IMHO i think that the "disclosure" of Apollo 20 by a very credible man including clear video and audio about an ancient spaceship on the moon is by far the greatest news of mankind's history. and yet due to the fact that it came out just before the CGI drones it was completely ignored...coincidence???
i know a couple of threads were started about it already but maybe we need to re-evaluate this Apollo 20 thingy a little better.

Well heres my opinion.....

Bunk.

Fake.

Clay model.

"Hey, I'm a scientist on a secret Lunar module, I'm going to take a gratuitous shot on camera of the mission badge, which was made by the person who faked the film, and included the Soviet flag too, in order to try and give the whole thing credibility"

UFOlogy doesn't need stuff like this.

I agree DarkHeart..
I remember when I was a kid and had a nice plate of french fries, my brother would point to the ceiling and yell look at that spider..I would look and look..and when came back to the plate, my fries were almost gone..then my brother would run to the bathroom and lock himself in..end of story..
I think this is going to be one story I don't take my eyes off.: no matter how many fingers are pointing up elsewhere.

SyS

Nefermore,
Its a story worth following, who said it was the real mcCoy, Calm down.
Why if it was real then it doesnt belong in Ufology, because it would be
I guess an Identified Object on the Ground. What does belong in Ufology..It would be a great help to me to know, since your in depth conclusions persuade me you must have seen something more real than this topics subject..Help me..Aye..lead me gently into the good night so I can see as well.
I know several people the adjectives you prescribed would fit to the T..
and they are unfortunately far too real and if this story is not..well thats what keen minds such yours can protect us from, when ours fail.

Sys

Originally posted by Sys_Config
I think this is going to be one story I don't take my eyes off.: no matter how many fingers are pointing up elsewhere.

And if this story is the "spider"?

Me, I am still waiting for something with real credibility.

Why did we had some credible UFO cases back in the 70s and the start of the 80s and now, with so many people and so many of them with digital cameras, we are limited to just a few "extraordinary" happenings?

What happened to the common UFO sightings with real witnesses who would provide their names? Are these "Caret" and "Apollo 20" just baiting us from seeing the common sightings by making us look for the "uncommon"?

Originally posted by neformore
Well heres my opinion.....

Bunk.

Fake.

Clay model.

"Hey, I'm a scientist on a secret Lunar module, I'm going to take a gratuitous shot on camera of the mission badge, which was made by the person who faked the film, and included the Soviet flag too, in order to try and give the whole thing credibility"

UFOlogy doesn't need stuff like this.

Well thats it, game over lets all go home the great neformore has spoken...
look, all I suggested was it needed to be looked into a little deeper.

love your avatar...sexy

Hey ArMap.

First Im not arachnaphobic, I kill them whenever I get the chance. Second, I like my french fries, Make believe you are in a big multplex, with 16 movies playing, and midway, the movie you are watching voids. and you quietly go to another one without being seen. Sometimes ..you just have to give people enough rope...I enjoy a good movie y..thats how I take these..like a good movie or book..This guy is weaving a good story..what about the other witnesses like roswell..well gee wiz they are all dead, and people are believing that with less proof than this guy is offering. caret was almost a good story...just lousy actors.
this one has some flesh to it..pretty good actor and nice plot....if one doesnt like it ..turn the channel..like I said you decide..just don't get worked up over it like this is a dialetic with Socrates. Enjoy the ride. Think how you will feel when the real aliens come and they say they own you .I hope you have a big jar of vaseline if they decide to give you a ride.
What I say means nothing..its what you think..and feel....so please..let me enjoy the flick.

Thanx

Ps Dearkhart...You go wherevever your imagination tell you to..thats what its all about., and learning things along the journey..this one is just starting.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by Sys_Config
What I say means nothing..its what you think..and feel....so please..let me enjoy the flick.

OK, I'm out of here, enjoy your flick, I will try to leave without making to much noise.

Originally posted by darkheartrising

Originally posted by neformore
Well heres my opinion.....

Well thats it, game over lets all go home the great neformore has spoken...
look, all I suggested was it needed to be looked into a little deeper.

love your avatar...sexy

Highlighted the relevant part. My opinion, thats all. Everyone else is, as far as I know, free to do or think exactly what they want (unless I suddenly became godlike and missed it!)

As for the avatar, yeah, shes cute isn't she

still looks like a guy panning a camera around a table top. Did the apollo modules have the flight capability to make the manouvers seen from the POV of this camera in order to 'get a better angle'? I dont think so. The movemens are too 'fine' i.e. handheld..if we saw a shot of the interior then goes to the window I might buy it..but the way it is definitely not.
The interior there was probably a submarine with some stickers put on it..

But again the obvious is being missed.
The website states that the video was taken from the CSM, Command and Service Module.
The CSM would never be able to fly that low over the lunar surface.
End of story and credibility

Originally posted by Chorlton
But again the obvious is being missed.
The website states that the video was taken from the CSM, Command and Service Module.
The CSM would never be able to fly that low over the lunar surface.
End of story and credibility

In defense of this (prob fake) vid - it is hard to get a perspective and therefore an alt. For that you would really have to know the size of one of the features.

Originally posted by Now_Then
In defense of this (prob fake) vid - it is hard to get a perspective and therefore an alt. For that you would really have to know the size of one of the features.

I see your point but wasnt the CSM supposed to fly at about 60 miles altitude? and some of those shots look to be a lot closer than that, even recognising the fact that it was supposed to have zoom features.

As for the Apollo 20 launch. I just cant see that it would be something that you could hide?