Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo 20 update

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I was laughing from start to finish, who's responsible for this wonderful forgery? It's beyond hilarious. I especially enjoyed the clay being. It goes to show that the hoaxers of the whole Apollo 20 series are completely bonkers for play dough. When are they going to give it up? I also enjoyed the post production effects in the visual and sound departments. Gotta enjoy those cheesy sound effects.

Such an insult. There's absolutely no more mystery and effort put into making elaborate fakes. Not to mention the lack of imagination. If the hoaxers of this lame video are reading this, please, find some people with talent and give us folks with common sense and a staunch skepticism something to debate and discuss.

Thanks in advance.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
What a load of BS. I'm not buying this stuff. Thierry certainly doesnt give up his hoax. And yes, this is an insult to viewer's intelligence.

As always, I wonder if he ever will stop. What a sad life.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


ignorethefacts -

help, I am no video expert and would appreciate some more detail. I understand you can tell that there are video filters added. Can you get into more detail into how you figured that out ? I also understand it has to do with computer programs. Can you let me know how you went about figuring this out ?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It would be nice to find out if he is still alive? in the interview it is obvious that the interviewer wants to get hold of the footage, wouldn't be the first time someone has tampered with footage for entertainment purposes, there was so much more to the promises when the original video's came online, and he seems so genuine in the interview, answered all the questions ok as far as im concerned, but that is easily stage able, It would be a crime if one mans heroic act was made to look like a mockery by some small film company,

There was so much research done by many people when this all started last year, and the results if i remember remained inconclusive, this guy was pushing the age envelope then and you can hear his frailty in the interview, eve if this part of this story is fake, i believe there was some truth in the later military missions, and they were not carried out by NASA, you cant deny there are dozens of places a saturn v rocket could have been launched from without witnesses, and if it was a huge secret, one of the biggest in human history, then im certain they would have made sure nobody realised it was a saturn v,

If there was an Apollo 19 & 20 then these guys are hero's and deserve to be acknowledged IMO.

I cant put my finger on it but something is telling me to worry about William Rutledge, so im off on a quest when time permits to discover if he is still kicking, and to bring proof of such, this might take some time hehe.

adding F&S thank you OP


Just wanted to add something related but off topic in a way, recently at AREA 51 on google earth appeared what seems to be a launch tower, one of the recent threads on AREA51 by a supposed employee out there said this launch pad was being made ready to launch, i am saying this to show there are places to launch from, even though this may not even be a launch pad at all, How many places are there in the USA that are unknown like Area 51?

[edit on 9/4/2008 by azzllin]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Ignore The Facts is right on the money with this.
( well certainly with his technical evaluation(IMHO) Athough I agree with others that his tone is a tad harsh.)

Points to Ponder:

1. All film footage contains a certain amount of "weave".
A slight visual drift from top-to-bottom and side-to-side.
This is caused by the film sprockets imprecise alignment
and registration as it is fed through both camera and projector.
2. Specifically 16mm is far worse than 35mm since it is "single-perf"
(Sprockets only on 1 side. )
3. The "film artifacts" were clearly added in post-production editing
and could be from a number of 3rd Party "Plug-In" providers.
The base footage was rock solid, which screams video.
4. Need I continue?

My 30+ years as a Professional Videotape Editor is the basis of my
evaluation. I have NEVER said this before on this forum but
I believe the footage is a ....HOAX.

Plus as Sherpa pointed out there was a connection to some low-end,
production company who's equipment roster backs my claim and touts
Apollo "Documentary" project.

Nice find Sherpa (as always)

regards......kk


[edit on 9-4-2008 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I'm kind of skeptical on this one, but anything is possible. Looks to me to be waxy, but I don't know what a frozen corpse looks like, especially one thats been up there for millenia


Even if this does turn out to be a fake, it doesn't have to mean William Rutledge was lying, just people 'cashing in'.

Quick question, I read a while ago that Vanderburg was the AFB that had a 'space port' constructed, along with ships. The government later admitting to the construction, but stated that it was never used!! Does Rutledge state that they went up in a rocket? or just name the craft (Apollo) and people assume it's a rocket?

www.globalsecurity.org...
(on earth files aswell, but you got to pay

www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1355&category=Science

thanks. EMM

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


I wont call you a shill but to state that your opinion is absolutely correct and hence saying everyone else is wrong... well excuse me for laughing at your bravado. If you are ignorant ( I use that in the literal definition form and not in a demeaning fashion at all) enough to believe you are 100% correct on anything then it is silly for anyone to engage you in conversation at all. Is it fake? Probably. One good fake though. Its sad to watch "conspiracy theorists" and "debunker's" or "skeptics" both scamper around like they got it all figured out. When both sides doesn't know squat in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


I wont call you a shill but to state that your opinion is absolutely correct and hence saying everyone else is wrong... well excuse me for laughing at your bravado. If you are ignorant ( I use that in the literal definition form and not in a demeaning fashion at all) enough to believe you are 100% correct on anything then it is silly for anyone to engage you in conversation at all. Is it fake? Probably. One good fake though. Its sad to watch "conspiracy theorists" and "debunker's" or "skeptics" both scamper around like they got it all figured out. When both sides doesn't know squat in the grand scheme of things.


First of all, I think the new videos at Revver.com are fakes. But I also think shug7272 is right, the debunkers and skeptics does not have all the answers, and it is great that the OP started this thread to make the rest of us aware that the new videos are out there. Thanks for that!

Personally, I believe it is very possible that the first videos that were posted at YouTube were real, at least the first video of the spaceship. I also believe that the person or persons who moved the videos to Revver.com and also posted new ones, are professional debunkers. They are now working hard and put a lot of effort into discrediting the original Retiredafb. There must be a good reason for all their hard work. I am also worried about what might have happened to William Rutledge. Luca Scantamburlo lost contact with him a long time ago. I e-mailed mr. Scantamburlo a while back, and he thinks that the new videos at Revver.com are fakes, and certainly not posted by William Rutledge.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ziggystar60]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ziggystar60]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
This may help those that don't have a clue about video editing (like me). Starting around 1:25 to 1:28 in the video, the "mona lisa" character becomes 3D'ish as opposed to the background (control panels). Kind of like a bad rock video effect from the 1990's. Something you'd see on Beavis and Butthead


(a plus side would be that this post opened my eyes to yet another lunar mystery I knew nothing about...kudos!!
)



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 



Do you have the URL to the original Youtube vids?

You do have a point. If someone was to post a genuine video, a pro disinfo person would then take that video and add some layers or cgi effects and repost it and then he and his colleauges would prove it's fake by pointing out the cgi stuff they themselves added.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shades1035
reply to post by ziggystar60
 



Do you have the URL to the original Youtube vids?

You do have a point. If someone was to post a genuine video, a pro disinfo person would then take that video and add some layers or cgi effects and repost it and then he and his colleauges would prove it's fake by pointing out the cgi stuff they themselves added.


Sorry, I think Retiredafb's original site at YouTube is closed now. I have done a search for his channel there, and came up with nothing. But I found these videos from "moonwalker1966delta", which also claimes to have stuff regarding the Apollo 20 mission. I have no idea if these videos are real, but the one called "Apollo 20 Snyder ingress" was previously on Retiredafb's original channel.

Link to "Moonwalker1966delta": www.youtube.com...

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ziggystar60]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm leaning toward the hoax side of the fence on this one.

My opinion comes mainly from the video interference that appears in what normally would be a random pattern. In this video it seems to have been used in a dramatic way.

The first time the body is seen video interference obscures the image very quickly after you see what it is. It happens again before the camera guy moves on to continue wandering around.

The second time the camera guy gets the body in the shot video interference once again obscures the image very very soon after you see it.

Finally when the camera guy moves in close and lets you get a really good look at the face there's a long period of time that's totally uninterrupted by interference.

These three things scream DIRECTOR. The video interference wasn't random. The director used the video interference to manipulate your emotions.

The first time you see a face and it's obscured right after you see and understand what it is. It comes back, but the camera guy wanders off leaving you wanting to see more. When he does come back you see just a glimpse of the head and once again right on cue the interference takes it away. The interference is being used to whet your appetite. A hunger which the director satisfies later on when he gives you a long uninterrupted look at the face.

I guess they took marijuana on Apollo 20. It's the only explanation I can think of for the bazaar behavior. One guy wandering around taking pictures of the instrument panel and other stuff while the other guys twirling his camera. Pretty weired.

By the way, the fingerprints of the director are also on the FILM camera the other guy is playing with. It's there to support the other video that's available.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by LazyGuy]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Breadfan
This video simply insults viewer's intelligence. Even a monkey could tell it's fake by just looking at the way the guy handles the camera and the bag. Last time I checked, Moon has a very small gravity and those things should be floating around.

[edit on by Breadfan]


And the last time you were on the moon was when? Also your usage of the word "should" implies you are not certain? So stop trying to sound like an expert. Not saying this is real, but your authority on science and your 'absolutely everything is bunk' attitude on every single UFO post is really beginning to get on my nerves.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Thanks to the OP for footage I haven't seen before.I've seen most of the Rutledge stuff so this is new to me.
The only thing that turns me off of the thread is the condescending remarks made by the usual couple of members.
While I agree that the footage looks fake, I wouldn't go so far as to call people brain dead for not seeing it.
Apparently the "smart" folks don't have to back up their opinions with anything that would help out the "brain dead" folks.
Examples and or links to promote this opinion would probably be more constructive and lend credibility to the statements.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
revver.com...

That is the link to all that paticular users videos. All dealing with this topic. Can't all be faked can they?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I'm sorry but it hurt so bad to watch that I stopped before it concluded. The looping shortwave radio sound - the wayward camera handling and canned video interference effects...just bad all the way around.

This didn't require a huge set. Some people don't realize that 2D imagery is easily mapped on poly surfaces and comped as a back plate. Based on the budget look/sound of it all - that was probably the technical high point of this production.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Definitely fake. There is actually a spot around 1m05s where the "alien" flashes in the off frame. like someone forgot to overlay the still in that short time frame. Because of this it is clearly added in after the fact. I have done this by accident using final cut(Forgot to anchor the two images so it essentially has "dropped frames, there, then gone, then there"). Besides, as someone said earlier, it really does look like clay. Almost like the only thing the artist cared about detail-wise is the face, the rest of the body is just a quick mock-up.

Just my thoughts...



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
That is one of the most fake and ridiculous things I have ever seen..



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Front page! Top story, crazy springs to mind is this really what people want to see?

I cant beleive i have to log in and comment on this but really this is just rubbish, worthy of a place in a trashy paper (maybe the daily sport, along with the double decker bus found on the moon)

If people think stuff like this doesnt hurt the actual quest for the truth then so be it, but my humble opinion is that it does and reflects poorly on the members of this site who have made it front page stuff whilst other more important discussion worthy threads stay hidden!

Thats my rant

Have a nice day/night



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Opinion; 1st, the man playing with the camera or device seems weird, He should know how to use it. 2nd I would not put this past the dis info groups.

Just an opinion





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join