explosion would still be there. I'm not sure what your point was in posting them. However in the top photo it does shows indications of some sort of explosion with radiating white marks from the area of the dust/smoke in the Lick Observatory photo.

Yes, they are newer. I just posted them as means to compair and contrast between the images. And yes the Thales crater does have some noticable 'rays' projecting outward from the crater. The impact may have been at more of an angle, causing dust and rock to fly further outward, not sure though.

Yes, the photo I put up is a little blurry for one thing it was taken from earth and for another I cropped it from the oiriginal. The original is about 2 mgs. Let me see if I can upload it for you. Then you can tweak it yourself.

That would be great if you can find a way to upload the original.

Thanks John. I'm looking at the video, but seems to be related to 911. Is this just to say that anything is possible? Can you point me to the link you are referring to.

Originally posted by maximusX
Thanks John. I'm looking at the video, but seems to be related to 911. Is this just to say that anything is possible? Can you point me to the link you are referring to.

Yes, 6 minutes and 35 seconds into the video there is a video of the 'moon landing'. Tell me when you've found it. You can't miss it.

john

Originally posted by jra

That would be great if you can find a way to upload the original.

Please try www.3xs.info

www.availanet.com/webpics/320lickobsa.tif

Mod edit Fixed link.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by maximusX
it looks as though Neil was talking out of a microphone. Could that be possible? Was that the communications used while on the moons surface, and the MS50 used in flight?

It would not be possible to use a handheld microphone while out in space. There is no sound in space, plus the helmet would prevent any sound from getting to the mic regardless if they were on the Moon or a movie set. They just used the headset.

It really hard to make out anything in that video clip, but I'd have to guess that it would be this camera. Armstrong began taking photographs soon after exiting the LM.

Originally posted by johnlear
6 minutes and 35 seconds into the video there is a video of the 'moon landing'.

I'm not seeing anything relating to the Moon landing at all. Are you sure you have the right time index or correct film name?

EDIT: Thanks for the image.

EDIT 2: The moon landing clip you were talking about starts at 25:30ish. The clip is also an admitted fake.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by jra]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by jra]

If you look very closely, you can see what resembles a microphone. Especially when the sizing is smaller, or viewed in Windows Media 9. I admit, that looks very fuzzy. And I thought they couldn't use mics for communication, but gosh, that looks like a mic. What else can it be?

Originally posted by jra

It would not be possible to use a handheld microphone while out in space. There is no sound in space, plus the helmet would prevent any sound from getting to the mic regardless if they were on the Moon or a movie set. They just used the headset.

By 'out in space' I assume you mean a 'vacuum'. What is your source that the surface of the moon is a 'vacuum'?

The moon landing clip you were talking about starts at 25:30ish. The clip is also an admitted fake.

JRA could you please direct me to the source that the clip is an 'admitted fake'? Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
By 'out in space' I assume you mean a 'vacuum'. What is your source that the surface of the moon is a 'vacuum'?

Well the moon lacks an atmosphere (well it actually has one, but it's so minor it's not even really worth mentioning). Visual observation shows that it lacks an atmosphere of an significance. That alone shows that yes, the environment on the Moons surface is indeed in the vacuum of space.

JRA could you please direct me to the source that the clip is an 'admitted fake'? Thanks.

Sure thing. moontruth.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Here's the archived version of the original site, note the link on the very bottom that reads: "And click here to discover that the above is all bull****"

From that link

Moonhoax.com full story

The clip is FAKED

It is not an out-take leaked from a NASA top secret reel.

It was done in a studio, for fun, and to entertain webheads like us.

Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moonlanding was faked.

Adam Stewart died on 28th August 2002. He is greatly missed. Please read this tribute to him

If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'. Most of you will probably get this reference. If you don't, go to www.truthorfiction.com... to find out what it's about.

So now you know. But remember this: Just because our clip is a spoof doesn't mean they DID land on the moon. The truth is out there, man.

Another link that talks about it being a fake here
www.snopes.com...

An Italian site that also talked about it, English part at the bottom
www.zeusnews.it...

We shot on original 1960's Ikegami Tube Camera in Mount Pleasant Studios in London. The guy in the suit is an actor. The rest of the 'cast' were basically the crew, who thought the idea was very funny and wanted to be in it.

EDIT: I'll also add this link to a thread on the subject of that video from the bautforum www.bautforum.com...

[edit on 18-6-2006 by jra]

Originally posted by jra

Well the moon lacks an atmosphere (well it actually has one, but it's so minor it's not even really worth mentioning). Visual observation shows that it lacks an atmosphere of an significance. That alone shows that yes, the environment on the Moons surface is indeed in the vacuum of space.

Thanks JRA. Actually I was asking what your 'source' (i.e. informational source) was that the surface of the moon is a vacuum?(I assume you haven't been there...I know I haven't.) Just looking at the moon, even through a telescope would not permit you to see an atmosphere particularly if it was not polluted like it is here on earth.

And thanks for the links to the 'fake' footage of the moon landing. Interesting.

If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'.

I couldn't hear it but that doesn't mean it is not there.

Just because our clip is a spoof doesn't mean they DID land on the moon. The truth is out there, man.

I don't believe that the Apollo landings on the moon were faked but I was wondering what you meant by 'our clip'?

off topic a little, but

John Lear,
Are you the actual John Lear that was interviewed on Coast to Coast a short time ago?

If so, could you U2U me??

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks JRA. Actually I was asking what your 'source' (i.e. informational source) was that the surface of the moon is a vacuum?(I assume you haven't been there...I know I haven't.) Just looking at the moon, even through a telescope would not permit you to see an atmosphere particularly if it was not polluted like it is here on earth.

Basically any and every source that talks about the moons environment says it is in a vacuum. I have no reason to disbelieve various sources from various space agencies writen and studied by thousands of scientists all over the world for the past 50 or so years. And no, I haven't been there.

There are methods that astronomers can do to see if a planet has an atmosphere and what it's contents are. Basicly as the Sun or star light is distorted filtered through an atmosphere you can measure the different wavelengths of light that shine through it. Different elements and compounds will affect and change the different wavelengths. Orbitting probes can also analyze a planet or moons atmosphere by taking photos using ultraviolet and near infra red.

Examples from the Cassini probe around Saturn.
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

If the Moon had an atmosphere of any significance, these techniques would reveal it.

If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'.

I couldn't hear it but that doesn't mean it is not there.

I just watched it again to make sure. It's right at the end. It's the last line spoken in the video clip.

I don't believe that the Apollo landings on the moon were faked but I was wondering what you meant by 'our clip'?

I didn't write the 'our clip' thing. It was writen by who ever wrote the information on that page. I believe the Moon landings happened as documented by NASA.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by jra]

Actually this darkside of the moon theory holds alot of weight because Dr. Greer of the disclosure project has sworn testimony from i believe to be from a nasa insider who actually saw pix of structures on the moon!!!!!!

Originally posted by jra

Basically any and every source that talks about the moons environment says it is in a vacuum. I have no reason to disbelieve various sources from various space agencies writen and studied by thousands of scientists all over the world for the past 50 or so years. And no, I haven't been there.

There are methods that astronomers can do to see if a planet has an atmosphere and what it's contents are. Basicly as the Sun or star light is distorted filtered through an atmosphere you can measure the different wavelengths of light that shine through it. Different elements and compounds will affect and change the different wavelengths. Orbitting probes can also analyze a planet or moons atmosphere by taking photos using ultraviolet and near infra red.

Examples from the Cassini probe around Saturn.
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

If the Moon had an atmosphere of any significance, these techniques would reveal it.

Hmmmmmmm. Thanks, JRA, for that very informative explanation. I guess that just about seals it.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by johnlear]

[edit on 18-6-2006 by johnlear]