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.

 

NASA and the Moon War: Say no to the bombing!

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Weedwhacker: I am aware of them using different cameras on the moon and the spacecraft. That was one of the points as well, certainly they could have managed to get better video footage regardless of the live video feed. I assume one of the purposes of going to the moon would be for scientific reasons and research and not just to "show off" that they managed to get there, thus it would only make sense to bring good enough cameras to actually get some footage back in quality good enough for such reasons. I truly do not believe that bringing cameras would be a "last thought" thing for a huge mission like this, come on. In addition to that you have the mentioned "show off" part as well, which further should have increased the reasons to bring along cameras that could provide decent video footage from the Moon.

Another of my points was that we still see awful quality TODAY almost half a century after the first missions to the moon, manned or not, and images are obviously tampered with - if you feel you can explain that they are not tampered with and not in awful quality on purpose feel free to do so. The evidence is rather overwhelming in my opinion though, in fact it is clear to me that the images are tampered with and not really something that I see a point in discussing (I have heard most of it before, so called "scientific" reasons and what not for the bad quality).

When it comes to JPL I am familar with it and co-founder Jack Parsons whom were quite involved with secret societes and the occult, something which NASA themselves and governments in general are, thus indeed I have no reason to think that JPL is NOT majorly involved here as far as coverups go. For those interested in knowing more about one of JPLs founders check en.wikipedia.org...

Unforunately the only fantasy I see here is the one put upon you by NASA and their likes.

Regarding the cameras on the Mars rovers, each rover has 9 cameras, if you want the specifications check www.mwoa.org...

And as a last note on this post I would like to ask you the same I have asked 3-4 times in this thread now: Why would people whom have been working for NASA and other parts of the governments risk their reputations and jobs by going out stating that they ARE involved with such coverups, that they KNOW about alien bases on the moon, they are involved with alien technology etc - even willing to testify in court about it - if it was nothing to it? Both witnesses AND photographical evidence are backing up all these claims and more is coming all the time. Personally I am also one of the people who know many of these things are true from my own involvement and experience with different matters, and I certainly know I am not making it up myself regardless of what you or others may believe. Thus I have personally little reason to think these other people would lie about things that actually are true either.

-Maggador

[edit on 10-9-2009 by IX-777]




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


You thoroughly misunderstood my points about Apollo.

The "last-minute" aspects regarding Apollo 11 referred to the ability to show it live. Should have been "last-few-months" design. NOT originally intended in concept design.

A means to have a camera deploy, aimed correctly, be triggered by the Astronaut just after egress fromthe hatch...the focus had been on just GETTING there, the enormity and the historical significance was realized rather late.

Shows why there wasn't much thought given to the recordings made then, the ones in Houston anyways. Plenty of other recordings of the same event existed and were kept in Australia, since that was the receiving station at the time. AND, of course, all the News media kept theirs, and archived it for posterity.

Now, as to the Mars Rovers, and the nine cameras...I read past that point in your link mentioning the number of cameras. After page 225:


All the cameras use the same type of solid-state, silicon-based CCD image
sensor and associated electronics. This flat CCD is a 1024  2048 array of
12  12 mm pixels. It is a frame-transfer type, as described earlier in Sec. 3.2.
The top 1024  1024 pixels is the photo-sensitive area, and the bottom
1024  1024 pixels is a covered frame-transfer buffer. Thus the active imaging
area is 12.29 mm square with a diagonal of 17.38 mm. (Relatively speaking, in
photography this is not very small. The diagonal of a 16 mm movie camera frame
is 12.63 mm, and the original 8 mm movie frame had a diagonal of only
5.95 mm.) The CCDs themselves are sensitive to wavelengths ranging from about
0.40 mm to 1.1 mm. Filters plus the CCD response determine the specific wavebands.


Remember, some of the cameras are used for navigation purposes only, so the operators here on Earth can select where to go. Reading more fully that link should assist in understanding.

Also, why the complaints about picture quality from space??? Considering the technical challenges and difficulties, they're pretty damn good.

I task you to build something that has to work, in the harshest environments you can imagine, survive the launch, and the forces of re-entry and landing, in the case of Mars, they hit pretty hard on landing. AND, they have to be light enough to meet specifications, because every extra gram must be accounted for, because it means more fuel is needed.

If your complaint is about the latest LRO pictures from the Moon...I hope they aren't, because these are the best so far. AND, the LROC isn't even designed to satisfy people's needs for what they think they should see, like a "Google Earth"-quality or something, because that's not the mission of the LRO! The imaging of the Apollo landing sites is a bonus.

I've used this analogy before: Try to take a picture of a large van, or even an RV, something similar to the size of the LM descent stage, with your camera from a distance of, say, 60 kilometers. Because, you have to realize that the LRO is orbiting about that altitude. The ability to resolve something the size of the Apollo LMs from that distance is going to require better telephoto lenses, and/or electronic zooms...and that just wasn't the intent anyway. WHY waste money to see what is already known to be there?? The imaging capabilities, as designed, are sufficient AS IS for the mission.

[edit on 10 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 



co-founder Jack Parsons whom were quite involved with secret societes and the occult...


Really??? You're basing the claim that NASA and all of its associated agencies and people are ALSO into the "occult", all because of a guy who died in 1954?? Oooops...he died in 1952!!!

Does that seem logical?
__________________________________________________________



[edit on 10 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
If you want some more evidence on NASA tampering with the images check www.goroadachi.com... - here you have some very good examples on how NASA changes the colors of the images to hide details. Among other things, green and blue will show up as simply brown in their official images hiding a large amount of details.
They do not change the colours, the colours are the result of joining the images from several filters.

When we use the images from the infra-red filter instead of the images from the red filter that's when we get the swapped colours, in which green turns to orange, for example, but that is not a change.

NASA publishes the (greyscale, one filter only) images, so we can create our own colour versions by using the L4, L5 and L6 filters, I have done it several times (the last time yesterday, to post in a different thread), and you can see one of those below.




Also, some people are not aware of it but the Rovers on Mars actually do have color filter cameras, and several different types of filters, they can take both color photos, infrared photos and black / white photos.
The cameras have several filters, but the cameras themselves are only greyscale, they are not capable of taking colour photos, the colour photos must be done outside the camera.

Common consumer digital cameras work in the same way, they have filters for red, green and blue, but they join the three virtual images in one inside the camera itself.


The quality of the images themselves should be an indicator that something fishy is going on - we are still presented with images that are almost worthless when it comes to quality and detail, not much better than what they provided 30-40 years ago with the first missions to both the Moon and Mars.
The image quality is not bad, it depends on what they want the images for, although we give too much importance to visual information that does not mean that this is the best way of gathering geologic data, and that was the idea behind the Rovers.


Even in todays modern world 90% of the images made public are black and white - something which is rather ludicrous considering the technology we have now compared to 40 years ago.
That's because it's better to have a good greyscale (not black and white, that means only two colours) camera than a lower quality colour camera, and all colour sensors are worse than same sized greyscale sensors.

Edit to add:



Why would people whom have been working for NASA and other parts of the governments risk their reputations and jobs by going out stating that they ARE involved with such coverups, that they KNOW about alien bases on the moon, they are involved with alien technology etc - even willing to testify in court about it - if it was nothing to it?
Who knows?

I know a woman that lies about anything, just because she could and because it was always about things other people could not check.

People behave in many different ways, so the most difficult part of anything that involves people is to know their motives. Also, from what I remember seeing, the people that appeared on the Disclosure Project (I think it was) were not themselves the ones that did the altering of the images, they said that other people told them that they did it.

PS: have you seen the more than 11000 colour photos from HiRISE, with a resolution of 25 cm per pixel? Do you think those are bad photos?

[edit on 10/9/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Why do you keep ignoring the question about the hundreds of governmental witnesses supporting the claims that images are tampered with, that there are bases on Moon and Mars, knowledge about aliens / alien technology etc?

And yes I know that the cameras are said to be using filters that adds the colors, I stated that myself saying they are using filters that can provide color photos, infrared and black & white (or greyscale if you want to be specific).

If you want to sit and believe that the technology is not good enough to provide better images, as you seem to do, you are free to do so. However I am sure most people understand that the technology is more than good enough to provide quality photos back in full colors if they wanted to - just looking at the specifications of all the cameras on the rovers in the first place makes this very clear. It makes little sense to use filters that among other things provide very little detail, changes colors to blend in with other colors (such as blue and green becoming brownish and redish) and simply show greyscale images when actually trying to study details as good as possible.

And no I have said nothing about LRO or photos it has taken of the Apollo landing site, I know they have been on the moon and that would be more for those whom think they never went to the moon at all.

But when it comes to Apollo I still do not agree that they cant have understood that this would indeed be rather enorm, historically significant and amazing - we are talking about going to another heavenly body here not just a stroll through the park. So my opinions about the image quality and so on still stands as I have expressed myself. So does my opinons about image tampering and image hoaxing. The evidence speaks for itself as far I am concerned, regardless of what NASA may say in their official stories.

When it comes to NASA and the occult it certainly does not take a rocket scientist (pardon my pun) to realize that they are very interested in the occult and that this had nothing to do with Alan Parsons alone. This goes for the governments in general as well.

-Maggador

[edit on 10-9-2009 by IX-777]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by IX-777]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 



Why do you keep ignoring the question about the hundreds of governmental witnesses supporting the claims that images are tampered with, that there are bases on Moon and Mars, knowledge about aliens / alien technology etc?


Not ignoring it. Just don't believe it.

I think it would be rather Earth-shattering, and on the evening News if "hundreds" of government personnel came forth to report as claimed. Haven't seen it mentioned yet.

Oh, and I need to tease a little bit... you had a Freudian slip there, with "Alan Parsons" when you menat "Jack Parsons"!!

It's OK, I like both of their "Projects".



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
ArMaP: But would the same woman go to court to testify of such lies without even being charged for anything herself and thus not needing to go to court on her own behalf? Somehow I doubt she would do that.

These people are trying to expose the governments and bring them to declassify and reveal what is truly going on, and I have no reason to think they are lying as I know myself many of the things they are saying is true.

Weedwhacker:
Heh yeah sorry about that slip, I like Alan too


But yes, you have not seen it mentioned, that is what I said earlier, and I am questioning why it has not been mentioned considering how earth shattering it indeed is just as you say yourself.

I suppose mostly everyone here have heard about Disclosure Project and the rather noteable witnesses that are part of it but for those whom have not here are some links:

en.wikipedia.org...

Bigger list of involved people:
www.disclosureproject.org...

Disclosure project press conferance video

Even several astronauts themselves are part of it. I think that qualifies for a big news story. A rather large amount of other high ranking officials are also part of it, from different parts of the government such as CIA, NASA, US Army, etc

-Maggador



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


Ah, yes. The "Disclosure Project". I was actually quite happy, at first, when I started to hear about that, and read the stuff coming from the Doctor, Steve Greer.

Of late, however, they've begun to become somewhat of a disappointment.

At least, from following the comments I've seen here on ATS, there have been several mentions lately, in threads over in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum.

You may be surprised to learn I'm actually more on your side than you might have thought, at first. I just think it's best to not make grandiose claims about 'bombing' the Moon to infer it's somehow related to a hostile act.

Trying to say, that there is a logical disconnect here in many ways. Claims of the sort of advanced technology that allows time travel and teleportation --- while I will not discount those as plausible scientifically (whether true now, I don't know) it seems to naturally follow that IF that tech exists, then there is other advanced tech as well, such as spacecraft using Zero-point energy, for example.

I'm getting at the idea that a "War" with entities on the Moon would not need to be conducted using the LCROSS as a mere kinetic-energy 'weapon'...something that is NOT a 'surprise', and is not going to be able to be targeted with any great accuracy --- and that relies on simple celestial mechanics, and time.

See? A true "battle", if it were to occur, would involve far more exotic and as yet unknown devices, it seems.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
ArMaP: But would the same woman go to court to testify of such lies without even being charged for anything herself and thus not needing to go to court on her own behalf? Somehow I doubt she would do that.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, could you rephrase it, please? Thanks.


These people are trying to expose the governments and bring them to declassify and reveal what is truly going on, and I have no reason to think they are lying as I know myself many of the things they are saying is true.
About the NASA photos (my favourite subject
), how many of those people witnessed images being altered?

As far as I know, the only NASA person that talked about it, Donna Hare, said that she talked with someone that said that they would delete something from a photo "like they always did", but she didn't saw it being done.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Weedwhacker: Well at least we agree on something, I do not think that the LCROSS will really be much of a war weapon if it indeed is as told in the official story and if the impact crater only will be around 20 metres wide as mentioned. The problem I have with the mission is that it is hard for us to know if this story is really true or not, or if there is some hidden agenda to it that have not been told - which often is the case with governmental business.

As I have said earlier, I do not know that there is anything malevolent with the mission at all, but it seem suspicious to me from what I DO know about the same people in charge of this mission. I really do hope my belief regarding this specific mission is wrong and that there really is nothing to it other than what has been told, but I have a bit hard time believing that as I am rather aware of what these people know about the moon and what is there already.

But as you have asked about earlier, how many are involved in such converups, to me it seems like only a few on top levels know the real truth and most of the involved people know only what most other people know which is the official stories and coverups. Thus I do not rule out that it is possible for the mission to consist of a team of those whom only know the official story, and that they are legimately sending the LCROSS out for what they have said completely oblivious to the real knowledge and agendas of these few people in the top level. If so, I assume the people in charge have let them carry out this (and probably other "innocent" missions in the past) to simply maintain the coverstory and deceit.

Even so I would not support the LCROSS mission in either case as it is still to impact with the Moon and who knows where it will hit and what the results will be. As far as the Earh goes, we will know next month or so, but we may never know what really is going on up there and what the consequences will be for the Moon.

If Obama really comes forth and announces the knowledge of extraterrestrial races we might know something though, hopefully he will do that and not be either a new Bush nor a JFK

ArMaP: What I meant was that the woman you mention and the people I was talking about have somewhat different approaches and I doubt "your" woman would come out in public and say she would go to court to testify that she told the truth - unless she for some reason was charged for some crimes relating to her lies where she would have to go to court and then lying would make more sense.

In other words I assume the woman you mentioned only lied in smaller private groups without news and researchers all over her, or court and such. While the people I mentioned want to go to court to testify about these things by their own choice, because they really want the truth to come out, and it would be rather pointless to do that if they were only lying as they would know how this would get people all over the world to look into their stories and try find holes and basically "shoot the ship down" - these are rather bold claims they are coming with to say the least.

When it comes to people whom have testified about NASA photos I can think of at least one more person part of Disclosure Project whom saw photos of moon bases shown to him at NASA - I can not remember his name, but I know he did not personally work for NASA but some other place in the government. Thats the people whom I am aware of that have gone out in public anyway, perhaps there are more, and there certainly are more whom never have gone public but only told a few people. You also have other cases such as the man who hacked NASA and faces up to 70 years jail whom claims he saw evidence of extraterrestrial activity etc.

In my opinion the images are so clearly manipulated in either case though so no witnesses are really needed to confirm that part, everyone can see it for themselves if they just check. Of course not all photos are manipulated but many of them are.

PS I forgot to answer you about HiRISE, no I have not really checked out many of those photos, I just took a brief look and the quality did actually look pretty decent so I will look more into those photos, thanks for the tip.

-Maggador



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Ok I just took a new look at LRO images as well and I can only say wow that sure is incredible awful quality. Actually look like they used the technology of 69 to take those photos of the 69 Apollo landing site
And the rest too for that matter..

But to be fair there has been some good photos, personally I like the ESA images from Mars Express. They are pretty nice in my opinion, good quality and colors. Too bad they did not map the Moon too



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I just stumbled upon what I think may be a "smoking gun" as far as evidence for NASA tampering with colors and images.

The image is this one:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The evidence is treefold:
First of all - it seems they have put colors on earthly objects such as the astronauts and their equipment while leaving the moon surface black and white. The evidence for this is several objects in the image which they have forgotten to colorize and they are left in black and white. The most obvious object is the "bag" located at bottom of the photo to the right of the astronaut with the moon vehicle - it is close to the camera / bottom of the image. This is clearly in black and white. The same goes for several other objects in the photo - just below the wheel to the left of the astronaut is another instrument, some sort of rod sticking up from the ground, again in black and white. To the left of the vehicle at same height as it you find yet another object in black and white by the mound - this also seem to be some instrument placed there by the astronauts. Further to the left you have the big box with an antenna on it which is in color, a read cable is connected to it - follow more to the left and another instrument is sticking up from the ground with a cable from the top, and again this one appears in black and white. All the way to the left with the big rocks is another antenna placed sticking up from the ground just above the left side of the rocks. Again in black and white.

Secondly: Lights - Go to the right of the vehicle and you will see a red cable across the ground coming from the bottom of the image, here you can see light reflections in the lense causing flares and beams to show. Notice that there is no light source above, and the flares and light beams stops exactly where the mountains in the background ends and the black horizon comes in - obviously this should not be the case, the light beams and flares should be consistent out into the black area as well as these are lens artifacts and have nothing to do with the background. In other words, it seems to indicate strongly that the background has simply been cut out following the edges of the mountains.

Thirdly: Background repetition - the background is the EXACT same as the background of the following photo:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These photos are supposed to be taken at different sites, yet the background is identical. Also notice that there is no visible light source on the first image yet it is strongly visible in the second image - in my opinion rather artifical looking. The first image has the "sun" cut out and replaced with a completely black background, while this second image has the "sun" there. Notice the shadows and position of the astronaut photographing both images - he is in the exact same spot and have the exact direction of ligh shining upon him, shown by his shadow. The light source would have to be in the same place in both images yet it is not - although traces of the light source is visible in first image by the flares and light beams but the source itself is removed.

For some further analysis of these photos and the duplicate background check the following url where I originally found this, the light and black & white objects I found myself when studying the photos.

More Moon Evidence - duplicate background and image tampering

When it comes to the backgrounds, I personally feel the following website gives a rather plausible and reasonable explanation on how they faked these:
jayweidner.com...

Notice that the above link has 4 pages, linked on the bottom of each page.

-Maggador



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 

As I said, that woman I know only lies about things that she knows cannot damage her reputation.

And that is the same as Donna Hare, if you listen to what she says, she said that she saw a photo with a dot that projected a shadow on what she thought was a photo of the Earth, and that the technician that showed her the photo said that he was going to erase it, because that was what they did in those cases before they sold the photos to the public.

All other things she say are like that, she can only testify that someone else told her something, she did not witnessed anything except what she calls "a dot" on a photo, so she can testify in congress or in a court about that, as far as I know she never identified any one of those people that talked to her, so we cannot know if they were lying, if they were joking or if they telling the truth, we need the testimony of those people, not the testimony of Donna Hare.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


Sorry, dude. Your 'smoking gun' is firing blanks.

ArMaP will help with better, more exact info.

I can say this much, though. That image from lpi you linked is NOT one photo. It is a composite of many. You can tell from several clues, notably the shadows.

The BIGGEST clue is the shaodow of an astronaut, lit from behind, as he takes a photo. THEN, over in another part of the "panorama" you can see the Sun is just above the camera lens, in FRONT of the camera.

Several photos, taken at different times, blended together to make a pretty image.

I suppose, as I said, ArMaP will be able to see the codes in the image and tell us exactly.

AND, Jay Weidner? If you're referring to the baloney about Stanly Kubrick, and front screen projections, that has been debunked countless times. It's old news, and one of those Urban Legends from way back, started as a joke that made it to the web, and suddenly it's "fact".

You're just late to the party, mate.
______________________________________________________

Adding...from the lpi website:

Apollo Surface Panoramas is a digital library of photographic panoramas that the Apollo astronauts took while exploring the Moon's surface. These images provide a spectacular boots-on-the-ground view of the lunar landscape. The panoramas are stitched together from individual 70mm Hasselblad frames, each of which is also accessible through this new atlas. Lunar surface features captured in the panoramas can be studied using zoom and pan tools. An annotated version of each panorama is also available to assist users with the identification of major geographic features around each Apollo landing site.


I recommend you visit the site, and investigate the individual images BEFORE they were 'stitched' together.

Yes, that's the only image manipulation going on..an artistic interpretation to create a panoramic feel.



[edit on 11 September 2009 by weedwhacker]


jra

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
The most obvious object is the "bag" located at bottom of the photo to the right of the astronaut with the moon vehicle - it is close to the camera / bottom of the image. This is clearly in black and white.


It's a sample bag. They're white, regardless if it's a colour photo or a B&W one.

EDIT to add: Actually if you look at the original AS17-147-22578 photo that I have linked to further down, you'll see the sample bag has a bit more colour to it.


The same goes for several other objects in the photo - just below the wheel to the left of the astronaut is another instrument, some sort of rod sticking up from the ground, again in black and white.


That's a heat flow probe. There isn't really any colour on those either.

You do understand that objects that are white, gray/silver metal or black will look more or less the same in colour or B&W photos right? Also you should look at the original photos that were used to make these panorama's. They're a higher resolution and you can see the objects more clearly.


Secondly: Lights - Go to the right of the vehicle and you will see a red cable across the ground coming from the bottom of the image, here you can see light reflections in the lense causing flares and beams to show. Notice that there is no light source above, and the flares and light beams stops exactly where the mountains in the background ends and the black horizon comes in - obviously this should not be the case, the light beams and flares should be consistent out into the black area as well as these are lens artifacts and have nothing to do with the background. In other words, it seems to indicate strongly that the background has simply been cut out following the edges of the mountains.


Like I said above, you should look at the originals. These panoramic photos have been edited. Here are the originals that contain the lens flares (AS17-147-22578, AS17-147-22579, AS17-147-22580, AS17-147-22581, AS17-147-22582) As you can see, the lens flares are normal. I'm not sure how these panoramas were assembled, but software programs that assemble them automatically generally have issues with things like lens flares, since they change position in each frame. Which can confuse the software. They may have also been removed simply for aesthetic reasons.


Thirdly: Background repetition - the background is the EXACT same as the background of the following photo:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These photos are supposed to be taken at different sites, yet the background is identical.


Well that would be because both panoramas are from Apollo 17 and they were taken only ~150m apart. So there isn't going to be any noticeable difference.


Also notice that there is no visible light source on the first image yet it is strongly visible in the second image...


And this is why you use the original source images and not edited panoramas...

And in regards to "duplicate backgrounds". Do you happen live in an area with mountains? I live in a valley and when I drive around town, I see very little change in there appearance when I drive a number of km from one end of town to the other.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jra]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jra]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Glad you stopped by, jra!!


Be advised, the OP has started another thread here.

Spiffy, huh?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I would just like to add one thing to what weedwhacker and jra said: the photo you posted looks like it was brightened, making the more subtle colours disappear.

I don't know if it was on purpose or not, and I would like to add that that link is not from a NASA site.

This is from a NASA site, and you can see that the bag has a little colour in it.



Also, we can see that the Moon is not really a neutral grey, as it should be if this was a black and white photo, it's a brownish grey, as you can confirm with any image editing program that shows the RGB value of any pixel in the image.

Edit: here you have an even bigger (and uncropped, with the whole frame visible) version of that photo.

[edit on 11/9/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Thanks for the input on the "smoking gun" photos. Sorry about the confusion but yes I felt this was so important as well as its own story compared to what this threads OP is about, and thus created one specifically about this "smoking gun" itself.

Please read my replies and continue the discussion in its own thread HERE instead

-Maggador




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join