It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apollo 16 Hoax by NASA exposed !!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
This Apollo 16 UFO footage is probably one of the most discussed of all
the Apollo missions due to it's realistic images of a huge saucer shaped
object over the Moon.

This film sequence has appeared in many documentaries, books, magazines
and it's a classic UFO that has disturbed NASA for a long time. Recently in 2004
NASA decided to take a daring action and tried to debunk the famous images.

Nice move that almost worked except for some mistakes they made. First they
presented an image suposedly from the original film with some prosaic explanation.
The alleged image was tampered. But that was not all.

They presented an image where the UFO is on the left side of the
Moon but according to the original film the UFO is on the right side. They inverted
the image !! Even worse NASA said Apollo 16 was beginning their return to Earth.

Wrong. Apollo 16 was going for landing. See both contradictions.

www.nasa.gov...

(Quote) Beginning their return from the moon to an April 27, 1972, splashdown, Astronauts John Young, Thomas Mattingly and Charles Duke captured about four seconds of video footage of an object that seemed to look a lot like Hollywood's version of a spacecraft from another world. (End quote)

See the original 16 mm film uncuted and unedited with original audio. Check the diferences.

www.youtube.com...

Aboard Apollo 16
Onboard 16 mm DAC Footage
( Not used elsewhere on set )
Audio for after go for landing
through just before PDI


NASA keeps lying all the time.



jra

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
So the two problems you found, was a possible flipped image and a possible error as to whether they were coming or going to the moon. Hardly a big deal.

Your Youtube link didn't work for me, but I found another: www.youtube.com...
Here's a google video link to the same thing: video.google.com...

The EVA floodlight/boom appears on the left in both copies, so it looks be you who is in error regarding the floodlight/boom. And what reason do you believe that they hadn't returned from the Moon at this point? I myself am not sure if the video was shot before or after going to the Moon. Do you have a link to something that says they were going to land? And even if that NASA page is wrong, it's only a minor error that anyone could have made.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Wow they removed the video from the link I provided just after I
posted this thread. Too late for them as I made copies of all the
Apollo 16 original films.

These are the original 16 mm Apollo 16 films transfered to video
with the original audios. That's how I discovered the anomalies
published by NASA. Each film has a TAG by NASA at the beguinning.

Here is the link to the Apollo 16 go for landing film featuring the UFO
sequence. Take note how the UFO is on the right side of the Moon.
Read the TAG at the beguinning saying go for landing. (On the Moon)

video.google.com...

NASA contradictions:

In 2004 NASA published in their website their debunk to the Apollo 16
famous UFO sequence. This is very unusual as NASA always avoid to
talk about the UFO subject therefore this report is rare.

www.nasa.gov...

NASA presents a frame from the film showing the UFO on the left side
of the Moon but this image is inverted according to the original film
where the UFO appears on the right side.

NASA says these images were filmed when the Apollo was returning
from the Moon. The TAG at the beguinning of the film says the opposite
that is go for landing.

NASA says the alleged UFO was the EVA [spacewalk] floodlight/boom
but if you check the film the object suddenly dissapears fading away.
If this was indeed the EVA it should be appearing there all the time
during this sequence. For years this sequence was provided by NASA
but for some reason the images were inverted. Reviewing the original
film the anomaly results evident.

This is a link to Apollo 16 information. Check the capsule photo, I don't
see the EVA. Besides if Apollo was going to land why do they detached
the EVA ? Check the diagram for more references.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I still don't buy NASA's explanation to the Apollo 16 UFO sequence.
This is my personal opinion based on the original film images. Let's
see if " someone " attempts to remove this time the video I posted
in wich case I will assume somebody does'nt want the original Apollo
16 films to be shown.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
There is no way the UFO was the floodlight/boom, because the floodlight/boom was perpendicular to the capsule. In the image, the UFO/floodlight/boom appears as it is in parallel to the camera.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
If it's the boom why does it dissapear?I'm not saying flying saucer just not the nasa claimed boom.At the end of the google film they keep telling him to turn somthing off but he doesnt know whart ...cryptic message?
Surely the astronaut should know the switch straight away.

[edit on 3/9/2006 by kuhl]


jra

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Here is the link to the Apollo 16 go for landing film featuring the UFO
sequence. Take note how the UFO is on the right side of the Moon.
Read the TAG at the beguinning saying go for landing. (On the Moon)


Well I'm still looking into this and I need to find out more about this footage, but I just want to point out that it says "Audio from after go for landing...". Now to me, this could mean that the audio was added in later. In fact I think it most definately is. The reasons being. Cameras didn't have built in mics, Also the footage you linked to has cuts. As in, it's not one continous piece of footage, where as the audio seems to be. The audio may be from before landing, but the footage or parts of it may be from after and put together into on film clip.


NASA says the alleged UFO was the EVA [spacewalk] floodlight/boom
but if you check the film the object suddenly dissapears fading away.


As mentioned above, the film is made up of various pieces put together. Filmed at different times. At some points the floodlight boom my be hidden in the shadow and other times not.


This is a link to Apollo 16 information. Check the capsule photo, I don't
see the EVA. Besides if Apollo was going to land why do they detached
the EVA ? Check the diagram for more references.


The EVA floodlight boom was on the service module, not the command module. It was also retractable.


Let's see if " someone " attempts to remove this time the video I posted
in wich case I will assume somebody does'nt want the original Apollo
16 films to be shown.


You think some one is purposely trying to remove these videos, so we can't see them? You can get copies directly from NASA, you can also buy high quality DVD sets from spacecraftfilms.com



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
This picture here is the only thing i needed to see that it WAS NOT a UFO.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The Apollo 16 did'nt perform spacewalks therefore there was no reason
for the EVA floodlight boom to be deployed.
Besides the suddenly dissapeareance of the alleged EVA does'nt check.

The issue of the inverted image presented by NASA remains a mystery.

About the go for landing issue if you are familiar with NASA operational
terms you would know that they use the Go term to give the command
for example Go for launch or no go for launch etc. In this case after they
received the Go for landing command they proceeded and this is the
subsequent audio.

These are NASA actions and materials. Therefore are subjected to study and
analysis.

I am focusing this investigation on the Apollo 16 UFO incident that NASA
tried to debunk with contradictory informations. That's why I posted the
UFO sequence from the original film to be able to compare both versions.

The whole Apollo 16 Go for landing film is large and may weight about
5 gigabytes of digital capture, very heavy. If you want to review the
complete film be my guest and go to NASA where you say the film is
online. If you find it why don't you post a link with your comments
wich will be welcome.

In my point of view NASA's debunking report presents many doubts
and several contradictions still unclear.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I saw a documentary in Britain all about the first moon landing. Very interesting documentary. But the relevant point is that Buzz Aldrin said on film that he and Armstrong watched a UFO follow them for several hours. This more than anything else has convinced me of the reality of UFOs and a cover-up. It also proves that the UFO's are not made by our government and neither are they a cover for disguising advanced military projects.

Did you see that video the secret Nasa videos. There is a remarkable shot of tons of ufos sliding around in space. They are clearly not close objects because they move beyond a near object. Yet when Nasa(?) was questioned, they insisted they moved in front of the near object, thus reducing them to light effects on the lense. Clearly this wasn't the case.

Anyway, I'm convinced now. Why would aldrin lie?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by rizla]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Here is the link to the Apollo 16 go for landing film featuring the UFO
sequence. Take note how the UFO is on the right side of the Moon.
Read the TAG at the beguinning saying go for landing. (On the Moon)

video.google.com...
Are your sure this is the real film?

The Moon does not look the same when that part with the UFO/boom appears, and even the image looks like it was stretched to became bigger, the lines that compose the image are more visible.


Originally posted by kuhl
If it's the boom why does it dissapear?

To me, it looks like it disappears because it enters in a shadow zone.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
One or the other has to be wrong. They ARE of the same part of the moon, however no turning of the section I took from the video line the prospective up. I've hilighted the area that I am using for perspective.

Note, the picture from the movie has already been rotated to put the "boom" on the same side of the moon. To me it looks like the negative instead of the photo... Not sure, because it's inverted or something.

Pic from Nasa


Pic from the video


The craters can't be lined up with any turning...

*Edit - I'm not saying either way. I'm not concerned about WHAT it is, I'm more concerned about the descrepancy in the positions. If it has been doctored, what else has been as well?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Ecidemon]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Nice one Ecidemon
I too believe the NASA version of events. Otherwise you would have to have a UFO to appear in that exact spot and to look like the boom sooo much that it could be confused for a boom!

Now that would be outa this world! Also I think this video blows the 'they never went to the moon' bit out out of the water! They got past the belt at least!

McP


jra

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Well I just found out that the footage you linked to free_spirit is taken from Mark Grey's Apollo 16 DVD set. Which can be found here. They took the footage from NASA and arranged it into a linear record of the missions. Spacecraft films is not funded, related or connected to NASA in anyway shape or form. Using this 3rd party footage (which is copyrighted by the way) as evidence that NASA is some how lying is a bit silly.


Originally posted by free_spirit
The Apollo 16 did'nt perform spacewalks therefore there was no reason
for the EVA floodlight boom to be deployed. Besides the suddenly dissapeareance of the alleged EVA does'nt check.


Like I said, in my previous post. The footage you linked to is cut and pieced together. Some shots might have the boom extended and some not. And all Apollo missions preformed space walks after being on the moon. Look at number 26 on this list. en.wikipedia.org... The Transearth EVA


The issue of the inverted image presented by NASA remains a mystery.


I also fail to see how it's a big deal. Two of the videosI found were with the floodlight on the left and one with it on the right and NASA with still images of it on the left. In the end it makes no difference.


About the go for landing issue if you are familiar with NASA operational
terms you would know that they use the Go term to give the command
for example Go for launch or no go for launch etc. In this case after they
received the Go for landing command they proceeded and this is the
subsequent audio.


As I said before, the audio was added onto the video by the people at spacecraft films. Read the tag at the begining again, it says "Audio from after go for landing through just before PDI"


These are NASA actions and materials. Therefore are subjected to study and
analysis.


And again, your video is taken from a 3rd party that has edited the video and audio. And by edited video, I just mean the quality, nothing more.


I am focusing this investigation on the Apollo 16 UFO incident that NASA
tried to debunk with contradictory informations.


But there is nothing contradictory.


The whole Apollo 16 Go for landing film is large and may weight about
5 gigabytes of digital capture, very heavy. If you want to review the
complete film be my guest and go to NASA where you say the film is
online. If you find it why don't you post a link with your comments
wich will be welcome.


I never said it was online. You can order copies from NASA. As in physical copies. Where do you think people who make documentaries about the Moon or on NASA get there footage from?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by jra]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
not that nasa wouldn't lie, but

I agree with donk

it sure lines up

with that arm [ for me anyways ]












toasted



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I tell you, it's a conspiracy



[edit on 4-9-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Thanks for the UFO video !


Has anyone tried to say that it is Mars yet?




new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join