It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Apollo 20 update

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by Kratos40

Can you elucidate some information on why you think this new video is fabricated?

yes : focal length

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:22 PM
I love this! Whether the Apollo 20 mission was real or not and whether the Mona Lisa video is legit or not, I love this! Sure I would love it more and it would have much deeper meaning if it were all true. But even if it's all fake, what a marvelous and creative fantasy!

Firstly, thank you to all who have posted actual arguments for and against without just typing "FAKE" in all caps.

Here are my thoughts for and against veracity.

1. Skin Residue - AGAINST - It looks fakey ... FOR - but who's to say what residue on an alien corpse hanging out in a crashed vessel on the moon is supposed to look like? Perhaps she covered herself in this goo knowing it would preserve her body for an extended period of time.
Advantage: AGAINST
2. Facial Symmetry - On the shots that are straight on her face, you can clearly see her left and right sides of her face are very asymmetrical. FOR - A sculptor would have noticed it and fixed it. AGAINST - It looks fakey. And ... FOR - Yes but mummies get all asymmetrical over time and they be real!
3. Asian appearance - not reptilian or grey or Nordic. AGAINST: Though I have actually heard of hot asian alien female contact before (ABDUCTION by the deceased Harvard professor) ... FOR: ... if someone were either trying to make this look real OR look fake they most certainly would have tried to make an authentic (or fake) looking grey or reptilian, and certainly not a near human. I'm sorry but logic here is definitely for.
4. Production Values - AGAINST: Whether you see the puppet strings clearly or not, the production is good enough that, in my opinion, there will have to be a second act to this puppet show where the puppet master either reveals himself, or a designated whistle-blower (I hate using that term for a planted whistle-blower whose purpose is to cover up truth) will surface with some hardcore evidence of the faux production. FOR: For the effort and cost involved here, this is a pretty crappy way to try to discredit someone claiming to have been an Apollo 20 Astronaut on alien recon. Even if it was all done separately and spliced together, this seems like overkill. And if this was done to discredit William, then it just makes it look like their hiding an actual event.
5. William mentions in the interview that she is still alive! FOR: On one hand William claims to have been in Rwanda for a long period of time, out of contact with the world and forgetting English (which is actually a small argument for as I've seen it happen, but a small one) ... AGAINST: ...and on the other hand William claims that the Mona Lisa EBE is still alive. How would he possibly know this? Sure there could be an answer - she sends postcards, keeps tabs on him telepathically, or perhaps he even smuggled her into Rwanda, but I have to go with
6. Touching a dead alien - I'm not going to add this one to my count as I need an odd number, and it really is miniscule. Firstly, a frozen alien in space could possibly have some super alien germs sure ... why not? And it sure seems like the protocol would be to bag corpses so that actual medical professionals could make first examinations and not cosmonauts. However, IF this is all real there may be all sorts of variables that factor into a pre-flight alien examination. First off, if you believe Roswell, our government may already have had enough information to know that alien contact was safe at that level. Secondly, they may have had to make initial examinations for safety protocols before the return flight. Maybe they forgot to pack their examination gloves?

Thirdly, if this is all real, then these men (and woman) were all very expendable.

So yes, I am leaning toward a slight "FOR" on this, mostly because I want to believe it. I confess. If it's all fake, well I didn't put a ring on it.

Lastly, I do believe the government could host secret missions to the moon. NASA and other countries send satellites up into space all the time, and perform test launches, etc. etc. etc. I believe conspirators could easily have launched three astronauts into space and minimize the number of people who knew exactly what was going on. Compartmentalize information! I have to say, people on this thread who scream in CAPS, "NOBODY SAW THE LAUNCH" is a rather conclusive (not to mention trite) argument that presupposes an encyclopedic knowledge of all published materials from all possible bases not to mention an informal relationship to all possible witnesses. Oh and I'm admitting that I'm not well read on this, but doesn't our government periodically send up top secret satellites into space? If so, then they already had the means.

I really don't understand the venomous skeptic. It can't just be fake, there have to be CAPS involved while belittling not only the production but anyone who would be stupid enough to believe such. Blah blah blah. To any of you who seem to get some odd jollies of such behavior, please keep in mind that it only makes your arguments look weak--like you can't back up your position with enough actual logic and meaningful analysis, so you resort to name calling and mockery. Weak. And keep in mind the off chance that you're wrong .... even if it's a very small chance, you will look much less the moron yourself had you posted your ideas sans CAPS, mockery, and bitter distaste. Irony?

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in