William Rutledge is retired and now lives in Africa. He recently came out to reveal some amazing facts about his involvement with NASA in the late 70s. Rutledge claims to have worked on at least two missions to the Moon, including the failed Apollo 19, and the Apollo 20, which he says was launched in August of 1976 from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Both of these missions, according to Rutledge, were “classified joint Space missions” resulting from collaborations between U.S. and Soviet governments. They do not appear on any roster of NASA missions — and, if this is true — for good reasons.
My question is this. Could JAXA and NASA have been involved in a cover up of something that has been known about on the moon since the Apollo era but was of no concern [since no other nation ventured manned landings] to the moon? I'm not talking about photographing or landing probes like the Russians have done but actually stepping foot on it's surface.
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by SLAYER69
Odd you should mention that. I was just reading an article that said Russia has intent to field a moon base by 2015, and begin large scale export of Helium-3 back to Earth from it by 2020.
I said to myself "Self," says I, "that's mighty ambitious for a country that's not supposed to even have put their FIRST man on the moon."
Things that make you go "hmmm...."
Could they have knowing full well that Russia and or China, with it's growing economy and space program. [ I wont go into how the Clinton administration turned a blind eye when China was caught red handed stealing sensitive US missile secrets then within a few short years their struggling space program started making advances in leaps and bounds] will eventually make manned trips to the moon?
Originally posted by rickymouse
Those don't have to be alien, maybe some past advanced civilization from earth left them there before they went extinct. They could have wasted a lot of money as we do researching outer space too.
Originally posted by poopadoopoulis
Originally posted by KibbleChild
The planned October 9, 2009 bombing of the moon by a NASA orbiter that will bomb the moon with a 2-ton kinetic weapon to create a 5 mile wide deep crater as an alleged water-seeking and lunar colonization experiment, is contrary to space law prohibiting environmental modification of celestial bodies. The NASA moon bombing, a component of the LCROSS mission, may also trigger conflict with known extraterrestrial civilizations on the moon as reported on the moon in witnessed statements by U.S. astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, and in witnessed statements to NSA (National Security Agency) photos and documents regarding an extraterrestrial base on the dark side of the moon.
If they were willing to violate space law to bomb the moon, then they must have had an important reason to do it in they're minds. Who knows maybe they really did bomb an extraterrestrial civilization on the moon, but thats HIGHLY speculative.
If that is the case, but since the moon has ZERO gravity, all of the water they would be blasting would be sent out into space, NASA has some sharp engineers, but the water blasting idea sound incredibly like Monty Python -esq comedy skits, then i would think earth would be bombarded by chunks of rock and ice inadverdently creating more space debris as well.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Related thread topic....
Give it a shot guys!!!
NASA Document Recomends Space-Faring agencies to stay away from certain sites on the moonedit on 26-5-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
Each of the block III Ranger spacecraft had six cameras on board. The cameras were fundamentally the same with differences in exposure times, fields of view, lenses, and scan rates. The camera system was divided into two channels, P (partial) and F (full). Each channel was self-contained with separate power supplies, timers, and transmitters. The F-channel had two cameras: the wide-angle A-camera and the narrow angle B-camera. The P-channel had four cameras: P1 and P2 (narrow angle) and P3 and P4 (wide angle). The final F-channel image was taken between 2.5 and 5 seconds before impact (altitude about 5 km) and the last P-channel image 0.2 to 0.4 seconds before impact (altitude about 600 m). The images provided better resolution than was available from Earth based views by a factor of 1000.
Ranger 1, launched 23 August 1961, lunar prototype, launch failure
Ranger 2, launched 18 November 1961, lunar prototype, launch failure
Ranger 3, launched 26 January 1962, lunar probe, spacecraft failed, missed moon
Ranger 4, launched 23 April 1962, lunar probe, spacecraft failed, impact
Ranger 5, launched 18 October 1962, lunar probe, spacecraft failed, missed
Ranger 6, launched 30 January 1964, lunar probe, impact, cameras failed
Launched 28 July 1964
Impacted Moon 31 July 1964 at 13:25:49 UT
10°21′S 339°25′E / 10.35°S 339.42°E / -10.35; 339.42 (Ranger 7) - Mare Cognitum
Launched 17 February 1965
Impacted Moon 20 February 1965 at 09:57:37 UT
2°40′N 24°39′E / 2.67°N 24.65°E / 2.67; 24.65 (Ranger 8) - Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
Launched 21 March 1965
Impacted Moon 24 March 1965 at 14:08:20 UT
12°50′S 357°38′E / 12.83°S 357.63°E / -12.83; 357.63 (Ranger 9) - Alphonsus crater
Launched 20 September 1966
Crashed on Moon 22 September 1966
Vernier engine failed to ignite - southeast of Copernicus Crater
Launched 14 July 1967
Radio contact lost 17 July 1967
2.5 minutes from touchdown - Sinus Medii
Luna 2 (E-1A series) was the second of the Soviet Union's Luna programme spacecraft launched to the Moon. It was the first spacecraft to reach the surface of the Moon. It successfully impacted with the lunar surface east of Mare Imbrium near the craters Aristides, Archimedes, and Autolycus
Apollo 13's S-IVB third stage was the first to be purposely crashed into the lunar surface, as an active seismic experiment which measured its impact with a seismometer left on the lunar surface by the crew of Apollo 12. (The S-IVBs from the previous four lunar missions were sent into solar orbit by ground control after use.)
Originally posted by neo96
Does this sound plausible to you?
Yes it does makes more sense to me than saying the moon landings were "Faked".
Great op Mr. Slayer