Video shows a THIRD person on the moon?

LOL Yuppers its an "Urban Legend" but its quite true in the way the Russians think... that's why they beat us up there I suppose I was not clear enough on that point

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by zorgon
The real reason in my opinion is because A) we were already there and B) threre were things on the moon that they could not show the world.

Hey Zorgon, Can't wait to read your book when you get everything squared away, you present some intereseting ideas, even though I may not always agree with them

I have a question. Why would we need to fake a moon landing to get high resolution shots if we were already there? Surely there are spots on the moon that they could have worked with that do not contain things that they could not show the world. They would have actually gotten a better shot on the moon since they would have to use a camera that was capable of being in space, right. I just don't understand the logic in your post? I'm not saying that it's not there, I just don't see it.

In case you missed it the first time.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sorry, but this one is a well known William Karel and Stanley Kubrick mockumentary called Dark Side of the Moon. It's been brought to the table MANY times already.

Darn it Missed this post sorry...

Yup I knew this was a known fake, but thanks for the documentation

[edit on 19-6-2007 by zorgon]

Good question there kleverone. I too look forward to that answer. Surely the moon isn't so crowded that there's no place to 'get away from it all'.

Originally posted by kleverone I just don't understand the logic in your post? I'm not saying that it's not there, I just don't see it.

Hmmm did miss this... I haven't really been focusing on this thread... I will find the context and get back to you...

But at 4 am logic is not always accessible

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
I'm interested to see what that top secret bit at the beginning of the clip says. Anyone here have some video editing software which can enhance the text?

Man, this is a cold-war era reminder not to disclose the content of the video to anyone , with lawsuits warnings...maybe court martial for treason...i dunno. Must be something that kind.

I would just like to add that even though it could have been possible to faking the moon landings with the amount of money they spent on the NASA program.

What I can not understand is why the hell Russia didn’t expose this, in the heights of the cold war

Don't get me wrong, I think if NASA had landed on the moon they would had made moon bases instead of spending a Sh*t loads of money on a space station which creates very little science

Right. Because they are probably under threat from the E.T. technology we have..
The cold war and 'regular' arms race is all played above the table. But under the table is probably a secret so astounding, dangerous & awefull that no one dares go against the U.s. playbook..
They wanna keep everything 'conventional' (I.e. NOT ET)

Again, the space station is a waste of money but its part of the conventional
program that keeps everyone happy that we're doin 'something' and not very well either, where as on the other side of the coin we have tech from the Roswell crash and who knows what else with a secret advanced program light years ahead of whats on public display..again with only a few needed to be in the know.

Originally posted by maple5211
I would just like to add that even though it could have been possible to faking the moon landings with the amount of money they spent on the NASA program.

What I can not understand is why the hell Russia didn’t expose this, in the heights of the cold war

Don't get me wrong, I think if NASA had landed on the moon they would had made moon bases instead of spending a Sh*t loads of money on a space station which creates very little science

[edit on 20-6-2007 by wildone106]

zorgon, your color "Apollo" "warehouse stage" images are blatant CGI fakes, the high ambient level is a dead giveaway. claiming them to be real sucks. confess.

Again you don't know for certain just making all that up, threat of ET's, come on!!!!

It's just if Russia wanted to make USA look daft and spoil there fun on the moon then I would want to expose the truth, just think how much they spent on the program and for what if Russia could prove the footage was made in a studio.

Either it was fake and it was done so well that even today you cannot actually disprove the footage unless you go there yourself.

OR

Quit simply it's real, and maybe Nasa felt it was not worth the money if they don’t get the public behind the program plus by that time they proved a point to the world but more importantly to Russia.

All I’m saying is that you must stick to the facts, otherwise once you start making things up you have already lost your argument.

Originally posted by jhotrod
zorgon, your color "Apollo" "warehouse stage" images are blatant CGI fakes, the high ambient level is a dead giveaway. claiming them to be real sucks. confess.

Huh? What are you talking about? Those "color Apollo" images are shots from Tom Hanks new movie... what part of the links did you not pay attention to?

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by zorgon
The real reason in my opinion is because A) we were already there and B) threre were things on the moon that they could not show the world.

Hey Zorgon, Can't wait to read your book when you get everything squared away, you present some intereseting ideas, even though I may not always agree with them

I have a question. Why would we need to fake a moon landing to get high resolution shots if we were already there? Surely there are spots on the moon that they could have worked with that do not contain things that they could not show the world. They would have actually gotten a better shot on the moon since they would have to use a camera that was capable of being in space, right. I just don't understand the logic in your post? I'm not saying that it's not there, I just don't see it.

Hey Zorgon, I'm still waiting for that logic???? I think that NGC2736 would like to see your logic in that statement as well.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by kleverone]

Zorgon, have you heard about the people in Western Australia (different transmission) that saw a coca cola can get kicked onto the set? Is it bunk?

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
Zorgon, have you heard about the people in Western Australia (different transmission) that saw a coca cola can get kicked onto the set? Is it bunk?

Heard about it just recently and discussed it with John over lunch... don't know yet if this is a true account, but it does tie in with what John has been saying about transmissions going through Australia before being sent to Goldstone. I will look into this some more and see if anything more than the one link to that story exists..

Originally posted by maple5211

What I can not understand is why the hell Russia didn’t expose this, in the heights of the cold war

The reason you do not understand this is because you ASSUME that the Cold War was real, and not that the Russians and Americans played both their publics in order to get money for armaments and space programs...

I have CIA declassified documents that I will post on my site when I get caught up but you can google them...

Here is one from Russia...
home.comcast.net...

Also read a book called "The Two Sides of the Moon" by an American and a Soviet Astronaut... it even mentions a Russian Lunar Rover during Apollo days...

Don't get me wrong, I think if NASA had landed on the moon they would had made moon bases instead of spending a Sh*t loads of money on a space station which creates very little science

See answer below....

Originally posted by kleverone
Hey Zorgon, Can't wait to read your book when you get everything squared away, you present some intereseting ideas, even though I may not always agree with them

LOL Thanks... but the book is on hold... Undo backed out and I need a new writer I may take a different angle on the book because there is too much to cover...

I have a question. Why would we need to fake a moon landing to get high resolution shots if we were already there? Surely there are spots on the moon that they could have worked with that do not contain things that they could not show the world.

Okay okay just for you and this thread... but don't go blab it around. First let me say I was not avoiding the question because of lack of "logic", I wasn't ready to play this card yet... but hey no one pays attention to these threads anyway...

Originally posted by zorgon
The real reason in my opinion is because A) we were already there and B) there were things on the moon that they could not show the world.

One of the biggest mistakes everyone is making is using the word NASA as a geneic term for everything to do with Space... NASA is not the only agency in the USA concerned with space...

The Clementine Satellite was NOT a NASA venture... it was the DoD and the Navy Ballistic missile division... NASA merely ran Mission control because they had the infrastructure...

Lunar Orbiter high res images according to the defense contractor went straight to the Department of Defense.... then released to NASA and the public

And don't forget it was not NASA computers that netted Gary McKiino life in jail, but Space Command

(For anyone interested in just how big Space Command is see here...]

Space Command Page 1

Space Command Page 2

When I say "we are already there" I do NOT MEAN NASA

When I say "there were things on the moon that they could not show the world" I mean THEY COULD NOT SHOW NASA EITHER

That is my logic... and I have spent months gathering data and filing FOIA's to get documents. I am waiting for one more key piece before I am ready to present all this, but for now you only asked about my logic

All the documents I have do NOT have NASA on them... I wrote to a NASA historian looking for an old document that was referenced on the NASA Technical papers site... the Historian pointed me to a RUSSIAN website that had an "accurate summary" of the papers.... and a few days later I got leters from 4 other agencies that the historian forwarded my request to and the last response came with an FOIA form attached.... for a declassified document!

The address was...
US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/US Army Forces Strategic Command
ATTN: SMDC-HO
P.O. Box 1500
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801

As you can see there is no NASA in this one either...


Now then... John and I discussed the "fake moon landing" over lunch the other day... He used to be 100% for they did go to the moon, but they faked the images...

Over the last few weeks we have been watching video clips that lead us to believe they may actually never have gone there... I posted a video of a flag... in the last scene the flag moves as the astronaut walks by, to far away to have bumped it...

But at the beginning there is something that my daughter spotted... when the astronaut sets up the flag... he is moving it around vigorously trying to set it. What my daughter spotted was that the folds in the flag DO NOT MOVE. I watched this repeatedly and its true... they are still the same folds at the end even when the "breeze" makes it move..

Now Atmosphere or no atmosphere, a piece of clothe would move, NOT RETAIN THE FOLDS.... so it would seem that the flag was STARCHED...

Why would they do this? Either John is correct and there is some air up there... OR this was NOT shot on the moon.

Here is the Video...

Stay Tuned for the Aquila.... coming soon to a news cast from Pegasus

No I would like both you Keverone and NG to answer three questions from the following video...

1) What is your theory regarding the reflections on the helmet
2) What is your answer to the Gravity discrepency from expected to real
3) What about the thruster power variance between the landing and the test



And one question from this one...(yes I know the "glint: is from the antenna)

1) In the two shots of them stumbling on the moon, how are they getting back up from those positions...? Other than that the video is just plain funny





[edit on 22-6-2007 by zorgon]

Nice work zorgon Have you seen the film "What Happened on the moon" ? It has an interview with Una and her coke bottle claim (Hehe). It's about 3hrs long, it was freely available at one time, you could probaly find it somewhere if you looked. Also "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" is quite good. Can't find that one either.

This is a homemade doco thats popped up recently it features some segments from the above films plus much I've not seen before.
Lunacy

The clip in the link below has the footage I was reffering to in my earlier post. It's in the last third of the clip with the lunar take off and the approach of the lem.
Is this legit footage? I find it highly unbelievable.
The guy interviewed here also mentions the lunar replication at Flagstaff.

video.google.com.au...
This link doesn't seem to work, you want part 8 ??

Also, here's an interesting story about that little piece of surveyor footage in the above clip. The Surveyor-3 ‘Hoax’ Footage



[edit on 23-6-2007 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz
Nice work zorgon

Have you seen the film "What Happened on the moon" ? It has an interview with Una and her coke bottle claim (Hehe).

I thought I did but it must have been a different version as I would have remembered a coke bottle

Zorgon, I must say, that is probably the only answer that could make sense, Not saying I buy it, but certainly plausible, although I would think that such a venture(moon landing) would be pretty highly suspect as well. Have there been any former employees of the space program that said they believe it was faked?

We needed a reason to beat the Russians. If the US would have actually made it to the moon by 1970....by 1980 we would have been to mars.....by 1990 we would have been to jupiter...by now we would informed. We tried, failed, faked it, and made history

I have looked at the Apollo evidence for a long time. There are many pieces of footage like that. None have proven genuine that I have ever heard of. I never saw any evidence that survived scrutiny, as far as it supporting the arguments that the moon landings were faked:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

That is not to deny that there is plenty being covered up about what lies beyond earth:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

but all the sturm und drang about the moon landings being faked is one of the many dead ends and time wasters in the “conspiratorial” world.

This thread has meandered a bit, but I would like to comment on the original video. Initially, it screamed hoax and I passed it off to some kid with desktop editing software and a bunch of film effect plug-ins.

However, I just spent over an hour browsing the 800+ posts responding to the video on You Tube and there is some interesting stuff regarding the video. Lively discussion to say the least.

First, the original poster seems very real. He had no other UFO or Moon videos in his library and has been sincerely defending his story to the hundreds of posts by de-bunkers.

They have matched his clip to some NASA original footage and oddly, the NASA footage is cropped suggesting that his clip shows more screen area and that perhaps NASA cropped the image to remove the "stage-hand". Oddly, his clip has more static and is of poorer quality.

If you visit the orignal post and link to You Tube, you will see that the "film" was allegedly found in his deceased Grandfathers safe.

Even if it turns out to be a hoax, it was well executed on the video side and by the original poster on You Tube.

Anyone else have an hour to waste reviewing the story?

Regards....Kinda Kurious

[edit on 7-7-2007 by kinda kurious] fixed typos

[edit on 7-7-2007 by kinda kurious]