It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

APOLLO 19 COMMANDER SPEAKS OUT: interview by Luca Scantamburlo

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
If you wish to discuss the video be happy to its fake here's only a couple of reasons why. Ill start with the space ship if you look you will see in the video the background was purposely photo shopped black. Look at the edges of the ship you see it in pixilation hard to follow a contour and they missed. The lunar Lander part is a vid taken at an angle impossible in the real lunar Lander suspect its a mock up like they have in Smithsonian where they only reproduced the instrument panel. There was barely enough room for 2 astronauts much less trying to throw an alien body in there. Even if they did cut it in half or something it would violate contamination protocols. Astronauts never brought any thing into lam there was outside storage container. The instrument panel is dead if it was on the moon it be lit up like a Christmas tree. You can see the actors were pasted into this scene. The window was an error in the mock up it was too high. It was meant to help with landing and actually angled down while pilot stands up. lighting was not right the Lander had very bright light to simulate day light and when they turned them off the Lander lights turned a florescent green. should I go on?

Its a fake its obvious heck even there patch for the mission is wrong it was not put out by NASA look at the other ones you'll see the difference.




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
For those who seem to have trouble seeing the image, here is the link to to the original from the archive that NASA uses...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The object is to the right of the double/conjoined craters in the centre and it is very visible.


The only good thing to come out of the Retireafb postings was that he made people aware this thing was here in the first place.

As I said previously all this Reteiredafb / Apollo 20 guff has totally distracted from the one good clear unambiguous piece of evidence of something on the moon, we have seen, other than the usual muddled lumps of rock that are usually presented. I think that was his goal and he has succeeded.

If you do some searching on the web for the "derelict" most of what comes up is a discussion about Retireafb and the consequent dismissal of the original NASA stills as they have now become inextricably linked with his hoax.

So far Retireafb has submitted two visually distinct and conflicting images of what is supposed to be the same object, as can be seen where the CSM footage looks like a a concept maquette for the more elaborate colour flyover material (the second half of which seems to be shot in 3D - as evidenced by the green and red round the edges), there are the various lift-off shots and the "City" and "Mona Lisa", there is no footage of their EVA to the derelict (which should obviously exist if they boarded the derelict). Obviously a lot of time, money and research has gone into the hoax but it distracts from the original and very real NASA stills.

If the NASA stills are faked then questions need to be asked as to why NASA is faking what looks to be artificial constructs on the moon.

We need to stop giving Retireafb any more attention.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Acharya
 


hmmmm... ok i had a look at the video. I will not go into the fake/authentic debate but i will say that the "Mona Lisa" is Persian looking. Slanted eyes etc.

So what do we know about "ancient" space travelers. Possibly from Earth? Who knows.

BUT, it was just an observation. If it was fake they may have made it more "Alien" looking. But, it is very human in appearance with slight details that would point to certain races i.e. Persians.

Just a thought and NOT saying it is authentic at all. Just an observation!!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


One liners that offer no 'argument'? The entire discussion is moot, unless you (the royal you) are making the assertion that there was/is some grand conspiracy to "cover up" missions that never happened.

It was clear from some posters’ comments they simply did not know the mission in question never happened. If the very basis of the post is incorrect, then any fruit born from that assumption is also incorrect. Everyone, but you, seemed to follow that point quite easily: hence no need to spam up the board with a lengthy dissertation. Just a simple, known, widely agreed upon fact. Of course, if I had taken the time to explain myself like I am now, you would accuse me of being overly verbose in an effort to provide ‘dis-info’.

Now, if your asserting these missions did happen (as you clearly did in your first post to me), then stake your claim - based on evidence. Not hear say, not suppositions, not suggestions, not insinuations, not accusations that anyone who doesn't agree with you is politically on the right and therefore on of 'them'.....actual, verifiable evidence.

You are the one who turned this personal. You are the one who assigned politics to this issue and you're still the one talking about me, and not the issue. Now, I am having to spend time explaining what was patently obvious to all but one person.

Think the missions in question happened? Then lay what you think is evidence that points to that conclusion. If you’re merely “keeping an open mind” then the issue for you is me, and not the subject matter.

So, again, do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by vance
 



Ohh... mistery! Care to elaborate or go spam somewhere else. We're trying to mantain a serious discussion here. I invite you to give us your take in all this instead being such misterious.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by General_Salazar
 



And again, you're soooo right.

That's artificial

That's huge

All this "retiredafb/Apollo20" is an excellent distraction

Think for a minute: here we have a group with some money, wasting it in very accurate models, stills, videos... why?

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Now, if your asserting these missions did happen (as you clearly did in your first post to me), then stake your claim - based on evidence. Not hear say, not suppositions, not suggestions, not insinuations, not accusations that anyone who doesn't agree with you is politically on the right and therefore on of 'them'.....actual, verifiable evidence.

I U2U'ed you because you don't seem to get my point as my comment was not about politics.


So, again, do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?

Well first of all what I clearly stated in my first post to you was that even though the US government and NASA "officially" state that Apollo 17 was the last mission it doesn't nescesarily make it true.

For me this case is not about making a claim as you implied above but merely to find out the truth. So the case is that there is an alleged ancient derelict spacecraft on the farside of the moon. On to the evidence you mentioned.

These are official NASA images taken in 1971 by Apollo 15:

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Save both pictures to your pc and open them. Care to comment on what you think? I see a large cigar shaped anomaly. So as I pointed out in my previous post there is possibly something very large at that location and it must be taken seriously in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Where is retiredafb? Can he prove to have been working for nasa? I bet he cannot, because i know he cannot.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by General_Salazar
For those who seem to have trouble seeing the image, here is the link to to the original from the archive that NASA uses...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The object is to the right of the double/conjoined craters in the centre and it is very visible.


The only good thing to come out of the Retireafb postings was that he made people aware this thing was here in the first place.

As I said previously all this Reteiredafb / Apollo 20 guff has totally distracted from the one good clear unambiguous piece of evidence of something on the moon, we have seen, other than the usual muddled lumps of rock that are usually presented. I think that was his goal and he has succeeded.

If you do some searching on the web for the "derelict" most of what comes up is a discussion about Retireafb and the consequent dismissal of the original NASA stills as they have now become inextricably linked with his hoax.

So far Retireafb has submitted two visually distinct and conflicting images of what is supposed to be the same object, as can be seen where the CSM footage looks like a a concept maquette for the more elaborate colour flyover material (the second half of which seems to be shot in 3D - as evidenced by the green and red round the edges), there are the various lift-off shots and the "City" and "Mona Lisa", there is no footage of their EVA to the derelict (which should obviously exist if they boarded the derelict). Obviously a lot of time, money and research has gone into the hoax but it distracts from the original and very real NASA stills.

If the NASA stills are faked then questions need to be asked as to why NASA is faking what looks to be artificial constructs on the moon.

We need to stop giving Retireafb any more attention.



Your spot on General I have been trying my best to get the other posters to look at the root evidence not the trimmings that are utube etc.

But all they keep commenting on is how fake the video is and what type of rocket they used supposedly?

It is all so easy to fake up hard evidence and turn it into a total laughable hoax.

This has been going on for the last 50yrs, like the old swamp gas, weather ballons, now we have video layering and CGI.

Like Roswell it was the Militarys first stuff up in covering up this UFO crash event and thats why the story lives on to this day, and they learnt a very good lesson by it.

Need I say more.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Thank you Jackhill and Bobdownunder.
This particular thread mirrors exactly what has happened all over the internet with this. Some group has invested a lot of time and money into faking this footage so that it accompanies the real NASA stills and thus wipes out any credibility they have.
If Retiredafb is for real, then who on earth announces the location of a clearly artificial lunar object on NASA stills then puts up evidence which sets itself up to be criticised and contradict itself? I'm talking here about the "CSM" (in black and white ) and "Flyover" (colour) footage, both supposedly show the same object, shot from the same source by the same person, but look totally different. There is no chance of the mainstream news even picking up on any of this as the whole Retiredafb thing has kicked the legs from under it. He adds insult to injury by throwing Niburu and 2012 into the mix just to make sure he is perceived as the stereotypical internet whack job.
If it wants to be taken seriously, Ufology needs to stop acting like a religion and more like a science and present and analyse the sort of evidence which could be presented in court and stand up to examination. Ted Phillips and his physical trace evidence case studies are an example everyone else should follow.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by General_Salazar]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by General_Salazar
Thank you Jackhill and Bobdownunder.
This particular thread mirrors exactly what has happened all over the internet with this. Some group has invested a lot of time and money into faking this footage so that it accompanies the real NASA stills and thus wipes out any credibility they have.
If Retiredafb is for real, then who on earth announces the location of a clearly artificial lunar object on NASA stills then puts up evidence which sets itself up to be criticised and contradict itself? I'm talking here about the "CSM" (in black and white ) and "Flyover" (colour) footage, both supposedly show the same object, shot from the same source by the same person, but look totally different. There is no chance of the mainstream news even picking up on any of this as the whole Retiredafb thing has kicked the legs from under it. He adds insult to injury by throwing Niburu and 2012 into the mix just to make sure he is perceived as the stereotypical internet whack job.
If it wants to be taken seriously, Ufology needs to stop acting like a religion and more like a science and present and analyse the sort of evidence which could be presented in court and stand up to examination. Ted Phillips and his physical trace evidence case studies are an example everyone else should follow.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by General_Salazar]



I agree, the Nibiru nonsense and the 2012, we're all going to die! Arghhhh!, rubbish has distracted some away from the real question which is- what is the object sitting on the moon and where did it come from?
The videos appear to be part of the cover-up! They almost invite you to laugh, ridicule and mock the whole subject of Apollo 20 and the mysterious object before you've even studied the facts.
I think its a real object. I think there was an Apollo 20 mission to investigate it. But I also believe the The City, The Mona Lisa, and Retired afb testimonies are all nonsense created to make ordinary people who may stumble across this subject mistakenly believe it's all rubbish. . .



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
After some enlargement and crop from the original NASA still posted above I think there are some interesting shadows around the shape.

I have not adjusted the contrast or brightness yet.

www.gravedodger.com...



I've put 2 links, since I can never get these photos to embed, hopefully one works !!

gravedodger



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gravedodger
 


Hi, isn't it funny how the nose of the triangular object facing the cigar shaped craft sometimes vanishes? Trying to get people to admit that there's one object there is hard enough but trying to get them to accept the existence of a second is near-on impossible!
I've always though it would be interesting to widen the search and look for the location of the city? The films are nonsense but the city. . . Who knows?
By the way, give my best to Donaghadee!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I know what you mean MintWithaHole, I'll probably do some more 'gentle' photo enhancement later when I'm free ... just wish I could work out how to get the embedded images to work on ATS.

Donaghadee is just grand ... I ain't too far from it either



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by gravedodger
 


That image is from the Retiredafb site rather than the official NASA LPI site. That's the problem though, it's a very good clear image and could very well be real, but because it's been lumped with that other crap it has to be taken with a pince of salt.

I recently ran through loads of the LPI institute pics of their Delporte/ Tsiolkovskiy/ Izsaak and Lutke sequence (sorry for the spelling) and discovered some pics that show the object from a lower and side on angle and you can see the nose raised well above the ground (loooking like a crashed plane's nose would).

the main index for lutke

lower angle image of craters and object

Download the print resolution image and look to the top left. You can see more in the index link I gave above.

They are very distant though and compared to the usual ones are very washed out. I doubt the current Japanese Jaxa Selene mission is going to shed any light on this or other lunar anomalies as their supposed HD cameras are looking very loz definition at the moment. One can but hope.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by General_Salazar]

[edit on 19-9-2008 by General_Salazar]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravedodger
I know what you mean MintWithaHole, I'll probably do some more 'gentle' photo enhancement later when I'm free ... just wish I could work out how to get the embedded images to work on ATS.

Donaghadee is just grand ... I ain't too far from it either




Look forward to seeing the results of your "gentle photo enhancement". I've always wondered whether the city mentioned by retiredafb (fake as he is) could be the same object reflecting light photographed by Apollo 13?

www.lunaranomalies.com...

Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gravedodger
 


Here's a piece of the original:



Note the red line. It follows the contour along the object (which doesn't appear to be much of an "object"). The contour does not appear to be broken.

Note the green line. It follows the second "shadow". It doesn't appear to be a shadow, but a darker colored material. As does the "shadow" under the object.

If you don't zoom/resize the original jpg to ridiculous levels you don't have to use your imagination quite so much.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by gravedodger
 


I have edited my last post and put some links of lower angle pics of the object. You might be interested in having a look at them Gravedodger, but they might be too washed out too enhance to any degree.

Donaghadee's a lovely place, by the way. I'm from the Northy part of Ireland too. Stay out of yon shuck mate!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by General_Salazar
 


Thanks for that photo, I had not found that yet, and this is one of the photos available in high resolution here.

This is a crop of the "ship" from the 16193x16193 photo.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by General_Salazar
Thank you Jackhill and Bobdownunder.
This particular thread mirrors exactly what has happened all over the internet with this. Some group has invested a lot of time and money into faking this footage so that it accompanies the real NASA stills and thus wipes out any credibility they have.
If Retiredafb is for real, then who on earth announces the location of a clearly artificial lunar object on NASA stills then puts up evidence which sets itself up to be criticised and contradict itself? I'm talking here about the "CSM" (in black and white ) and "Flyover" (colour) footage, both supposedly show the same object, shot from the same source by the same person, but look totally different. There is no chance of the mainstream news even picking up on any of this as the whole Retiredafb thing has kicked the legs from under it. He adds insult to injury by throwing Niburu and 2012 into the mix just to make sure he is perceived as the stereotypical internet whack job.
If it wants to be taken seriously, Ufology needs to stop acting like a religion and more like a science and present and analyse the sort of evidence which could be presented in court and stand up to examination. Ted Phillips and his physical trace evidence case studies are an example everyone else should follow.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by General_Salazar]


No! Thank you General its great to see someone else has the sence to work out what is realy is going on and I have great respect for your vision.

You hit the nail on the head there and the religious thing is getting way out of hand I do believe that its just another debunking tool they use to discredit information.

All these Galactic Federation sites are damaging the serious investigations and making a laughing stock of the whole thing. I believe most of them are run by crooks and insiders who suck in the hippie types of this world.

I post in Clifford Stones thread and thats turning out just the same, you should visit the thread and see how its being manipulated. I feel sorry for him and its a wonder he carries on posting.

OOOPS! I am off topic a bit sorry


[edit on 19-9-2008 by Bob Down Under]




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join