Does Armstrong sleep well at night?

Why would they hire Jim Oberg to do a special reporting on the whole thing if they already had archival footage of a flyover.

I suspect you've conflated two different events or saw a simulation or a documentary.

It's OK, we all do that.

It's possible you did see something like that. But the highest mag of the Clementine site:
www.nrl.navy.mil...
...appears to be too low a resolution to pick up anything smaller than a half a football field and 15 feet at closest approach. That means anything smaller than 20-30 feet wouldn't be noticed; certainly not junk and debris left by a littering Astronaut:

Wiki: The image array is 288 × 384 pixels, (pixel size of 23 × 23 micrometers) so the pixel resolution at the Moon was 7–20 m depending on the spacecraft altitude. (At Geographos the resolution would have been

So JCM, was this viewing of yours, a case of being at the right place, at the right time?

I'm kinda unclear as to how you might view 'secret' video, with
seemingly much better resolution than, the Clementine Lunar Map
images.

And from what I remember, Clementine was not secret.

Care to expound, a little?

And can you specify which platform/vehicle, was responsible for the 'fly over' in this quote ?

Originally posted by JCM
Back in the 90’s I got to see the video footage of a fly over on one of the Apollo landing sites...

OK, found that old Apollo doco, on Youtube. Great YT poster, btw, check his archive.

From 'Apollo 16 Nothing So Hidden (2 of 3)
www.youtube.com...
I left in the times where you see these two images. First one is at 4:26 observing a crater rim.

Their first traverse would take them about 1km west of the landing site.

Next one comes at 7:32 in surveying a hill 4 km away:

April 22nd, today they were headed to a little over 4 km south to climb their Rover up the side of Stone Mountain.

I just put the jpg up so you can see where to look in the vid. Go to youtube and view it yourself. This pic is not the evidence, it's the vid from NASA made by THEM in 1972 that's the evidence, and IMO a smoking gun. (that -at least- they have messed with their video. At most they're using the same foreground for two different excursions a day apart and over 4km apart. The rocks in the foreground are identical.


Thoughts?

I also found some alleged shots from that UV scope that I mentioned. They're still shots. Same video. I'll post screen caps of them later if there's interest.

Nothing to prove those are taken through the scope shown in the vid, just still images of something made sometime by whom, I don't know.

Perhaps Speak can find the images of these sites above in their archive at NASA now, but doesn't matter a huge amount because we have video made by NASA now.

Haha, you might also have noticed by now that the framing of the shot is identical.

This framing was not done by me in the screen cap, nor by the Youtube poster, but by NASA. Thus the same foreground appears in both shots, but also the camera is not moved though the narrator tells you it is 1km east of the previous location and 4km south.

That is clearly impossible.

The rocks touch the frame in an identical place in both. Not even debatable that they're the same rocks.

Case Closed for this mission. Apollo 16 was faked. (or footage from NASA reported to be from the Moon was faked to be precise).

I hasten to emphasize that this is not new information.

It was demonstrated on "Was it only a Paper Moon" many years ago.

So, while it makes it clear to ATS members, it's not an earth-shattering development for the rest of the world.

There are a few sites that probably sell the vid...

OK, here it is from 2006?

www.buzzcreek.com...

Grade A Media
www.buzzcreek.com...

(not affiliated with them, etc)

They link up to the Google vid and offer a .wmv for $3.50, etc.


So-o-o if NASA sends their MiB, I'm blaming you guys.

Originally posted by Badge01
Got a cite? A link to a video? What's your experience? Are you a physicist, photoanalyst?

What would you say if one vid showed dust kicked up and another phot taken at the same time with another camera showed no dust kicked up at all?

www.aulis.com...

If you take the picture on the highest point, you notice that all sand is allready on the ground..



And for the 2 pictures you show above from time 4:26 and 7:32. That is obivously a 'directors' mistake of the same scene used for the wrong cutscene.. You can see he is carying the tool that is standing on the ground in the 7:32 cut..

You might be surprised the I tend to agree about the 'director's' error. You'd have to have the raw footage with the time codes and date codes to go further.

That's beyond the scope of what I can do.

Did you watch the whole 9min video? All three parts of the series?

Originally posted by Badge01
You might be surprised the I tend to agree about the 'director's' error. You'd have to have the raw footage with the time codes and date codes to go further.

That's beyond the scope of what I can do.

Did you watch the whole 9min video? All three parts of the series?

I dont have the raw original footage, who does and how did they get it? Even if it has dates and time codes, the camera would have been mounted at the precise position. Which i find hard to believe that they did that after a day. So i'm pretty sure there is a good reasonable explanation for that error. Tell me, why would they faked more moon landings after the first one? There was no need to proof it 'again' in my opinion.

Well badge you came up trumps again regarding the same scene scenario.

For some reason I couldn't find it!

That for me is the smoking gun, certainly on that mission anyway.

Before I started this thread I was on the fence, now I'm certain (in my heart) that ALL the ML were faked. If not faked then the footage that we've seen has definitely been tampered with.

This conspiracy gets seriously overlooked in my opinion. Events like JFK, 9/11, and the UFO phenomenon takes precedent because they will never be solved, but NASA could easily put the ML debate to bed. I wonder why they don't?

It will be interesting to see what they do for the anniversary in a couple of years. Maybe NASA will shock us all by putting a camera on the moon showing us the area of the historic event? I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Originally posted by Cygnific
I dont have the raw original footage, who does and how did they get it? Even if it has dates and time codes, the camera would have been mounted at the precise position. Which i find hard to believe that they did that after a day. So i'm pretty sure there is a good reasonable explanation for that error. Tell me, why would they faked more moon landings after the first one? There was no need to proof it 'again' in my opinion.

I'm saying, if they had the original raw footage which the 'director' used to put together this program, with the time codes saying 'April 21...then April 22...' then it would prove that they did this in a studio on Earth, because I don't think you can argue with the mission report that on one day they were 1km west of the Lander and the next day they went to 'Stone Mountain' and was 4km south of the Lander.

If they, indeed, did go to different places on those two days, according to the mission log, then I don't see how NASA could explain it away.

Did you watch all three youtube vids? (asking again).

The reason they must have faked all the missions would be that it is impossible (or so some say) to send a man past the Van Allen belts and return and live.

Remember the Russians never went, even with improved technology. All the Pro-landing people say they were demoralized. That sounds like bull to me. They still had people in our program, grabbing secrets. And they had a better German than we did.

Did you watch the 2 main Google vids? If not I'm surprised you feel you can debate this, plus I don't have time to give you more 'reasons' - there are too many.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Well badge you came up trumps again regarding the same scene scenario.

For some reason I couldn't find it!

Try searching on Apollo 16. They're the first ones up. (just looked).

We have to be cautious, but yeah, barring a 'director's' error on that original NASA vid from 1972, this indicates to me they did this raw footage in a studio, forgot to move the camera, thought no one would catch it, and had no idea we'd have the technology to view it on PCs and overlay stuff and re-watch old vids and everything.

This is what is blowing the lid off of the JFK thing wrt the z-film oddities.

The conspirators never thought we could look so closely with such powerful desktop abilities.

It's funny, because here we have original NASA footage and the pro-NASA group just says 'oh NASA made an error in making this video'.

It's as though the pro-side will say anything to keep their world view unchanged in this area.

Even though I lean towards the idea that we have to make a strong case to prove the landing or parts of it or the vids were faked, I think it's up to NASA to prove they did it, using independent verification...

Why can no one admit that for EVERY other expedition independent verification is REQUIRED? You can not get in Guiness record book without this.

It's as though people's brains go to sleep in this one area. I think the Pro-NASA side thinks that having a subsequent mission by the USA proves the first missions. LOL_ROFLMAO.

Laser reflectors can be faked or deposited by non-manned missions (plus who can hit a small reflector with a 15m wide laser beam if you can't really give the coordinates of the reflector?).

Moon rocks? Faked or from Antarctica or brought back by unmanned.

The one thing that compels me is Armstrong or Aldrin looking right at the camera and saying 'I'm an honest guy and I tell you I was there'. (see youtube, where were you in july 1969)

But look at these remarks he made about 'remove one of truth's protective layers...'

youtube.com...

...in 1994. Whoa. (on Paper Moon, I think. The one with the british accent lady as the narrator).

Laser reflectors can be faked or deposited by non-manned missions (plus who can hit a small reflector with a 15m wide laser beam if you can't really give the coordinates of the reflector?).

interesting, we had the technology to send an unmanned mission and robotically place a reflector and align it. Pretty impressive technology from a mob of engineers who were otherwise capable of sending astronauts to space - just not the moon.

Moon rocks? Faked or from Antarctica or brought back by unmanned.

That would be a neat trick. If NASA had the capability to 'fake' a moon rock then i would assume that a manned mission to the moon would be a cinch.

Brought back by unmanned? See my first paragraph^, considering the volume that they brought back also.

Given the size of the rocks returned, and that they weren't damaged by atmospheric entry, i think we can dismiss the idea of Antartica.


What's the current accepted conspiracy theory about what actually happened? When did the actual missions start? How much of the apollo mission is accepted as real?

i'm not making fun or being rude, i'm open minded to hearing a possible theory. Nor am i 'Pro-NASA'. But any theory has to stand up to scrutiny, and the overwhelming evidence of the moon landings suggests that it did indeed happen.

Originally posted by Badge01
Why can no one admit that for EVERY other expedition independent verification is REQUIRED? You can not get in Guiness record book without this.

It's as though people's brains go to sleep in this one area. I think the Pro-NASA side thinks that having a subsequent mission by the USA proves the first missions. LOL_ROFLMAO.

Case Closed for this mission. Apollo 16 was faked

*Ahem*

Moon's-struck

The lunar speed record was set by the manned Apollo 16 Rover, driven by John Young....

Excerpt from Guinness World Records 2002, page 180, ISBN 0-85112-124-1

Originally posted by mnemic

The lunar speed record was set by the manned Apollo 16 Rover, driven by John Young....

Excerpt from Guinness World Records 2002, page 180, ISBN 0-85112-124-1

Touché.

I have to admit I've pretty much jumped the fence and am no longer a hoax-believer, thanks to guys like JRA.

I've been doing a lot of reading on the Apollo Hoax net board (originally started by a HB, but it's mostly scientific pro-NASA now:

apollohoax.proboards21.com...

Anyway, good find on Guiness. Thanks for the post.

no probs, i remember when i saw that post i was thinking to myself.. "hey, i've actually seen something about this in the guinness book" - just it took me a while to find the book. which was packed away somewhere - and i didn't want to post it without quoting a source.

They used to have the links to it online, but the information on the guinness site is actually pretty minimal nowadays - i guess they just want you to buy the book!

I've joined up the the JREF boards but i'm just lurking at the moment. What's it been like on that site for you, people pretty easy to get along with?

(sorry for the off topic banter!)