Overunity.com Archives

I don't think this has been posted already - if it has, please delete this thread...

I am pretty familiar with most of the 'hoax' evidence that has already been presented.  However, below is material that for the most part, is new to me.  More in-depth info can be found on ATS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyYto9H85Gw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyYto9H85Gw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAp2Ni9frJE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAp2Ni9frJE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGP0vgQBqUs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGP0vgQBqUs)

Starting (http://starting) at 2m. 10s in the following video, you can see right through the astronaut and see the flag and other objects behind him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YWgXM6I_bvE#t=125s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YWgXM6I_bvE#t=125s))

The only way this would happen, and does happen, is when they are filming in front of a "blue screen".  Before they invented the "green screen" now used in films, they filmed in front of a blue screen, and this was one of the flaws that the blue screen would do.  If the angle and lighting wasn't perfect, it would cause the objects in front to disappear as if it wasn't even there.  Look it up, Stanley Kubrick front projection and blue screen.

"In the long run, it is far more dangerous to adhere to illusion, than to face what the actual fact is".

Gravock

How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo moon landings, http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo


Gravock

I see it also but I challenge you to try to come up with another explanation.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 02:30:49 PM
I see it also but I challenge you to try to come up with another explanation.

MileHigh

I have tried to come up with another explanation, and it has nothing to do with the parody of the video.  I challenge you to take a deep hard look at how Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo moon landings.  Stanely Kubrick's fingerprint is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage.

Gravock

Oh come on. The narration in the video makes many false assumptions and isn't analyzing the Hassleblad images correctly. It is as if he never encountered a convex mirror image taken through a wide-angle objective lens before. The "transparency" referred to is due to the characteristics of the primitive vidicon tube used in early video cameras. It was 1969, ffs, and the vidicon "blooms" which means that it makes an afterimage of bright features that persists and can appear "through" the dimmer features of an object imaged later--- as is clearly evident in the footage shown.

There was nothing hoaxed about the Apollo moon landing program, and to assert that it was, does a profound disservice to the brave men, and the women behind them, who participated in that program, some even losing their lives in furtherance of it. And further it is an insult to all scientists everywhere to claim that the moon landings did not occur  as described by NASA.... and exactly as shown, live, and watched by some of us at the time.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
Oh come on. The narration in the video makes many false assumptions and isn't analyzing the Hassleblad images correctly. It is as if he never encountered a convex mirror image taken through a wide-angle objective lens before. The "transparency" referred to is due to the characteristics of the primitive vidicon tube used in early video cameras. It was 1969, ffs, and the vidicon "blooms" which means that it makes an afterimage of bright features that persists and can appear "through" the dimmer features of an object imaged later--- as is clearly evident in the footage shown.

There was nothing hoaxed about the Apollo moon landing program, and to assert that it was, does a profound disservice to the brave men, and the women behind them, who participated in that program, some even losing their lives in furtherance of it. And further it is an insult to all scientists everywhere to claim that the moon landings did not occur  as described by NASA.... and exactly as shown, live, and watched by some of us at the time.

It's an insult to your own intelligence to allow yourself to be so easily deceived.


Gravock

Bingo TK!  If you are above a certain age you should realize this about vidicon tubes.  I once saw Buzz Aldrin speak!

This clip's for you Gravityblock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

Who is deceiving who?

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 02:55:06 PM
Bingo TK!  If you are above a certain age you should realize this about vidicon tubes.  I once saw Buzz Aldrin speak!

This clip's for you Gravityblock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU)

Who is deceiving who?

What does that video prove? Lol.  Nobody wants to be delisted as a hero and to be put into such a bad light, such as playing a part in trying to deceive the entire world.  That was just a desperate act at trying to save is own reputation and hero status.


Gravock

You are either being led astray by deluded or crazy people or by people that are taking advantage of the whole hypothesis for profit.  Either way you are being played like a fiddle.

I watched the whole thing as a kid from Apollo 8 onwards.  I have been to Cape Canaveral.  The physics makes sense.  The engineering is doable.  There was a Cold War.

The truth is out there...

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 03:05:14 PM
You are either being led astray by deluded or crazy people or by people that are taking advantage of the whole hypothesis for profit.  Either way you are being played like a fiddle.

I watched the whole thing as a kid from Apollo 8 onwards.  I have been to Cape Canaveral.  The physics makes sense.  The engineering is doable.  There was a Cold War.

The truth is out there...

You've been bamboozled and hoodwinked!


Gravock

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
The "transparency" referred to is due to the characteristics of the primitive vidicon tube used in early video cameras. It was 1969, ffs, and the vidicon "blooms" which means that it makes an afterimage of bright features that persists and can appear "through" the dimmer features of an object imaged later--- as is clearly evident in the footage shown.

Apollo 11's TV Camera - the FIBER OPTIC LIE!  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eGP0vgQBqUs#t=63s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eGP0vgQBqUs#t=63s) )

Like I said, I have tried to come up with another explanation for the "transparency" effect, and what I have found is one lie leads to a greater lie.

Gravock

Connecting the dots with a thin gossamer thread happens all the time.  Is there any connection between the blue screening and the fiber optic camera or did you just make the connection here?

I can't rebut the "undeclared fiber-optics technology," that's a new one to me.  Now one possibility is that the document was written by an over zealous 22-year-old.  Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project.  Did you ever have a friend when you were growing up where he was always referring to his pet projects as a "big secret?"

Notice also that you have no response to the issue of the way the vidicon tube has the property of image persistence.  I noticed that for many years all over the place when those video cameras were used back in the day.  It was very obvious if you paid moderate attention to the image detail in the live video frame.

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
Connecting the dots with a thin gossamer thread happens all the time.  Is there any connection between the blue screening and the fiber optic camera or did you just make the connection here?

I can't rebut the "undeclared fiber-optics technology," that's a new one to me.  Now one possibility is that the document was written by an over zealous 22-year-old.  Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project.  Did you ever have a friend when you were growing up where he was always referring to his pet projects as a "big secret?"

Notice also that you have no response to the issue of the way the vidicon tube has the property of image persistence.  I noticed that for many years all over the place when those video cameras were used back in the day.  It was very obvious if you paid moderate attention to the image detail in the live video frame.

Apparently my challenge to you in taking a deep hard look at how Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings wasn't taken seriously.  Here's the link again, http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo (http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo)

Gravock

Quote"And further it is an insult to all scientists everywhere to claim that the moon landings did not occur  as described by NASA.... and exactly as shown, live, and watched by some of us at the time."

Spoken like a truly blinded acolyte.  "insult to all scientists everywhere"...blah blah blah.... NOPE....just the devious ones tk.  ...Educate thy self.....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106637066 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106637066)

http://rense.com/general86/moreap.htm (http://rense.com/general86/moreap.htm)

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Lunar_Orbiter_Tapes_Found.html (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Lunar_Orbiter_Tapes_Found.html)

Clearly NASA feels an abandoned Micky Dees is the way "all scientists everywhere" should honor "Space Pioneer History".  Surely, they weren't trying to hide aging evidence of yet another 'cover up'.  Oops, some new guy we hired from a temp agency accidently taped over the original moon footage. Umm, we are very upset about this!  So upset that we've moved them to an abandoned McDonald's restaurant for re-evaluation and restoration.  We got the idea from the movie: Spies Like Us!  Brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5tWGKHdA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5tWGKHdA4)

NASA went to the moon alright.  Of that I have NO DOUBT....though it has proven a cold, vacuous, and shrivelling place to get caught with their pants down.

"As described by NASA"  he says.  :o

NASA didn't get the widely accepted acronym: Never A Straight Answer for Nothing....

The road to HELL is paved with good intentions, they say.  And NASA has done a lot of paving for the beast in our neck of the solar systemic 'woods'.


Blessings


TS

Very interesting insight.

Document 28-105 discloses the use of a classified and confidential fiber optics inside the camera case:  http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSC-SESD-28-105.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSC-SESD-28-105.pdf)

Now, if the camera used classified and confidential fiber optics as stated in the above document, which NASA refuses to comment on, then the argument for a camera using a primitive vidicon tube holds no weight and can offer no explanation to the "transparency" effect.  The "transparency" effect was due to the front projection and a blue screen when the angle and lighting wasn't perfect, as used by Stanley Kubrick.

Gravock

NASA as a whole is fake. It is mainly a disinformation agency run by the Bilderbergs and Illuminati to cover the Obama dictatorship. They had CCD cameras back then, but faked the video artifacts to make it look like a fake videcon effect caused by blue-boxing.


Just study it out, it's all over YouTube.

Quote from: orbut 3000 on May 17, 2013, 06:33:10 PM
NASA as a whole is fake. It is mainly a disinformation agency run by the Bilderbergs and Illuminati to cover the Obama dictatorship. They had CCD cameras back then, but faked the video artifacts to make it look like a fake videcon effect caused by blue-boxing.


Just study it out, it's all over YouTube.

Well said!

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on May 17, 2013, 02:50:32 PM

It's an insult to your own intelligence to allow yourself to be so easily deceived.


Gravock

You are making yourself look like a gullible, paranoid idiot. Thousands of people worked on Apollo and other NASA successes, and some of them died doing it. The "evidence" that is cited for claims of fakery is insignificant compared to the mountains of evidence that the landings were real, and you are either "taking the piss" as they say in the UK or you are genuinely nutso.

I watched it live on TV, along with the Vietnam War and the Watts riots. My father's family lived in Houston and we knew people who worked at NASA at the time of the Apollo program.

I suppose you will say next that those were faked too.

Quote from: gravityblock on May 17, 2013, 05:58:39 PM
Document 28-105 discloses the use of a classified and confidential fiber optics inside the camera case:  http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSC-SESD-28-105.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSC-SESD-28-105.pdf)

Now, if the camera used classified and confidential fiber optics as stated in the above document, which NASA refuses to comment on, then the argument for a camera using a primitive vidicon tube holds no weight and can offer no explanation to the "transparency" effect.  The "transparency" effect was due to the front projection and a blue screen when the angle and lighting wasn't perfect, as used by Stanley Kubrick.

Gravock

Nope. Your logic is faulty. You don't know what the fiber optics were for, and I'll bet you don't have much experience with high-contrast photography using vidicons or CCDs. But I have.

Quote from: orbut 3000 on May 17, 2013, 06:33:10 PM
NASA as a whole is fake. It is mainly a disinformation agency run by the Bilderbergs and Illuminati to cover the Obama dictatorship. They had CCD cameras back then, but faked the video artifacts to make it look like a fake videcon effect caused by blue-boxing.


Just study it out, it's all over YouTube.

You are really funny.
;D

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 10:40:43 PM
You are making yourself look like a gullible, paranoid idiot. Thousands of people worked on Apollo and other NASA successes, and some of them died doing it. The "evidence" that is cited for claims of fakery is insignificant compared to the mountains of evidence that the landings were real, and you are either "taking the piss" as they say in the UK or you are genuinely nutso.

I watched it live on TV, along with the Vietnam War and the Watts riots. My father's family lived in Houston and we knew people who worked at NASA at the time of the Apollo program.

I suppose you will say next that those were faked too.

The above isn't a scientific argument for your primitive vidicon tube transparency effect.  You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.  Some things are just not what they appear to be.  You should know this!  You are the gullible one.

According to your swallow thinking, Nasa has this advanced technology to send a man to the moon while using a primitive vidicon tube in its cameras for a live broadcast event, lol.  I guess if they said it was broadcasted live, then it must have been, lol. Can you say gullible?  In addition to this, the people working for NASA is nothing more than part of a coverup for the real space program.  Give me a break, let go of your pride, and get real with yourself!

Gravock

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 10:43:12 PM
Nope. Your logic is faulty. You don't know what the fiber optics were for, and I'll bet you don't have much experience with high-contrast photography using vidicons or CCDs. But I have.

Not a scientific argument either.  You're grasping for straws.  Maybe you should have another look at document 28-105 again.  It talks about projections.  What were they planning to project?  A staged event of course, which is inline with them using a front projection and a blue screen to fake the moon landings.

Gravock

anyone with enough money and resources can make it to the moon, it's like making it to Canada on a bet. hell give me a billion dollars and I'll get you to the moon to see for yourself.

don't even pull the van Allen belts radiation on me because I already have the radiation figures calculated years ago on this site.

jerry 8)

Quote from: orbut 3000 on May 17, 2013, 06:33:10 PM
NASA as a whole is fake. It is mainly a disinformation agency run by the Bilderbergs and Illuminati to cover the Obama dictatorship. They had CCD cameras back then, but faked the video artifacts to make it look like a fake videcon effect caused by blue-boxing.


Just study it out, it's all over YouTube.

I think NASA hides some thing but LOL you say study youtube as if that was some sort of source of solid scientific evidence.   Youtube is full of so much fakery and nonsense I could spend days there just to find a few tidbits of truth.    It's a wide open field there for disinformation and propaganda wars. 

Quote from: e2matrix on May 18, 2013, 12:46:56 AM
I think NASA hides some thing but LOL you say study youtube as if that was some sort of source of solid scientific evidence.   Youtube is full of so much fakery and nonsense I could spend days there just to find a few tidbits of truth.    It's a wide open field there for disinformation and propaganda wars.

the religious community have more to hide than NASA and for thousands years.

the problem is all the wackos in the world that want to make you believe what they believe. religion is the top contender of 'we' didn't go to the moon.  these people don't want you to believe in NASA they want you to believe in their god and what their god says or what they interept. it is religion fighting their death to science they don't want and will do or say anything to stop it.

religion is not a necessity of life, life has been around for millions of years without the notion of a god and doesn't require it. life goes on with out your god.

the thing I know most is your religion will dumb you down so much that when this star of ours consumes the earth in less than 4 billion years your children's inheritance will still be stuck on this planet to die alone with it. if any survive they will leave without your god.

I believe if we landed on the moon we would have done it again.. to much to see..
as many trips we make to the space station we could have went to the moon and found water with out sending a missile to find it for us..

Quote from: kooler on May 18, 2013, 01:22:00 AM
I believe if we landed on the moon we would have done it again.. to much to see..
as many trips we make to the space station we could have went to the moon and found water with out sending a missile to find it for us..

the problem is there is nothing there on a demand resource scale to make us go back to the moon in cost effectiveness. make it financially efficient and yes we will harvest the moon.

and by the way Apollo, ring a bell, we went there quite a few times. it cost a lot of fucking money to go there by the way.

Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 18, 2013, 01:34:49 AM
and by the way Apollo, ring a bell, we went there quite a few times. it cost a lot of fucking money to go there by the way.

yes u r correct but their still spending a lot of money doing what??  besides putting robots on mars..
oh it cost a lot to go the space station too.. by the way..
well no deal huh.. just tax dollars..

Quote from: kooler on May 18, 2013, 02:08:03 AM
yes u r correct but their still spending a lot of money doing what??  besides putting robots on mars..
oh it cost a lot to go the space station too.. by the way..
well no deal huh.. just tax dollars..

cost effective or maybe another space race will get it going again. it will require something new to lite the fuse again. it cost to much to go to the moon, millions more than a space station. to many people gripe about how much was spent on going to the moon. we don't go no more because of how much it cost and how much people gripe about how much we spent. it cost more than just money to go to the moon it cost people who won't shut up and watch their tax dollars at work. this doesn't happen with the majority. so it is not NASA who is to blame it's your neighbor that clutches onto his/her tax dollars. well spent.

there is a whole new world out there for which we don't understand. do you wish to be the one who doesn't care? if so you will be the one dumbed down.

Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 18, 2013, 02:31:13 AM
cost effective or maybe another space race will get it going again. it will require something new to lite the fuse again. it cost to much to go to the moon, millions more than a space station. to many people gripe about how much was spent on going to the moon. we don't go no more because of how much it cost and how much people gripe about how much we spent. it cost more than just money to go to the moon it cost people who won't shut up and watch their tax dollars at work. this doesn't happen with the majority. so it is not NASA who is to blame it's your neighbor that clutches onto his/her tax dollars. well spent.

there is a whole new world out there for which we don't understand. do you wish to be the one who doesn't care? if so you will be the one dumbed down.

nah good answer .. I was just trying to get under your skin.. I want to live on mars away from the stupidity.. I mean earth ..
i'll leave this topic alone now..
have a good night .. onthecuttingedge2005

robbie

It doesn't amaze me anymore how incredibly polarized opinions can be about some subjects and how much disconnect there is in the world.

For me personally, when people say that man never landed on the moon, it no different from people trying to convince me that the moon is made of cheese.  A less extreme version might be how people could have taken John Rohner of Inteligentry infamy seriously.

It's bewildering sometimes.... and then you move on.

Good God, you people can't be serious. 

I watched the space program ever since Allan Sheppard went in his sub-orbital flight in the Gemini program.  Later, my Dad's company, and later my own, made parts for the space program.  Thousands and thousands of brilliant engineers and scientists participated in this terrific endeavor.  Many Astronauts lost their lives from both the US and Russia during this time.  This was real people.  Believe it or not.  Yes it was the greatest journey ever made by mankind and, by definition, is unbelievable...but it happened.  For those that refuse to see what real engineering and science has done, I can't help you.

Bill

QuoteFor those that refuse to see what real engineering and science has done, I can't help you.

And neither can those be helped who refuse to see what is being done TO AND WITH real engineering and science....Not to mention Education, Politics, Economics etc. etc...

It's no wonder at all why people question the lunar program and much of official history as far as that goes....as so much of it is full of crap and skullduggery.

The fall of empires remains the same, only the fools and their tools have changed.



TS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw)  ;D

Powercat:

That's a funny clip and I have seen it before.  That clip and the punch-in-the-face clip are worth watching!

TechStuf:

Do you have any real-world experience with engineering?  Is what you do for a living related in any way with the the profession?  Do you ever interact with engineers?  Or are you an "armchair" observer of engineering?  (finally I get to use that term myself)

There is no conspiracy among tens or hundreds of thousands of people.   It's simply impossible to do that.  Basic common sense tells you that.

MileHigh

I think we went to the moon, but I don't think we've been told the whole story.

On a related note, do you think it's possible for humans as a species to forget that we did go to the moon?

If there were some major global natural catastrophe or other cause for a massive breakdown of society or shifting of attention, would our walking on the moon still be passed down as common knowledge even if we no longer had access to records of it happening? 

I mean, there are people on the planet even now who have no knowledge whatsoever of the Apollo space missions, or of anything to do with modern technology.  Un-contacted tribes and other people in remote areas of the world for example.

Do you think it would be possible for us who currently know about it, to forget it happened, or for it to fall over time into the realm of myth and legend?   

And if it is possible, what then might we as a species have already forgotten?

QuoteTechStuf:Do you have any real-world experience with engineering?  Is what you do for a living related in any way with the the profession?  Do you ever interact with engineers?  Or are you an "armchair" observer of engineering?  (finally I get to use that term myself)There is no conspiracy among tens or hundreds of thousands of people.   It's simply impossible to do that.  Basic common sense tells you that.

You 'finally' get to use a term such as "armchair"?  Don't sell yourself so short.  As you make wide assumptions with that 'basic common sense' of yours.  Unlike some (many actually) I do not suffer from an 'engineered desire' to parade letters after my name in order to get my point across.   


"There is no conspiracy among tens or hundreds of thousands of people."  Did your 'basic common sense' confer upon you this encrusted nugget of social engineering wisdom?  If world history since the Common ancestry of mankind is any indicator at all, then I would say it has proven quite common for BILLIONS to engage in conspiracy for millenia.  Of course, there are many levels of "conspiracy", and history has shown quite conclusively that very little wisdom is required in order to conspire to ruin a family, a city, a nation...and yes, a planet.


And any one with even a basic understanding of how our world works can see that high level conspiracies are in operation every single day.  One doesn't need an engineering degree sort out what is going on in the world today...one only need PAY ATTENTION. 
Nothing in our universe is as simple as it appears.  Nothing.  So, man's logic tends to break down where he continually fails to rise to the occasion of being even a remotely relative observer. (lots and lots of places)[size=78%] [/size]
Magnetics researcher, Howard Johnson, is quoted to have said:[size=78%] [/size]
"I don't know how the electrons got started spinning, and I don't know how to stop them, do you?"[size=78%] [/size]
Perpetual motion is everywhere and mankind lacks even a crude understanding of how 'relative' that motion is, much less it's origin.  Take for example, the flagellar motor.  Arguably the most efficient electric motor known, it was discovered to be the inboard electric motor inside the bodies of certain bacteria.  The flagellar motor is complete with sensors, switches, stator, rotor, bushings, drive shaft, universal joint, propeller....etc.[size=78%] [/size]
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1260/F1.large.jpg[size=78%] [/size]
Examine the pictures closely....How does one honestly ascribe such an engineering feat as a self replicating electric motor, so small that 8 million of them would fit end to end in the thickness of the root of an average human hair, to blind, dumb, chance?  Man is so clumsy in comparison....actually, there is really NO comparison.  Which means that if one is of the atheistic stripe, one is left to face the stark "apparent" reality that the very "pinnacle" of evolution, 'mankind', is rather infinitely LESS than the sum of his parts![size=78%] [/size]
Many a sciential geek extraordinaire would jump for joy if he could make a two piece macro object with moving part in a common 3d printer! (myself included)[size=78%] [/size]
Take the lowly human red blood cell for instance.  Do not the 'hallowed' halls of higher learning teach that homo erectus is the first walk upright?  Yet we see that the insides of our trillions of cells is each like a harmonious city, replete with high tech gadgetry....sky scrapers, rapidly self assembling/dis-assembling highways, timely trash collectors, gears, cogs, levers, ....and BIPEDAL organisms walking upright on those magic highways, hauling giant bags of cargo to and fro. [size=78%] [/size]
No....'evolution'....mindless, blinded, nothingness did not assemble such fine Masterwork.[size=78%] [/size]
That the brain of mankind is 'wired' into space time, and capable of seeing future events innately, has been proven statistically in the lab, and categorically in the observations of many among the world's populations at large.[size=78%] [/size]
Why does the human pineal gland contain photo receptor cells similar to retinal cells, even a rudimentary lens?  A 'third eye'?  Why put flouride in water to be ingested, if it's just for teeth and labelled NOT for ingestion?  It is known to 'calcify' the pineal gland....our 'WiFi' connection to a reality much greater than our own.  Who would want to sabotage man's link to the higher realm?[size=78%] [/size]
Taken on the whole, (sad, tiny pun) our 'reality' our 'universe' owes it's existence, it's combined energy, to something much more advanced.  Some One....and that some One, is about to 'bring to ruin, those ruining the earth'.  [size=78%] [/size]
Ask yourself, which is more important at this, the most critical juncture in human history?  Pondering the infinite? or Pondering whether or not we should have a place in it and what is required for 'perpetuation that truly matters'?[size=78%] [/size]
Ponder the following truths:  It is written that God made Eve by causing Adam to sleep and then taking a rib while he slept.  Many a "high mind" has ridiculed this "primitive myth" over the ages.  Yet what is occurring today?  Do not surgeons remove up to six ribs at a time from some one that 'they' cause to fall asleep?  And why do they do this?  For bone marrow transplants and genetic research.  Why ribs?  Because they are the only bones in the human body that grow back every time they are carefully removed!  The one that invented us knows a thing or two about cloning, I'd say.  Do you, dear reader, find it a bit hypocritical to laugh at the story of our Inventor performing surgery to obtain copious DNA material for the purpose of making Adam a mate, when 'scientists' of today are playing like infants at doing the same?  Again, our view of reality is rather like a child's view of the world from inside it's mother's womb.[size=78%] [/size]
Please consider the following:[size=78%] [/size]
It is revealed at Revelation 13:18 in God's Word -[size=78%] [/size]
"Here is WISDOM. Let him that hath UNDERSTANDING count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."[size=78%] [/size]
I have capitalized the words, wisdom and understanding, so that the reader may observe that Christ is here revealing a clue to the identity and mark of the 'beast'. If one looks back to the books of Kings and Chronicles, one finds the man of whom Christ is speaking. What man is recorded in both books to have exacted gold tributes of 666 talents? What man was gifted with wisdom and understanding above every other of his day? What man fell away from worshiping the One True God, following after the false gods of his many wives?  [size=78%] [/size]
Surely by now, the reader can discern what man! Solomon! The man that took the 'star of chemosh' as his own personal seal, afterward to be known as the 'seal of solomon! Later, to be referred to, (as a cover up) as the "star of david". The HEXagram has no historical link to David of the Bible. It IS however, linked with the fallen solomon. And what organizations today USE the six pointed star?[size=78%] [/size]
The 'free'masons are founded upon the fallen solomon and have revered him highly throughout their organization....and 'who' else shares this symbol, steeped in demonic ritual? One cannot now look at C-span without seeing the six pointed star on the national seal, and a HEXagram between each and every member of congress. Soldiers are now asking why it is that each officer sword of all branches of the military have the HEXagram on the hilt of every blade. The HEXagram is a geometric reference to the number 666. The cwhoreporation, Digimarc, for instance, (designer of driver's licenses and ID's for various U.S. states) has an interesting logo.... look at the colored spoked wheels inside the circle. Notice (at the link below) the color key on the outside edge? Using those colors, one may find 3 six spoked 'stars' superimposed upon one another. 6-6-6.....and on forms of citizen identification no less![size=78%] [/size]
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/799f8af9fb.jpg[size=78%] [/size]
Take a dollar bill from one's back pocket and see that the HEXagram mark of the beast is emblazoned above the eagle, which is their way of indicating that 'they' rule 'over' america.  But why believe me? See for yourselves:[size=78%] [/size]
http://leavethecult.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/satur-six-pointed-star-temple-canada.jpg[size=78%] [/size]
Google – six pointed star mark[size=78%] [/size]
Google – 666 talents of gold[size=78%] [/size]
Google – D.C. Jerusalem masonic shrine[size=78%] [/size]
Google – Shriner lucifer[size=78%] [/size]
Google – lucifer telescope[size=78%] [/size]
Youtube – walmart guard towers. They have made their deal with the devil, so to speak and are considered, "too big to fail". Their workers already wear the six pointed 'star' on the foreheads. (of their hats anyway) Can the reader now see that, after all the smaller retail food outlets have diminished or dried up and blown away, that only the largest retail giant in the land will have food rations? That is why they have the guard towers? And what is their "mark"? The same as the mark of the beast! It's not hard to see food lines and many minions, having signed their lives away, lining up with their 'marks' handy, in order to obtain rations.[size=78%] [/size]

Google – Walmart six pointed logo[size=78%] [/size]
Google – soldiers ask why six pointed star now on all officer swords[size=78%] [/size]
Google – talmud truths[size=78%] [/size]
The hour is late, the harvest is great and the workers are few.... See the signs He has promised us...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_earthchanges31.htm[size=78%] [/size]
The story "Huge Media Blackout regarding earth and moon orbital changes" used to be hosted at Beforeitsnews.com but the story was deleted several times. This information is of vital importance to all who wish to make informed decisions regarding the lives of their loved ones and themselves. Many were warned, yet because of the "HUGE MEDIA BLACKOUT" when the great flooding on the missouri river took place in 2011 as a direct result of the markedly increased solar radiation now hitting the northern latitudes in spring and summer months, not many took heed to the warnings. And who knew beforehand??? I attended the army core of engineers meeting after the disaster and addressed the Truth. The cowards sat silent and guilty, and there is no way they couldn't have known well before hand as I and many others knew and tried to warn others.  Study and see that Luke 21:25-28 is in fulfillment at this time. And see that when God says that the heavenly bodies will shake, and there will be signs in sun, moon and stars, while the nations will be in anguish over the great agitation of the oceans.....He Means It. Isaiah 24:20, He means it. Revelation 16:8, He means it![size=78%] [/size]
http://science.time.com/2013/03/08/recent-heat-spike-unlike-anything-in-11000-years/[size=78%] [/size]
Christ also means it as He reassures us, "When you see the beginning of these things, STAND UP and LIFT UP your heads, for your redemption draws near". TOO many are instead doing just the opposite, sitting down and hanging their heads! IF ONE IS AFRAID of what is coming upon the world, it is only because, deep down, you believe YOU HAVE IT COMING to you![size=78%] [/size]
DO YOU? Kneel and repent of sin, live STRONG in HIS WORD, His SON, Jesus Christ, and be forgiven, and you will instead find GREAT REASON to stand and raise your heads, even your voices, to God and to your fellow man.[size=78%] [/size]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fED-Ky4VEMc[size=78%] [/size]
He forgave Kirk Martin, He can forgive you too....Try Him. Soon.
For those who truly seek to know God's ways, If He exists, where is his signature on Creation....I tell you the time is short, the harvest is great, and the workers are few. See:[size=78%] [/size]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk[size=78%] [/size]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y[size=78%] [/size]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaN2acVMGC8[size=78%] [/size]
http://arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm[size=78%] [/size]
http://arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm[size=78%] [/size]

God's Word told the end from the beginning, and SO MANY are missing out on account of ignorance, prejudice, intellectual cowardice, etc...![size=78%] [/size]
Don't be among them.[size=78%] [/size]
Blessings friends, in Jesus Christ!

And remember, the hour is late, and It is HIGH TIME to STAND UP and LIFT UP your heads, (and your voices too!) for your redemption draws near!

Quote from: MileHigh
There is no conspiracy among tens or hundreds of thousands of people.   It's simply impossible to do that.  Basic common sense tells you that.

Very true.  All of the Programs are compartmentalized
to assure that only those who have a Need To Know are
cognizant of anything beyond their area of tasking or
expertise.  The vast majority of Americans simply have
no way to comprehend the workings of deception as a
tactic of control; nor can they imagine the vastness of
the personnel and other resources devoted to the
execution of the Plan.  Out of necessity only a very few
are fully aware.

Quote from: TechStuf on May 18, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
snip...

Aah.... That's better.

Quote from: hoptoad on May 19, 2013, 02:17:47 AM
Aah.... That's better.

Now you made me interested and I read the whole post. I mostly agree with TechStuf though.

Secrets Hidden In Films Of Stanley Kubrick 1 - 5 (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/74507/Secrets_Hidden_In_Films_Of_Stanley_Kubrick_1__5/&sa=U&ei=uEyZUf-CM47QqAHI94GgDg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG2vhbR_2qEz5L1k6u16O7iMa2_Xg) [Video]
Secrets Hidden In Films Of Stanley Kubrick 2 - 5 (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/74508/Secrets_Hidden_In___Films_Of_Stanley_Kubrick_2_5/&sa=U&ei=-k-ZUdjTEsr4qAGogYHoBQ&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGTgmH-2vkzOTZDuHPcgLhtM0Kd6Q) [Video]
Secrets Hidden In Films Of Stanley Kubrick 3 - 5 (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/74509/Secrets_Hidden_In_The_Films_Of_Stanley_Kubrick_3_5/&sa=U&ei=dk6ZUbP3HIXLqQHq44CQBA&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG7G-oPGWENr6tjTTw1AhbyWqaFAg) [Video]
Secrets Hidden In Films Of Stanley Kubrick 4 - 5 (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/74514/Secrets_Hidden_In_The_Films_Of_Stanley_Kubrick_4_5/&sa=U&ei=o06ZUeP5IMaBqgGNj4GoAQ&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHS_dq-GiJ1B6-Aq1MSt0uPlzkQJg) [Video]
Secrets Hidden In Films Of Stanley Kubrick 5 - 5 (http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/74516/Secrets_Hidden_In_The_Films_Of_Stanley_Kubrick_5_5/) [Video]

Gravock

If you want ABSOLUTE PROOF we did NOT go to the moon, click on this Link to watch a $45 professional video FREE.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)



.

Quote from: FatBird on May 19, 2013, 09:15:21 PM
If you want ABSOLUTE PROOF we did NOT go to the moon, click on this Link to watch a $45 professional video FREE.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)



.

You're a True Patriot FatBird!

Thanks,

Gravock

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 19, 2013, 01:23:54 AM
Very true.  All of the Programs are compartmentalized
to assure that only those who have a Need To Know are
cognizant of anything beyond their area of tasking or
expertise.  The vast majority of Americans simply have
no way to comprehend the workings of deception as a
tactic of control; nor can they imagine the vastness of
the personnel and other resources devoted to the
execution of the Plan.  Out of necessity only a very few
are fully aware.

I do not think you have any way to comprehend the complexity of the moon landing project, start to finish.  NASA does not build anything, it contracts it out.  There are many thousands of people who worked on this, and it's not like they all needed top level security clearance.

Anyway, do you really think that we could not get a man on the moon?  I mean, the US government had two choices, one is a massive conspiracy to make everyone think we landed on the moon, and the other is actually to put a man on the moon.  To me, it seems harder to fake it.

Men have been to the Moon, and beyond,
for quite some time.

But NASA has not accomplished it.

NASA is in the business of deception
as a political boondoggle; a funnel
for funding.

The "Other" Space Program is the
Real Deal.  Rockets are very old and
very limited technology but like
fireworks make for a good show.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 20, 2013, 02:11:40 AM
Men have been to the Moon, and beyond,
for quite some time.

But NASA has not accomplished it.

NASA is in the business of deception
as a political boondoggle; a funnel
for funding.

The "Other" Space Program is the
Real Deal.  Rockets are very old and
very limited technology but like
fireworks make for a good show.

And you know this how?

It is not possible to answer your question
with any specifics other than to say that
"research" will eventually lead you to the
evidence you seek.

Documentation exists.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 20, 2013, 03:01:47 AM
It is not possible to answer your question
with any specifics other than to say that
"research" will eventually lead you to the
evidence you seek.

Documentation exists.

I don't believe you.

Nor do I believe it.  Certainly there are government secrets but there is no secret or conspiracy related to the moon landings.

Here is the motivation to make a hoax that says the moon landings were a hoax:

Quoteclick on this Link to watch a $45 professional video FREE

MileHigh

Skepticism and denial can be a healthy sign.

Before anything is "believed" it should be
verified to one's satisfaction by reviewing
all available evidence without any pre-
conceived prejudices.

I certainly am not demanding that I be
believed.  As is always the case, in due
time the Truth will emerge whether we
wish it to or not.

Quote from: MileHigh
Nor do I believe it.  Certainly there are government secrets but there is no secret or conspiracy related to the moon landings.

That is precisely the sentiment and
thought process which is sought after
by those who manage the propaganda
which emanates daily from "Kontrol"
(The District) to the masses via the MSM.

The Awakening hasn't yet reached into
the minds of all of the people.  But it
shall.  All things which have been concealed
shall be revealed.  The process has already
begun as demonstrated by World events.

There will be much Tribulation.

Watched a lot of moon stuff today both for and against hoax.   I found this 16mm color video on NASA's site quite interesting.   It would seem to validate that the landing was real.   Of course there are those who will say it is fake along with shaky hand held video taken from inside the capsule complete with lens flare from the Sun, one of those white mystery lights moving slowly across the picture (about 1 hour 4 minutes into the video) and a perspective that would be hard to fake except with a complete digital Hollywood effects studio.   I don't see them going to that kind of trouble as it's just one of many videos you can view there.  This vid:  http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/nasa#.UZrEgT7cwmY (http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/nasa#.UZrEgT7cwmY)  which is on NASA's defense video & imagery distribution system.   


Now on the other side of the hoaxers theory I heard some audio both on youtube and from NASA where Houston was talking to the Astronauts.    Speed of light and thus radio signals should be 186,000 miles per second.  Moon is about 250,000 miles away.  So one would expect voice going one way to take about 1.25 to 1.4 seconds.  Then assuming an immediate response on the other end another  1.25 to 1.4 seconds for a response from  the astronauts to return to Houston.   However there was clearly times when there was no lag and there was immediate response on the order of 1/8 second or less.   So what should have taken 2.5 to 2.8 seconds took less than a quarter of a second.      The youtubers could of course cut out the lag times in between responses.   But why would NASA cut out the lags?   I am not certain on what I heard in the NASA stuff yet but am still looking to find a situation where it definitely has no lag where one would expect it.   What to think about it all ....   I think it will be really hard to know for certain unless you know some of those deep on the inside very well.   The Internet has become one big rumor mill with many people hoping to influence the minds of the populace.

Quote from: e2matrix on May 20, 2013, 09:50:36 PM
Watched a lot of moon stuff today both for and against hoax.   I found this 16mm color video on NASA's site quite interesting.   It would seem to validate that the landing was real.   Of course there are those who will say it is fake along with shaky hand held video taken from inside the capsule complete with lens flare from the Sun, one of those white mystery lights moving slowly across the picture (about 1 hour 4 minutes into the video) and a perspective that would be hard to fake except with a complete digital Hollywood effects studio.   I don't see them going to that kind of trouble as it's just one of many videos you can view there.  This vid:  http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/nasa#.UZrEgT7cwmY (http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/nasa#.UZrEgT7cwmY)  which is on NASA's defense video & imagery distribution system.   


Now on the other side of the hoaxers theory I heard some audio both on youtube and from NASA where Houston was talking to the Astronauts.    Speed of light and thus radio signals should be 186,000 miles per second.  Moon is about 250,000 miles away.  So one would expect voice going one way to take about 1.25 to 1.4 seconds.  Then assuming an immediate response on the other end another  1.25 to 1.4 seconds for a response from  the astronauts to return to Houston.   However there was clearly times when there was no lag and there was immediate response on the order of 1/8 second or less.   So what should have taken 2.5 to 2.8 seconds took less than a quarter of a second.      The youtubers could of course cut out the lag times in between responses.   But why would NASA cut out the lags?   I am not certain on what I heard in the NASA stuff yet but am still looking to find a situation where it definitely has no lag where one would expect it.   What to think about it all ....   I think it will be really hard to know for certain unless you know some of those deep on the inside very well.   The Internet has become one big rumor mill with many people hoping to influence the minds of the populace.

Every single thing the pro-hoax proponents assert has been rebutted.  Every single thing.   Now whether you buy the rebuttals or not is another thing, as certainly the argument can be carried further in some cases.  But amazingly, and almost without exception, every single hoaxer that comes on here spews the exact same crap that has already been rebutted, and they act like they have never read a single thing against their position.


You at least realize the explanation behind some missing lag (editing).  Also there are times where if you are not thinking, you might expect delay, but there should not be.  For example, when you hear the astronauts, and Houston responds immediately, well that is normal, as the recording is taking place here on earth.


I think if you were to examine all the real time audio,  you would find delay where it needs to be.

This audio clip from NASA's archives : http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY (http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY)
is over 2 hours long.   There are many periods of long silence (several minutes at a time in some cases) so one would assume it has not been edited to remove dead air space.   Yet there were many times in the audio clip where responses between Houston and the astronauts on the moon were immediate (easily 1/2 second or less).  Time between Houston voice and Houston reception of Astronaut voice = or > 2.4 seconds by any logic.   Actual time heard in this audio above is often less than 1/4 second.
I understand what you are saying about Astronaut voice followed by Houston response being brief.    So far it would appear the brief times were only when Houston responded to an Astronaut.   It seems most Astronaut responses to Houston were around 2.5 seconds.   This seems to validate they were on the Moon unless you want to believe they put in all those delays as part of the fakery.   Also interesting in this audio was the statement about there being a 12 second delay between what Houston got for video/audio and the TV networks which got it 12 seconds later (mention of it going through a converter box).   
I'm leaning toward believing as I always had that we were indeed on the Moon.   Sure there are a lot of reasons one might tend to buy into the hoax theories but they seem on far shakier ground than the mountains of evidence I've sifted through today.     
I did however find one instance in the recording above where Astronaut response was immediate to a Houston question.    :-\

Quote from: e2matrix on May 20, 2013, 11:27:02 PM
This audio clip from NASA's archives : http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY (http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY)
is over 2 hours long.   There are many periods of long silence (several minutes at a time in some cases) so one would assume it has not been edited to remove dead air space.   Yet there were many times in the audio clip where responses between Houston and the astronauts on the moon were immediate (easily 1/2 second or less).  Time between Houston voice and Houston reception of Astronaut voice = or > 2.4 seconds by any logic.   Actual time heard in this audio above is often less than 1/4 second.
I understand what you are saying about Astronaut voice followed by Houston response being brief.    So far it would appear the brief times were only when Houston responded to an Astronaut.   It seems most Astronaut responses to Houston were around 2.5 seconds.   This seems to validate they were on the Moon unless you want to believe they put in all those delays as part of the fakery.   Also interesting in this audio was the statement about there being a 12 second delay between what Houston got for video/audio and the TV networks which got it 12 seconds later (mention of it going through a converter box).   
I'm leaning toward believing as I always had that we were indeed on the Moon.   Sure there are a lot of reasons one might tend to buy into the hoax theories but they seem on far shakier ground than the mountains of evidence I've sifted through today.     
I did however find one instance in the recording above where Astronaut response was immediate to a Houston question.    :-\

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xciCJfbTvE4#t=1984s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xciCJfbTvE4#t=1984s)

I guess your response to a private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' will be that it was edited into the above film.  If I was NASA or the astronauts I would sue the hell out of them and others like them for doing such a thing (slander and libel (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander)).  However, if the film is genuine, then they don't have much of a case, do they?

Gravock

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on May 20, 2013, 10:46:08 PM

Every single thing the pro-hoax proponents assert has been rebutted.  Every single thing.   Now whether you buy the rebuttals or not is another thing, as certainly the argument can be carried further in some cases.  But amazingly, and almost without exception, every single hoaxer that comes on here spews the exact same crap that has already been rebutted, and they act like they have never read a single thing against their position.


You at least realize the explanation behind some missing lag (editing).  Also there are times where if you are not thinking, you might expect delay, but there should not be.  For example, when you hear the astronauts, and Houston responds immediately, well that is normal, as the recording is taking place here on earth.


I think if you were to examine all the real time audio,  you would find delay where it needs to be.

What is the rebuttal for the 'window trickery' that shortly follows the secondary private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' as referenced by the video FatBird brought to our attention?  Also, why NASA hasn't released any comments on the fiber optic portion of the lunar camera, which destroys their rebuttal of a 'transparency' effect caused by a primitive vidicon tube they originally claimed to be using.  Also note, the colored camera used during the 'window trickery', so why a camera with a primitive vidicon tube to shoot the moon landing?  The only reasonable and logical answer is NASA claimed to be using a camera with a vidicon tube as a rebuttal for the 'transparency' effect caused by the front screen projection and blue screen when the angle and lighting wasn't perfect.  If I was NASA I would use the best camera I had for the moon landing, especially for a live broadcast event, but this is clearly not the case as reported by them.  The video shows clear audio and video manipulation of a staged event by the astronauts themselves.  What is their rebuttal to this piece of evidence?

Gravock

Gravityblock:

When it suits you you use a blue screen effect and when it also suits you you use the Kubrick rear-projection effect.  What that means is that the conspiracy theorists can't agree among themselves.

Certainly the "shadows at the wrong angles" argument is totally false for anybody with half a brain.  I can walk down the street on a sunny day and see shadows at different angles.

I watched two out of the five parts you linked to.  In part two they take some film camera still images and increase the contrast and turn the black sky into dark blue with white dots and white splotches all over the place.  You also clearly see that the sky is broken up into segments like a checkerboard.

Well, chances are that most of the "white dots" are STARS.  Did they bother to check if the white dots line up with the expected star pattern?  I bet not.  Can you buy a good astronomy package for your computer that will show what the star pattern in the sky looks like on any day at any hour in 1969?  I bet you can!

They claim the "segments" observed in the frame are the special rear-projection screens all stitched together.  But in the Stanley Kubrick film clip we are clearly shown that the rear projection screen is very large, apparently much larger than the alleged segments of rear projection screen stitched together in the photographs!  At the same time, any engineer worth his salt will know how hard it is to prevent digital clocking signals from superimposing clock noise on any signal, especially very low level signals.  So the "segments" we see in the digitized photographs is just the digital hardware in the image scanning system adding very low level digital noise to the scanned images.  You are simply looking at the scanning clock signals for the image acquisition hardware being superimposed on the digital version of the film photograph.   And you think of all of the brainiacs that worked on that moon landing conspiracy movie and not one of them could postulate this explanation!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on May 21, 2013, 03:04:32 PM
Gravityblock:

When it suits you you use a blue screen effect and when it also suits you you use the Kubrick rear-projection effect.  What that means is that the conspiracy theorists can't agree among themselves.

....
.......

MileHigh

Let me know when you're finished watching all 5 parts and the video FatBird referenced.  Also, the front screen projection technique uses a projector, a camera, a semi-transparent mirror, and a blue screen with a scothlite screen at 90⁰ to each other.  The front projection, the blue screen, and the scothlite screen (which you refered to as the rear projection) is part of the same method producing the 'transparency' effect when the angle and lighting isn't correct.  In other words, the "blue screen effect" and Kubricks "rear projection effect" are the same thing (have another look at the image below describing the front projection technique with a blue screen and a scothlite screen).  So, your conclusions on using either the "blue screen effect" or the "rear projection effect" according to which one suits us the best is totally wrong based on your lack of understanding of the process itself.

Gravock

Gravityblock:

You are right that I got my terminology wrong and I am not 100% clear how the system that Stanley Kubrick used to great success works.  However, to the best of my recollection you end up with the illusion of an image projected on a rear screen.

I don't know if I will have the time or desire to fully research this and figure it all out.

One thing seems pretty certain though:  The moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists do not want to do a proper investigation and ask themselves if there are alternative explanations to their theories.

Look at the example of the shadows.  The analysis by the conspiracy theorists is infantile and silly.

There was a case where I saw how a conspiracy theorist was freaking out because he saw pictures of small models and a small mock-up of the moon's surface.  Well, that's because they didn't have computer graphics simulation in the 1960s and they simply "flew" a camera over a small model lunar landscape to generate the video scene for the landing simulator.

In a related matter there is a well known short Apollo clip of a "UFO" that "suddenly changes direction."  However, you see the plume from the maneuvering retro-rocket.  It's just a small piece of junk outside the command module, like a piece of ice, that changes direction when the retro rocket fires.

I think I watched the second longer movie about two years ago and I wasn't impressed.   Sorry that I can't do a full check into this stuff, there are only so many hours in a day.

MileHigh

A US insider named Peter Beter who was a Benjamin Fulford type of his day has in my opinion the best explanation.
He says the US actually landed on the moon but we only heard the audio and the video was faked. It was because there was an Alien welcoming committee.
I listened to   (and watched) the moon adventure and there was a clear yelp of excitement from one astronaut as he said that he could see a signal from a crater they passed over. I believe he said a flashing green light. Nasa also went into "secret" mode many times during the flight round and onto the moon.
I also found out that the Australian tv receiving dish was given an instruction to move it's orientation towards Houston and away from the moon minutes before touchdown. The explanation given was that the US had a better signal.
So it's no surprise that some images are suspect. All part of the Alien cover up and the NWO back engineering Alien technology.
It'll all be public soon.
I suspect since then we have been warned off the moon.
It makes no sense to build a space station when we have a ready made one called the moon - with natural resources.
We won't go back till full disclosure.

Quote from: a.king21 on May 22, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
A US insider named Peter Beter who was a Benjamin Fulford type of his day has in my opinion the best explanation.
He says the US actually landed on the moon but we only heard the audio and the video was faked. It was because there was an Alien welcoming committee.
I listened to   (and watched) the moon adventure and there was a clear yelp of excitement from one astronaut as he said that he could see a signal from a crater they passed over. I believe he said a flashing green light. Nasa also went into "secret" mode many times during the flight round and onto the moon.
I also found out that the Australian tv receiving dish was given an instruction to move it's orientation towards Houston and away from the moon minutes before touchdown. The explanation given was that the US had a better signal.
So it's no surprise that some images are suspect. All part of the Alien cover up and the NWO back engineering Alien technology.
It'll all be public soon.
I suspect since then we have been warned off the moon.
It makes no sense to build a space station when we have a ready made one called the moon - with natural resources.
We won't go back till full disclosure.

If what you say is correct, then why did NASA have plans for a permanent moon base before America pretty much flushed NASA down the toilet?  Below is a quote found on wiki under the section titled, "Recent and planned activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA#Recent_and_planned_activities)".  Also, how could they fake the video at a moments notice while syncing it to the real audio during a live broadcast event due to an alien presence?  It does make sense to build a space station since we don't have the capabilities to reach the moon (at least with the technology which is publicly known and currently being used by NASA, as Seamonkey wisely stated).  NASA speculated they may have the capabilities to reach the moon by 2020 (why wait 50+ years later if you had the technology back in the 60's?).

"On December 4, 2006, NASA announced it was planning a permanent moon base.  The goal was to start building the moon base by 2020, and by 2024, have a fully functional base that would allow for crew rotations and in-situ resource utilization.  However in 2009, the Augustine Committee found the program to be on a "unsustainable trajectory."  In 2010, President Barack Obama halted existing plans, including the Moon base, and directed a generic focus on manned missions to asteroids and Mars, as well as extending support for the International Space Station."

Gravock

Quote from: e2matrix on May 03, 2013, 02:48:01 PM
Yep the Moon is an artificial satellite.   I haven't dug into this lately but I was told over 10 years ago about it and even why it was brought here.   
jbigness5,  can you give me some sources for your info on the moon.   What you are saying about the hard surface below the 'moon dust' makes sense that it would be titanium or similar if the info I got is correct. 
Why was the Moon brought here?   Well this one will be a stretch for some and for any women reading they won't be happy.   You know that thing that happens once a month to women - crabby PMS stuff?   Well before the Moon was brought here that only happened once a year.  The Moon was brought here to increase the fertility of women from once a year to once every 28 days for the purpose of increasing the human population here much more quickly.   IIRC at that time humans were essentially being used as slaves to the race that brought the Moon here.   Apparently that race that brought the Moon is the Annunaki.   So every month when your wife/girlfriend starts raging at you well now you know who to blame.   ;)

Quote from: a.king21 on May 22, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
A US insider named Peter Beter who was a Benjamin Fulford type of his day has in my opinion the best explanation.
He says the US actually landed on the moon but we only heard the audio and the video was faked. It was because there was an Alien welcoming committee.
I listened to   (and watched) the moon adventure and there was a clear yelp of excitement from one astronaut as he said that he could see a signal from a crater they passed over. I believe he said a flashing green light. Nasa also went into "secret" mode many times during the flight round and onto the moon.
I also found out that the Australian tv receiving dish was given an instruction to move it's orientation towards Houston and away from the moon minutes before touchdown. The explanation given was that the US had a better signal.
So it's no surprise that some images are suspect. All part of the Alien cover up and the NWO back engineering Alien technology.
It'll all be public soon.
I suspect since then we have been warned off the moon.
It makes no sense to build a space station when we have a ready made one called the moon - with natural resources.
We won't go back till full disclosure.

Is a.King21 and e2matrix the same person?  They both started their post off with insider information on the moon and insider information on aliens. They're both in the same time zone as indicated by the snapshots below and have the same writing style (compare the 2 quotes above).

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on May 21, 2013, 02:34:20 PM
What is the rebuttal for the 'window trickery' that shortly follows the secondary private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' as referenced by the video FatBird brought to our attention? 

Gravock

I watched the window trickery part, and this does not even need to be rebutted.  This is a conjecture.  The film posits a way the earth shots could be faked, but does not prove it.  Nothing is presented which would disprove that these were simply shots of distant earth.

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on May 23, 2013, 03:38:12 AM

I watched the window trickery part, and this does not even need to be rebutted.  This is a conjecture.  The film posits a way the earth shots could be faked, but does not prove it.  Nothing is presented which would disprove that these were simply shots of distant earth.

Why do you want the moon so bad?  Since you're ignorantly making a claim to it, then it shall be given to you, as it was given to those long before you.  Don't worry, you will truly be under your "masonic moon" one day soon.  Before this happens, you will behold the destruction of your beloved ones of iniquity.  Did you really think the ones before you could be released prior to the great Day by trying to blow up the entrance on the south pole of the moon?  There is nothing you can do, for it has already been written.

Gravock

I don't  post as anyone else. You should google Peter Beter and draw your own conclusions.
Nasa's "plans" are just disinfo.
I've heard it all before many times.
The Chinese were going to the moon.
What happened? Nothing.
I was as excited as everyone else when we circumnavigated the moon in 1968.
45 years later and no progress.
I'm done with NASA and it's lies.
Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. He refused to lie and gave very few public statements.
I stick by my previous post unless evidence is produced to the contrary.
I've studied dozens of witness statements from ex NASA employees.
They have a rule, "Lock the doors" - when something alien related gets out.
Then they find out which of their employees needs re-education or threats.
Our only hope is the private sector. If they really get going then Nasa and other big governments won't be able to lie anymore,
just as the Bilderberg group can't hide anymore. Watford June 6th 2013.
My opinion for the many irregularities in the moon photos is that honest Nasa employees tried to get the truth out as best as they
could, leaving subtle clues.
My opinion is still that it's a cover up of the Alien presence, and a monopolising of advanced technology.
It beggars belief that 45 years after circumnavigating the moon and and 40 years after the last landing, we haven't been back.

gravityblock you are a nutcase.    a.king21 is in the UK.  I'm not.   Would I be writing private messages to myself on March 14th?   Attached is a screen copy of a couple messages a.king21 sent me after I contacted him about a guy in Kentucky with a supposed self running generator who a.king21 had mentioned in a thread so I contacted him for more info. 

Quote from: e2matrix on May 23, 2013, 01:01:25 PM
gravityblock you are a nutcase.

It is you who is the nutcase to think the moon is an artificial satellite built elsewhere and drugged through vast distances of space by the annukii and left here to increase the fertility rate of women by decreasing their menstrual cycle from 1 year to 28 days when they could have increased the fertility rate easily through genetics, etc.  In addition to this, women follow the cycle of the sun instead of the moon and has a higher fertility rate with a better embryo quality when having a longer menstrual cycle as shown by women undergoing invitro fertilatzation.  There are many here who has more than 1 username, so how does that make me a nutcase to question it in this case?  Besides, I only asked a question if you and a.king21 were the same person, and I listed several reasons for raising this question. I never said the two of you were the same. I try to question everything to find the truth, and you apparently question nothing which leads you to falsehoods.  If you don't ask the right questions, then you won't get the right answers.

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on May 23, 2013, 04:50:17 AM

Why do you want the moon so bad?  Since you're ignorantly making a claim to it, then it shall be given to you, as it was given to those long before you.  Don't worry, you will truly be under your "masonic moon" one day soon.  Before this happens, you will behold the destruction of your beloved ones of iniquity.  Did you really think the ones before you could be released prior to the great Day by trying to blow up the entrance on the south pole of the moon?  There is nothing you can do, for it has already been written.

Gravock

It is you who is taking away a great accomplishment of the human race.  And I am not making an ignorant claim.  There is endless evidence for it.

Quote from: gravityblock on May 24, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
It is you who is the nutcase to think the moon is an artificial satellite built elsewhere and drugged through vast distances of space by the annukii and left here to increase the fertility rate of women by decreasing their menstrual cycle from 1 year to 28 days when they could have increased the fertility rate easily through genetics, etc.  In addition to this, women follow the cycle of the sun instead of the moon and has a higher fertility rate with a better embryo quality when having a longer menstrual cycle as shown by women undergoing invitro fertilatzation.  There are many here who has more than 1 username, so how does that make me a nutcase to question it in this case?  Besides, I only asked a question if you and a.king21 were the same person, and I listed several reasons for raising this question. I never said the two of you were the same. I try to question everything to find the truth, and you apparently question nothing which leads you to falsehoods.  If you don't ask the right questions, then you won't get the right answers.

Gravock

I never said that in this thread.  You've pulled something that was more for amusement from another thread.  I didn't say I believe that.   It is something that was told to me face to face by a person with an I.Q. that is off the scale and who has tens of thousands of people who pay substantial money to learn from them.   I consider that info to be rather 'far out there' but not necessarily outside the realm of possibility.   Truth is often stranger than fiction.  That info was brought up in a discussion with Jbigness to add to what he was saying as a tidbit of possible info but more to amuse.   It has little to do with this discussion.  I've presented both pro and con for the moon landings and I am not firmly set on believing either one side or the other.  As I said before I think this is a situation that will be hard to ascertain the absolute truth without having deep insider information.   I'm not even interested in pursuing it further.   I suggest you choose your battles better.   Accusing me of breaking the rules here with having multiple identities may have been posed as a question but done so in an open forum is an obvious attempt to make me or a.king21 look like fakes or liars.   Fortunately I have good proof we are two separate people and you are making yourself look foolish with such talk.   Not to mention it sounds like a.king21 and I have somewhat opposing opinions on this situation.     
Now just ask yourself this.   Do you believe that the Internet has become such a big force that there are people who might have an agenda to use the Internet to influence people?   Do you think there are at least some who might want to discredit one of the America's great moments?   How much real first hand 100% provable concrete evidence do you have?   Do you really understand what I'm saying?   It could probably take a top notch investigative reporter a year or more of full time work in the field (not just on a computer) to get anything close to conclusive proof one way or the other on something like this.   But many people want to sit around 'armchair quarterbacking' and in some cases taking their one or two little tidbits of personal info and turning those tidbits with lots of personal opinions of others  in to a major case for or against something which they really have no clue about.   So I think it is useless to make any firm conclusions on what is largely speculation at best and probably a lot of intentional disinfo from both sides of the coin.   

I don't have any doubt that the Apollo missions culminated in numerous manned moon landings.

But in playing the devil's advocate, let's assume it is all a hoax. What harm or good is done, and by who to whom ?

Even if the landings never took place, and it was all just propaganda, the space race, in and of itself, spured on human ingenuity, inventiveness and collaboration amongst scientists, on both sides of the cold war fence. This alone was a feat in itself, with the USSR and US eventually finding more common political ground via scientific collaboration in space, instead of rivalrous competition. An international pecedent of collaboration, set by the scientific world, even as the ardent militarists on both sides shook their heads!

Cheers

This sure is interesting. It does raise questions about the credibility of what is presented for public consumption.

"Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago."

More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)

Interesting thread,
Thanks
Mike

Another tidbit I find amusing that we should equate the fake moon rock with anything at all.  They said it was valued at over 300 thousand pounds which is almost 1/2 million U.S. dollars -- in fact just 4 years ago that would have been well over a half million dollar 'rock'.   So you think with that kind of value and it having changed hands a number of times that no one might have got sticky fingers?   Maybe swap it for a chunk of petrified wood?   I know mikestocks2006 isn't drawing any conclusions here so I'm not saying it's bad that you brought this up but I can hardly believe that anyone would want to use that as evidence that we didn't go to the Moon.   Now if the other 100 rocks they gave out are all fake too we might think about it but what about those.  No one else has claimed they got a fake rock.   Considering that story came out in August of 2009 surely some others were looking at their Moon rocks and if they were fake I'm sure there would have been many more speaking out.   But apparently some others have been stolen and forged:
Here is a little more regarding this:  "Of the 270 Apollo 11 Moon Rocks and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rocks that were given to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration approximately 180 are currently unaccounted for. Many of the moon rocks that are accounted for have been locked away in storage for decades. The location of the rocks has been tracked by researchers and hobbyists because of their rarity and the difficulty of obtaining more. Moon rocks have been subjects of theft and forgery as well."

Agreed, but also we need to keep in mind, the knife cuts both ways.

One would expect other museums, or any of the 100 or so moon rock holders to run tests in order to confirm if they really have the real rocks at hand and ofc at least a number of them would come out and publish the results. After all we are talking some significant value attached to them

Since there is silence, who knows? Maybe they got confirm but did not publish, or proved fakery and did not publish, or they did not do any tests at all. Maybe the rocks were stolen and sold in the black market? Kept it unpublished to avoid embarrassment?

Either way it sure does raise some questions/speculations.
Thanks
Mike

Quote from: mikestocks2006 on May 27, 2013, 05:20:28 PM
Agreed, but also we need to keep in mind, the knife cuts both ways.

One would expect other museums, or any of the 100 or so moon rock holders to run tests in order to confirm if they really have the real rocks at hand and ofc at least a number of them would come out and publish the results. After all we are talking some significant value attached to them

Since there is silence, who knows? Maybe they got confirm but did not publish, or proved fakery and did not publish, or they did not do any tests at all. Maybe the rocks were stolen and sold in the black market? Kept it unpublished to avoid embarrassment?

Either way it sure does raise some questions/speculations.
Thanks
Mike

It raises as much questions/speculations as there would be if I got tricked into buying a fake iPad and then said, "Hmmmm, maybe there never was a thing like the iPad.  We were all duped!"

Quote from: e2matrix on May 26, 2013, 11:39:15 PM
I never said that in this thread.  You've pulled something that was more for amusement from another thread.  I didn't say I believe that.   It is something that was told to me face to face by a person with an I.Q. that is off the scale and who has tens of thousands of people who pay substantial money to learn from them.   I consider that info to be rather 'far out there' but not necessarily outside the realm of possibility.   Truth is often stranger than fiction.  That info was brought up in a discussion with Jbigness to add to what he was saying as a tidbit of possible info but more to amuse.   It has little to do with this discussion. 

You saying, "Yep, the Moon is an artificial satellite..........." wasn't for amusement purposes, and it is something you most certainly believe in since you tried to back it up with some authoritive figure with an I.Q. that is off the charts.  The statement itself is wrongly worded as a statement of fact.  Are you now  saying you don't believe in your own false statement?

Quote
I've presented both pro and con for the moon landings and I am not firmly set on believing either one side or the other.  As I said before I think this is a situation that will be hard to ascertain the absolute truth without having deep insider information.   I'm not even interested in pursuing it further.   I suggest you choose your battles better.   Accusing me of breaking the rules here with having multiple identities may have been posed as a question but done so in an open forum is an obvious attempt to make me or a.king21 look like fakes or liars.   Fortunately I have good proof we are two separate people and you are making yourself look foolish with such talk.   Not to mention it sounds like a.king21 and I have somewhat opposing opinions on this situation.     
Now just ask yourself this.   Do you believe that the Internet has become such a big force that there are people who might have an agenda to use the Internet to influence people?   Do you think there are at least some who might want to discredit one of the America's great moments?   

How can you say, "I'm not firmly set in believing one side or the other", then ask if someone may want to discredit one of America's great moments? You can't without foolish talk, lol.  The question itself wrongly implies the moon landings were real based on your false and unproven claim of it being one of America's great moments. Your own thoughts are conflicted against each other.

Quote
How much real first hand 100% provable concrete evidence do you have?   Do you really understand what I'm saying?   It could probably take a top notch investigative reporter a year or more of full time work in the field (not just on a computer) to get anything close to conclusive proof one way or the other on something like this.   But many people want to sit around 'armchair quarterbacking' and in some cases taking their one or two little tidbits of personal info and turning those tidbits with lots of personal opinions of others  in to a major case for or against something which they really have no clue about.   So I think it is useless to make any firm conclusions on what is largely speculation at best and probably a lot of intentional disinfo from both sides of the coin.

The, "Yep the Moon is an artificial satellite........." post is a good example of how one takes one or two tidbits of personal info and turning those tidbits with lots of personal opinions of others in to a major case for something which they really have no clue about.  The only intentional disinfo I have seen in this thread has come out of your posts.


Gravock

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on May 27, 2013, 07:02:52 PM

It raises as much questions/speculations as there would be if I got tricked into buying a fake iPad and then said, "Hmmmm, maybe there never was a thing like the iPad.  We were all duped!"

Yes, bamboozled and hoodwinked!


Gravock

Quote from: e2matrix on May 27, 2013, 04:55:58 PM
Another tidbit I find amusing that we should equate the fake moon rock with anything at all.  They said it was valued at over 300 thousand pounds which is almost 1/2 million U.S. dollars -- in fact just 4 years ago that would have been well over a half million dollar 'rock'.   So you think with that kind of value and it having changed hands a number of times that no one might have got sticky fingers?   Maybe swap it for a chunk of petrified wood?   I know mikestocks2006 isn't drawing any conclusions here so I'm not saying it's bad that you brought this up but I can hardly believe that anyone would want to use that as evidence that we didn't go to the Moon.   Now if the other 100 rocks they gave out are all fake too we might think about it but what about those.  No one else has claimed they got a fake rock.   Considering that story came out in August of 2009 surely some others were looking at their Moon rocks and if they were fake I'm sure there would have been many more speaking out.   But apparently some others have been stolen and forged:
Here is a little more regarding this:  "Of the 270 Apollo 11 Moon Rocks and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rocks that were given to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration approximately 180 are currently unaccounted for. Many of the moon rocks that are accounted for have been locked away in storage for decades. The location of the rocks has been tracked by researchers and hobbyists because of their rarity and the difficulty of obtaining more. Moon rocks have been subjects of theft and forgery as well."

We have 'tidbit' and 'amusing' all in the same sentence. Beware, this is how one can spew intentional disinformation to be used as a major case for something which he really has no clue about and is based on total nonsense.

Gravock

deleted.


Gravock

I was a bit skeptical on first blush, but the more I looked into the matter, the more I am thoroughly convinced that this version of humanity has in fact made it to the moon...and beyond.

But NASA was not a factor...and is in reality, a compartmentalized false front set in place to convince the masses that we are still technologically challenged, in order to maintain controlling monopolies by the deviants in control.

Regards...

Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on May 30, 2013, 10:32:41 AM
I was a bit skeptical on first blush, but the more I looked into the matter, the more I am thoroughly convinced that this version of humanity has in fact made it to the moon...and beyond.

But NASA was not a factor...and is in reality, a compartmentalized false front set in place to convince the masses that we are still technologically challenged, in order to maintain controlling monopolies by the deviants in control.

Regards...

Let me guess, to make you thoroughly convinced, all you need is blog post on a wacko website that matches your pre-existing world view?

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on May 30, 2013, 09:44:12 PM
Let me guess, to make you thoroughly convinced, all you need is blog post on a wacko website that matches your pre-existing world view?

Let me guess, you are prone to making statements without realizing that you look like a total moron to anyone who bothers to read beyond your first few words.

Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on May 30, 2013, 10:01:47 PM

Let me guess, you are prone to making statements without realizing that you look like a total moron to anyone who bothers to read beyond your first few words.

OK then, illuminate us as to who, if not NASA, has made it to the moon and on what evidence you base this conclusion.

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on May 30, 2013, 11:10:08 PM
OK then, illuminate us as to who, if not NASA, has made it to the moon and on what evidence you base this conclusion.

If that had been your first response I would respond accordingly.

But, I am reluctant to dialogue with anyone displaying an abrasive and confrontational nature.

Regards...

Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on May 30, 2013, 11:24:14 PM


If that had been your first response I would respond accordingly.

But, I am reluctant to dialogue with anyone displaying an abrasive and confrontational nature.

Regards...

Says the guy with no evidence.

Quote from: a.king21 on May 22, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
A US insider named Peter Beter who was a Benjamin Fulford type of his day has in my opinion the best explanation.
He says the US actually landed on the moon but we only heard the audio and the video was faked. It was because there was an Alien welcoming committee.
I listened to   (and watched) the moon adventure and there was a clear yelp of excitement from one astronaut as he said that he could see a signal from a crater they passed over. I believe he said a flashing green light. Nasa also went into "secret" mode many times during the flight round and onto the moon.
I also found out that the Australian tv receiving dish was given an instruction to move it's orientation towards Houston and away from the moon minutes before touchdown. The explanation given was that the US had a better signal.
So it's no surprise that some images are suspect. All part of the Alien cover up and the NWO back engineering Alien technology.
It'll all be public soon.
I suspect since then we have been warned off the moon.
It makes no sense to build a space station when we have a ready made one called the moon - with natural resources.
We won't go back till full disclosure.

When did we get warned off the moon?  Was it during the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969?  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 4 months later on November 19, 1969.  Was it during the Apollo 14 mission on February 5, 1971?  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 5 months later on July 30, 1971.  Was we warned off the moon during Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972.  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 7 months later on December 11, 1972.  In what Apollo mission did we only hear the audio while the video was faked due to an alien welcoming committee?  Are you serious in thinking a US insider named Peter Beter has the best explanation in your opinion.  The name 'Peter Beter' itself sounds suspect to me, lol.  You and e2matrix may not be the same person, but the two of you definitely have the same thought process, IMO. 

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on June 01, 2013, 02:56:54 PM
When did we get warned off the moon?  Was it during the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969?  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 4 months later on November 19, 1969.  Was it during the Apollo 14 mission on February 5, 1971?  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 5 months later on July 30, 1971.  Was we warned off the moon during Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972.  Nope, because there was another Apollo landing only 7 months later on December 11, 1972.  In what Apollo mission did we only hear the audio while the video was faked due to an alien welcoming committee?  Are you serious in thinking a US insider named Peter Beter has the best explanation in your opinion.  The name 'Peter Beter' itself sounds suspect to me, lol.  You and e2matrix may not be the same person, but the two of you definitely have the same thought process, IMO. 



Gravock

How old are you? 14?
http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbeye.html (http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbeye.html)

Quote from: a.king21 on June 01, 2013, 04:14:56 PM
How old are you? 14?
http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbeye.html (http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbeye.html)

I'm 41 and not 14.   However, people like you have a tendency to reverse or invert the truth.   Also, how does the above link answer any of my previous questions to you?  Do you have a mind of your own, or do you let others do your thinking for you?  An 'Alien Welcoming Committee who warned us not to come back to the moon', even though we supposedly landed on the moon on 6 different occasions, is more inline with a 14 year old.  Once again, you have inverted the truth.

Gravock

The life and work of Dr. Peter David Beter has
relevance to the issue at hand.  The study of
Dr. Beter's Audio Letters could lead to enhanced
understanding of our present World and its
numerous levels of "control."

I believe the fake Moon landings were actually filmed on Mars. It would have been easy because colour TV was not common at that time and it also explains the moving flag and other inconsistencies. I don't ask you to believe me, just study it out. There is a mountain of supporting evidence hidden in the lesser known corners of the public interweb. Just study it out and connect the dots.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 01, 2013, 04:46:01 PM
The life and work of Dr. Peter David Beter has
relevance to the issue at hand.  The study of
Dr. Beter's Audio Letters could lead to enhanced
understanding of our present World and its
numerous levels of "control."

I agree. We have been told by the disclosure project that we have the technology to send ET back home. Dr Beter's audio letters now have credibility in the line of later public disclosures.
My belief is that ET welcomed us at first. Then they realised that sinister motives were behind the moon landings. Now I believe that Nasa are not allowed to lie to the world again by faking another moon landing. By faking I mean that we were not shown what the astronauts really saw. I believe we landed, but as Dr Beter says,  we were not shown the truth.
If someone comes up with evidence to the contrary I am all ears.