I have read all the BS off this forum in the past regarding the lack of "stars". I will agree with the conclusion that the camera wasn't focused in such a way to capture stars.

However, when it comes to the direction of shadows in various pictures facing different ways and the landscapes matching up in spots supposedly to be in different areas, and the astronaut posing in front of the sun with his body fully exposed to light, I would be interested to know why anyone of sound mind would think with this knowledge that the moon landing was real.

When a movie budget then was a couple million and they had the means to spend a billion, what else do you need...

With the stars not appearing in the photos, the reason has more to do with exposure than focus.

The apparent "problems" with shadow directions in some photos are also relatively easily explained.

It interests me that you can hear one explanation for something commonly cited as "proof" that the landings were fake, and believe it, and yet still not apply any skepticism to any of the other crazy claims made by the moon hoax nuts.

what else do you need...
a way to silence all the people who worked on the project.

a way to silence all the people who worked on the project.

And the Soviets, who would have blown it wide open and shamed the US. It was a race after all. Does anyone think the USSR would have let the US cheat?

And the Soviets, who would have blown it wide open and shamed the US. It was a race after all. Does anyone think the USSR would have let the US cheat?

Within the marble halls of international diplomacy it is not so normal to offend the national pride with overt accusation.

On the other hand, however, I would not be so surprised if some of the loony activists received an occasional helping of cash from a soviet embassy.

--- Ron.

oh no, not again!!

if I ever see yet one more of these "moon landing fake" threads I will blow up the moon! :mad:
seriously!

I will blow up the moon!
You can't. It's an Illuminati plot and the moon doesn't really exist. :rolleyes:

You can't. It's an Illuminati plot and the moon doesn't really exist. :rolleyes:

I think he's in on that conspiracy, .. he seems to know that the moon is an inflatable beach ball, and actually in low earth orbit, tethered to the 'SS Illuminati' which steams around the equator. the tethering accounts for why we only ever see one side of the Moon, .....

Shhh, I've said too much already!

oh? then I will destroy him with my anti-matter alien death ray
nash ugath!

gee,,, NASA was clever enough to fool leading scientidsts from around the world and any barber or taxi driver can see through the scam. :rolleyes:

With the stars not appearing in the photos, the reason has more to do with exposure than focus.


I'm glad someone has finally cracked it. As an avid photographer, I find whenever I take a photo of the moon none of the stars show up. For a while there I was thinking that I'd taken a 'fake moon photo'.

I have read all the BS off this forum in the past regarding the lack of "stars". I will agree with the conclusion that the camera wasn't focused in such a way to capture stars.

However, when it comes to the direction of shadows in various pictures facing different ways and the landscapes matching up in spots supposedly to be in different areas, and the astronaut posing in front of the sun with his body fully exposed to light, I would be interested to know why anyone of sound mind would think with this knowledge that the moon landing was real.

When a movie budget then was a couple million and they had the means to spend a billion, what else do you need...
A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS WOULD HELP, BUT THE ABILITY TO READ, AS TO RESEARCH WILD CLAIM IS ALL THAT'S ESSENTIAL.

and the astronaut posing in front of the sun with his body fully exposed to light, I would be interested to know why anyone of sound mind would think with this knowledge that the moon landing was real.
...
What kind of silliness are you proposing here?

The Moon is made of cheese, you see, and, if it were real, it would melt in the Sun and the astronaut would sink in it.

A truly stunning scientific discovery. You can check for yourself: http://moon.google.com/
Zoom to the maximum.

The Moon is made of cheese, you see, and, if it were real, it would melt in the Sun
Don't be silly. At an altitude of eight hundred (genuine) feet it's nowhere near enough the sun to melt even it were made of cheese. As Phlogistician intimated, it's an artificial construct, but the details are known only to those who know the details. (That's the way to keep a conspiracy conspiratorila you see.)

PS I noted that the altitude is eight hundred "actual" feet since everyone should have realised by now that gravity makes you shrink (and of course measuring devices) as you get higher (further away from the source), distorting measurements. This is demonstrated by the fact that aeroplanes that are "high up" (in actuality about 50 feet) look smaller.
Now I'm going to lie down and read something sensible....
Edit: just looked at the Google map. :D Nice try Avatar, but you're obviously a disinformation agent working for, erm, somebody not on my side.

Try reading this: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html

Quote from the messages on that site:
Billy, you're the Napoleon of the World Wide Web buddy - you (xxxing) got those photos directly from the Web!!!! Yeehaaaaa. But the fact that those Web sites shut down and the photos disappeared!!! Wow! Yes, Billy, I don't find your story unbelievable at all. The fact that one minute you're seeing photos and when you come back to download them they're GONE! Unbelievable - but those buggers are moving fast.

But not fast enough I'm afraid. I'd just woken up after a long night destroying the invading ant-men of Deneb VIII (or was it it VII?), and missed the photos being posted. Oh well, we'll just have to "disappear" the guy....
I hate it when that happens, so much paperwork to fill in.

A few months ago, I was on a top secret government program to scout interdimensional portals. Here is one of my best photos from the expedition
http://half-life.cleverweb.cz/img/xen.jpg
Save it quickly, before they take down my website!

The website can stay - our research division have decided we can pretend it's from a computer game. You, on the other hand, Mr. Freeman....

Phew, I was afraid I was going to be punished. So long as you don't send me to a dystopian future Earth, I'll be alright! Right? Right?

So long as you don't send me to a dystopian future Earth
Good news, bad news.
The good news is no, we're not going to send you...
The bad news is - we don't have to, you're already there.

Actually as far as the radiation thing, They didn't know. If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.

Just adding to this, a thought and thats all it is.

With the whole argument about radiation poisening, has anyone heard of the saying BBQ roll?

The Apollo Command Module and all attached modules would roll around so's one side is not facing sun for a long period of time, and seeing that most of the radiation coming out of the sun is in the form of Electrons and EM waves, its hard to see where they could have gotten this massive dose of radiation.

I'm not saying that the BBQ roll is the reason behind this, but a thought just popped into my head, thats all

Actually as far as the radiation thing, They didn't know. If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.
Don't bring that up, it has already been covered and debunked.

If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.
Name one. Go on, name a single recognised reference work used as the standard text in a college or University level course that makes this claim.
Please accompany this statement with the edition and page number.
Otherwise, retract this nonsensical claim, reduce the amount of time you are thought a fool, and join the ranks of the thoughtful.

gee,,, NASA was clever enough to fool leading scientidsts from around the world and any barber or taxi driver can see through the scam. :rolleyes:
Haha.

http://moon.google.com/
There's a Google Moon? Damn. Google is, like, the 18<Sup>th</Sup>-century England of the Internet.

a good telescope could settle the issue

the comment was made that the camera wasn't focused on the stars was the reason for their apparent lack in the pics. however, the surveyor probe's cameras weren't focused at the stars either, yet a clear horizon and stars are there.

is this implying that better cameras were sent on an unmanned probe than were provided to document a major event in space exploration?

Grim it has absolutely nothing to do with camera focus and everything to do with relative brightness. The brightness of foreground objects required the camera speed and aperture to be set at a level where the stars could not be registered.

There's a Google Moon? Damn. Google is, like, the 18<Sup>th</Sup>-century England of the Internet.

Huh. Google Mars:
http://www.google.com/mars/

the moon is made of cheese and the night sky is just black velcro, thats why it can appear suspended without feet. Beyond that god is having a good sadistic laugh peeping in the little pinholes he poked through so he can spy unnoticed from which scientists like to provocatively call wormholes and blackholes because he is a bad seed of a child and we are his personal science project.

Huh. Google Mars:
http://www.google.com/mars/

Where will they stop? :eek:

the night sky is just black velcro, thats why it can appear suspended without feet.
The Third Policeman:
De Selby believed that night was but an accumulation of 'black sooty substances' in the atmosphere. He held that darkness was simply an accretion of 'black air', i.e., a staining of the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions too fine to be seen with the naked eye and also to certain 'regrettable' industrial activities involving coal-tar by-products and vegetable dyes.

The landings were fake as dog-bone casserole on a tuesday night- the craft werent built for it, and as for the actual moon itself- well, need I go any farther? I would give you a link to armageddononline's thread on this which was quite long (1527 replies or something) But the sites temproarily down, so-good debating!

This site has a few posts on it:

http://z6.invisionfree.com/The_End_Days/index.php

...and as for the actual moon itself- well, need I go any farther?

I always knew it was really made of cheese!

Thanks for supporting my view, Skynet12.

the craft werent built for it,
Explain?
and as for the actual moon itself- well, need I go any farther?
Yes, actually. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I for one am more in favour of actually answering questions than pouring hubristic scorn.I have read all the BS off this forum in the past regarding the lack of "stars". I will agree with the conclusion that the camera wasn't focused in such a way to capture stars.Good. That's a start.

However, when it comes to the direction of shadows in various pictures facing different waysGo outside, preferably on a sunny day, and watch the traffic, keeping the shadows to your side. The shadows of the cars coming from the left are angled to the left, they sweep past you as the car goes past, and then they are angled to the right as they continue to your right. The shadows are only "in straight lines" when you see them directly from above. In the real world where you are looking at them with a perspective slant, they not only appear to angle in different directions, but they undulate with the unevenness of the ground (on a road this might be represented by the camber towards the kerb). Nothing you will see will be any more anomalous than anything highlighted by the "moon hoax" people in genuine Apollo photographs.

Secondly - multiple light sources. Try watching a floodlit game of football. Every player has multiple shadows that come from multiple light sources. Each shadow is not completely dark because of the light coming from the other light sources, except where the shadows coincide and get deeper in the area of overlap.

Photographs of the moon's surface with astronauts and the flag, and other equipment, are talked about as demonstrating multiple light sources because different shadows point in different directions. This is not possible. The dark single shadows are coming from a single light source (the Sun) regardless of what direction they appear to be going in the photograph, whereas multiple light sources would result in multiple shadows for each element in the photograph.

and the landscapes matching up in spots supposedly to be in different areasWithout being there it's simply impossible to convince you that those landscape features are simply further away than you think they are. It's the overall lack of identifying features that enable you to make the claim that there was a faked background, but the background does not in fact look that different from points maybe a couple of kilometers apart.

, and the astronaut posing in front of the sun with his body fully exposed to lightA light source directly in front of the astronaut would produce a shadow going behind him, something I certainly have never seen. As you can see, the ground is generally shining quite brightly, and it is this reflected light which shows up the astronaut. The deepness and blackness of shadows (due to no light scattering from atmospheric gas) promulgated by pre-Apollo era science fiction writers simply turned out to be incorrect. The lightness of shadow on Earth is not in fact generally caused by atmospheric light scattering

, I would be interested to know why anyone of sound mind would think with this knowledge that the moon landing was real.Because people with sound minds know that the faking of the moon landing, in the overall, not simply the photographs and films, but the tons of paperwork that denoted the progress of the achievement, and the documented reminiscences of many different people who were involved, would be far, far harder than simply going to the Moon.

When a movie budget then was a couple million and they had the means to spend a billion, what else do you need...To "fake" film like the lunar rover bouncing up and down on the lunar surface, throwing up dust that doesn't hang in the air but which describes perfect, Newtonian, parabolae, would require the evacuation of a fairly large movie studio of all the air in it. And regardless of the fantasies of the most die-hard Hoax believers, speeding the film up really does not resemble "Earth Gravity" reality, but looks like speeded up film, whereas the Moon Gravity speed film contains elements which are clearly at normal speeds.

Why don't you just go to one of these fucking observatories. look up the coordinates the Americans landed and and then look for the flag on the moon?

Why don't you just go to one of these fucking observatories. look up the coordinates the Americans landed and and then look for the flag on the moon?

Because the moon is too bright to look at with a telescope designed to look at faint stars. Also, even the best telescopes would not resolve the flag, it's too small.

As stated previously, you wouldn't need a telescope to prove someones been to the moon simply by the reflective plate that was placed on the moon to gauge it's distance via a laser.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

Because the moon is too bright to look at with a telescope designed to look at faint stars. Also, even the best telescopes would not resolve the flag, it's too small.

What the you must be kidding? one of them top of the range telescopes woulden't be able to? like this one:

http://goldmine.mib.infn.it/galleries/PhotoGallery4/images/zzzz5m_Magellan_6.5m.jpg

What the you must be kidding? one of them top of the range telescopes woulden't be able to? like this one:



No I'm not kidding. Those telescopes are designed to gather lots of light to image faint stars/galaxies. Pointing it at the Moon would be like us staring at the Sun: while there are darker patches on the surface, the intense light blinds us to them, we are not sensitive enough to discern the differences at that level of intensity.

I don't know what the magnification of one of those telescopes is, but the Moon is 250,000 miles away, and the flag about three feet across. You'd need one hell of a magnification to spot that, something that we have only just been able to achieve in the past couple of decades with spy satellites looking downwards a few hundred Km through atmosphere!

Put it this way, if you could see the flag, NASA would be selling that image on a poster!

Man on moon not fake.They collected rock samples from apolo missions.

Anorthosite
Rock 60025 was collected at the Apollo 16 landing site in the lunar highlands. It is a light-colored rock called anorthosite. An anorthosite is a rock made up almost entirely of plagioclase feldspar, a common rock-forming mineral on Earth. This rock is dated at 4.2 billion years old, much older than the lunar basalts.

Breccia
Rock 79135 comes from the Apollo 17 site which was called Taurus-Littrow after the Taurus Mountains and the Littrow Crater nearby. This rock is called a breccia. A breccia is a rock made up of angular fragments of other rocks. Lots of the lunar rocks that were brought back are breccias. This is because the lunar breccias were formed by all the impacts on the Moon's surface. When you look at the Moon you can see how heavily cratered and battered its surface is, and this is reflected in the rocks.

Stryder,
That whole reflective thing is not proof. People who claim the moon landing was a hoax are claiming that NASA lied about it and are contimuing to lie about it, so why wouldn't NASA just concoct more "evidence" that it really happened. It reminds me of arguments fundamentalists make: We know the bible is true because the bible says so. Will the people that are adamantly against the hoax theory at least admit that there would have been a very good reason during the cold war to do a fake moon landing. Especially imagine how effective it would have been at scaring the hell out of the enemy. Also, admit that even if the russians did realise it was a fake the western world would have never heard about it, and if you did hear about it and believed your ass would have been under investigation and blacklisted by McCarthy (you get my point). Also, anyone that has looked at the ship they supposedly went in is a complete joke. I wouldn't drive across country in that thing. How many modern space shuttles have had problem merely getting into space or back to earth? And that thing made it to the moon. I wasn't born yesterday.

When a movie budget then was a couple million and they had the means to spend a billion, what else do you need...

I am actually strating to feel sorry for some of you guys..

The landing wasn't fake.

What was fake, was our level of technology.

We were really far advanced of the Apollo era equipment.

But the military was keeping it for themselves.....

Here's why they were bummed out......
They had to lie about everything for national security reasons.....

Keep their mouths shut, and wave to the crew sitting outside their window in this.......

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_0011STSPAF.jpg

This was the real reason the Soviets pulled their missiles out of Cuba in 1962.

"Say hello to my little friend"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281221.html

This topic is one of the reasons I started the thread...... "The Rabbit Hole"

thats one side I will add to my favorites, lovely plans, but shouldn't the missiles have heat shields?

That whole reflective thing is not proof. People who claim the moon landing was a hoax are claiming that NASA lied about it and are contimuing to lie about it, so why wouldn't NASA just concoct more "evidence" that it really happened.Uhm, I think you missed Stryder's point entirely, which is that Nasa is not responsible for the laser reflections, reflections that anybody can get to this day, by aiming a laser at the right spot on the moon. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure the people who use the laser reflector (measuring changes in the Moon's distance from the Earth) are not actually Nasa themselves. But any University or other scientific institution with the resources to get the right equipment can set up a test. That's how we know they went to the moon - because it can be proved by firing a laser up there any time you like, not because we are relying on Nasa to tell us what the laser does.

Will the people that are adamantly against the hoax theory at least admit that there would have been a very good reason during the cold war to do a fake moon landing. Not only do we know the only reason we went to the moon in 1969 was because of the Cold War, the Cold War is still one of the biggest undeniable proofs that the US succeeded in going to the moon... because the Soviets acknowledged the Americans' success in having done so, and I believe even congratulated them on it.

Also, admit that even if the russians did realise it was a fake the western world would have never heard about it, and if you did hear about it and believed your ass would have been under investigation and blacklisted by McCarthy (you get my point).McCarthy had been dead since before the space race, and probably would have been against it. An employment blacklist isn't quite enough to stop people revealing the hoax of the century, I think. And it's not really possible to fake the Russians' opinions of what happened. Unless you think fake news covered not just America but the whole of the rest of the world. Now that's a conspiracy!

Also, anyone that has looked at the ship they supposedly went in is a complete joke. I wouldn't drive across country in that thing. How many modern space shuttles have had problem merely getting into space or back to earth? And that thing made it to the moon. I wasn't born yesterday.Fortunately, as the extreme danger of the process of going to the moon was fully understood, nobody was ever in danger of asking you to get into the thing and fly it half a million miles. That job was undertaken by real heroes who knew exactly what they were up against and what the stakes were, in every sense of the word.

Ok,
I'll concede that we went to the moon. Actually, one of the most reliable UFO witnesses in the history of the world is a "real hero" who walked on the moon, Buzz Aldrin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMUDBNgcidc

We were really far advanced of the Apollo era equipment. ....This was the real reason the Soviets pulled their missiles out of Cuba in 1962.


you must be joking. You think Soviet military did not have something like that as well? :cool: you are wrong.

Ok,
I'll concede that we went to the moon. Actually, one of the most reliable UFO witnesses in the history of the world is a "real hero" who walked on the moon, Buzz Aldrin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMUDBNgcidc

I don't know what to say! :confused: I have never had a turnabout response like that before, particularly when I rudely got on your case about not being a hero. Erm, shake?

(NB I'll watch the video later on, but I'm pretty damn sure Aldrin does not believe that anything he saw was to do with flying saucers.)

Ok,
I'll concede that we went to the moon. Actually, one of the most reliable UFO witnesses in the history of the world is a "real hero" who walked on the moon, Buzz Aldrin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMUDBNgcidc
at no time does buzz say it was a ufo. the object didn't display any manuvers that suggests a ufo.

you must be joking. You think Soviet military did not have something like that as well? :cool: you are wrong.

Not at the time, something capable of launching enough firepower to take out the entire Soviet Union with one ship.....No they didn't.

They had saucers....from the German research, so did we.
But this isn't a true saucer....look at it again.

This thing isn't an inter dimensional Tesla/Brown type craft with time dilation agility and inertial dampening.

The popular Mechanics article calls it a saucer, but the unclassified documents don't call it that....it's a "blended wing or circular wing craft"

This was built for one thing....not speed, not stealth, not surveillance....
It's a doomsday weapon.
An orbital nuclear missile platform.



(NB I'll watch the video later on, but I'm pretty damn sure Aldrin does not believe that anything he saw was to do with flying saucers.)

No, not a saucer.....that's another program blacker than black. You don't see them unless they want you to.
He may have saw one, I'm not saying He didn't but this LRV was something else.

The reason true saucers can do 90 degree turns at Mach 10 is probably because they are not totally in this dimension.
They could operate in a kind of warp bubble which gives them appearance from our viewpoint of physics breaking abilities.

Inside the bubble where the craft actually is, they are really flying slow enough to make 90 degree turns.
They actually come to a stop and change direction.....but it looks to us here as though they never drop below Mach 10.
That is the time dilation between to separate realities or worlds.

That is one of the overlapping dimensions the prophets called heaven.
Don't get anti-religious now, Paul spoke about this several times in detail.
So did others, it's a dimension faster than this.
It's real and it's a true science.

It is not superstition, the superstitious are the one's that refuse to admit it exists without proof to their "critically minded" backward thinking.
Each world has multiple dimensions, that is what is meant in the truly ancient texts when referring to "Heaven".
In this realm there is no USA or Russian crafts.....they would be governed by a more ancient principality, I beleive.
Do a search in the Bible for "Fiery flying serpents".

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

It may be they were "cast down" once but thanks to our German/American/Soviet arms race in these little fabricated wars we called WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.....they have the technology once again.

Notice how Michael the anointed one battled in ancient times and cast them to Earth...but in Revelation 12:7
Then how it happens again....

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels"

Now read Isaiah 14:29
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Get it anyone....?

The Germans were so desperate they listened to demons, what they started the Americans and Soviets finished.
They built these craft, and the atomic weapons to set the stage for the "The Return"

They have sold out the whole human race to extermination, except a few...

Now read my post on "The Rabbit Hole" http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1233733&postcount=1

http://members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon.html

Well, Aldrin clearly saw something that confounded him. He couldn't identify it, it was flying, and it was an object. Now, I already know what all you hyper-skeptics are going to say: "It could have been anything." But, all I'm saying is that he saw something in space with him that he's still talking about today with UFO investigators, his attitude to me appears to be one of thinking the object was out of the ordinary.

Of course it was a UFO. As you noted it was unidentified, 'flying' and an object. If that doesn't qualify it as a UFO then nothing does.

.... his attitude to me appears to be one of thinking the object was out of the ordinary.

Strangely enough the very circumstance was out of the ordinary, and it is well known that hullicinations are most like to occur in remote, lonely places while subject to stressful conditions.

Oh, so I see. Something doesn't fit in with your worldview and it's just a hallucination. And I suppose all of the people on board were having the same hallucination? Yes, that's it, these highly trained men were cracking under the pressure and hallucinating, and yet they still managed to make it back to the earth even though they were hallucinating. You are no different than a Christian fundamentalist that finds all kinds of "reasons" to dismiss evolution (simply because it does not fit in with the world they want to believe in).

Strangely enough the very circumstance was out of the ordinary, and it is well known that hullicinations are most like to occur in remote, lonely places while subject to stressful conditions.How do you explain htese hallucinations being experience by all three crew members and captured on film?

That's what I meant when I said "flying saucers". I'm pretty sure Aldrin has never believed that what he saw was anything to do with alien species (ie yes UFOs, no little green men). Neither do I believe that he was hallucinating.

Still haven't watched the video. Is this the stuff external to the ship, which was frozen urine, or internal to his eyeballs, which was high energy particle radiation, and which was seen by the others too?

Oh, so I see. Something doesn't fit in with your worldview and it's just a hallucination.

No, you don't see.

That is the introduction a straw man argument, not seeing.

All I did was to state some facts, to bait the rats.

How do you explain htese hallucinations being experience by all three crew members and captured on film?

This is possible with a different version of reality itself, as something intrinsically fake and personal.

That's what I meant when I said "flying saucers". I'm pretty sure Aldrin has never believed that what he saw was anything to do with alien species (ie yes UFOs, no little green men). Neither do I believe that he was hallucinating.

Still haven't watched the video. Is this the stuff external to the ship, which was frozen urine, or internal to his eyeballs, which was high energy particle radiation, and which was seen by the others too?

Yes.....UFO's.
No....."Little Green Men"

Exactly.

"Though you've seen them, please don't tell a soul"
From "Starship Trooper"

All I did was to state some facts, to bait the rats.

"Bait the rats....:D

I like that one.

Talk to me Sauna, what do you really think.
Have you read my post above, again. It's #53 .....(I edit after the fact sometimes) The reply to Silas part only.

Interesting quote from another astronaut in a speech to the UN [note: he explicitly states that they are UFOs of extraterrestrial origin (i.e., little green men)].
------------------------
Astronaut Gordon Cooper's Message to the UN

"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little more technically advanced than we are on Earth. I feel that we need to have a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the Earth concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best to interfere with these visitors in a friendly fashion.

We may first have to show them that we have learned how to resolve our problems by peaceful means rather than warfare, before we are accepted as fully qualified universal team members. Their acceptance will have tremendous possibilities of advancing our world in all areas. Certainly then it would seem that the U.N. has a vested interest in handling the subject quickly and properly.

I should point out that I am not an experienced UFO professional researcher - I have not as yet had the privilege of flying a UFO nor of meeting the crew of one. However, I do feel that I am somewhat qualified to discuss them, since I have been into the fringes of the vast areas of which they travel. Also, I did have occasion in 1951 to have two days of observation of many flights of them, of different sizes flying in fighter formation, generally from west to east over Europe. They were at a higher altitude than we could reach with our jet fighters....

If the U.N. agrees to pursue this project and lend the credibility to it, perhaps many more well qualified people will agree to step forth and provide help and information."
------------------------------

[Astronaut Gordon Cooper addressing a U.N. panel discussion on UFOs and ETs in New York, in 1985; Panel was chaired by then U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim.

The above message was given to the U.N. by Astronaut Gordon L. Cooper, one of America's original seven Mercury Astronauts. Cooper orbited the Earth for a record 34 hour, 22 orbit flight in the spacecraft 'Faith 7', in May of 1963. He has been outspoken about the need for an open inquiry into UFOs - based on his own personal experience of sighting UFOs in space and the testimony of other Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts.

Another quote from another astronaut:
Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14

"I've changed my position in the last two or three years - the last two years to be precise - to suggest that the evidence is strong enough that we really need to have serious open discussion and release of information that it is quite clear the government and other governments do hold, and that this become a part of our official knowledge... Now, whether it's true or not, it deserves to be handled with a serious investigation. There is too much smoke here not to be fire, and so I personally in the last couple of years have come out - I don't know the answers, but I've come out - and I say, this has gone far enough. If it's real, let's get it out in the open; let's break the deadlock that bureaucracy has on this. There is enough evidence pointing in the direction that clearly there is information being withheld. How far we can go with it, I don't know." (Excerpt from his lecture "Science and the Inner Experience" sponsored by the friends of The Institute of Noetic Sciences, New York City, December 4, 1991.)

Interesting quote from another astronaut in a speech to the UN [note: he explicitly states that they are UFOs of extraterrestrial origin (i.e., little green men)].
------------------------
Astronaut Gordon Cooper's Message to the UN

"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little more technically advanced than we are on Earth. [Astronaut Gordon Cooper addressing a U.N. panel discussion on UFOs and ETs in New York, in 1985; Panel was chaired by then U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim.]

Cooper orbited the Earth for a record 34 hour, 22 orbit flight in the spacecraft 'Faith 7', in May of 1963


He states I Beleive...

He saw their ships.

He's not sure what they are.........he's guessing at this point.

They have interstellar ability, and interdimensional ability which are probably close to the same thing.

Ancient rulers of this realm ......

The powers that be, allowed by God.
Some aren't ready or even supposed to see this, I should say no more.

Interfering with the natural balance of the contest.

Read the lyrics to "Starship Trooper" from Yes.....
Remember it's done with "Circumlocution" for this very reason.
If you don't know....you should look it up.

Sister Bluebird flying high above,
Shine your wings forward to the sun.
Hide the myst'ries of life on your way.
Though you've seen them, please don't say a word.
What you don't know, I have never heard.

Starship Trooper, go sailing on by,
Catch my soul, catch the very light.
Hide the moment from my eager eye.
Though you've seen them, please don't tell a soul.
What you can't see, can't be very whole.

Speak to me of summer, long winters longer than time can remember,
The setting up of other roads, to travel on in old accustomed ways.
I still remember the talks by the water, the proud sons and daughter that,
Knew the knowledge of the land, that spoke to me in sweet accustomed ways.

Mother life, hold firmly on to me.
Catch my knowledge higher than the day.
Lose as much as only you can show.
Though you've seen them, please don't say a word.
What I don't know, I have never shared.

Loneliness is a pow'r that we possess to give or take away forever.
All I know can be shown by your acceptance of the facts there shown before you.
Take what I say in a diff'rent way and it's easy to say
that this is all confusion.
As I see a new day in me, I can also show it you and you may follow.

He's stating what he saw...which is flying vehicles technological advanced of what we on earth have. This isn't just some flake off the street...

Also, I've noticed people on this board zero in on the use of the word believe as if that automatically means that someone is just purely speculating. If that's what he meant to say he would have said it; "I speculate that" or "I guess." The use of the word believe is just him stating what he takes to be true on what he has observed....and since he isn't just some flake off the street maybe we should stop for a moment to absorb what this highy trained person's observations and conclusions are.

Visitor, it has to be asked. When will you be returning home?

Astronaut Gordon Cooper's Message to the UN

"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little more technically advanced than we are on Earth.
the question here is what led him to believe the aliens were a little more advanced than us?

also nothing is stated as fact except questioning and doubt.

"Bait the rats....:D

I like that one.

Talk to me Sauna, what do you really think.


It believe in the bleeding obvious: the truth is chosen, not discovered, and with an infinity of truth to choose from.

"They were at a higher altitude than we could reach with our jet fighters...."

"They were at a higher altitude than we could reach with our jet fighters...."
this does not mean extraterrestrials, far from it.

Well, it does according to the highly trained pilot and astronaut who actually saw the phenomenon.

What do you think it means?

Well, it does according to the highly trained pilot and astronaut who actually saw the phenomenon.

What do you think it means?
i honestly feel that it could have been experimental and/or research aircrft.

what was the response of the UN to gordon cooper?

Well, anything is possible.

Back to the moon. Does anyone think its strange that we don't have more photographs from the moon. The US went all the way to the moon but I've personal only ever seen the same 10 or so photographs. There are interesting formations on the moon yet we have no photographs. You would think there would be a coffee table book with picture after picture, but as far as I can tell there are not many publicly available pictures. Odd, isn't it?

Here is a link: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/astro2.html

Someone should get it together to write the script for the film of the fake, with Mel Gibson in the lead role plus Oliver Stone to direct, and then the fake will be real.

Don't feed the "rat's" Sauna.

"Furthermore, those who are in the possession of this truth should not share it with all kinds of people, if they do not wish to wash (as the saying goes) the head of a jackass, or if they do not wish to see what pigs are doing with pearls, and [if they do not wish] to collect such fruits of their study and labor, which is usually produced by brazen and silly ignorance, together with presumptuous impoliteness which is its perennial and faithful companion"

I'll be roundabout.

If you do not take the good which is near,
How will you get that which is far away?
To deprecate your own, seems to me glaring folly,
And so is to praise what is in the hand of another.
You are like the one who gave up on himself
While searching in vain for his own likeness;
You are that hound that gave to the river from his mouth
The piece which was longed for by his own shadow.

Leave alone the shadow and embrace the truth,
Do not exchange the present for the future.
Though I do not despair of better days to come,
To live more happily and more securely
I enjoy the present and hope about the future,
Procuring thereby twice as much sweetness.

You have the power to speak a whole world into existance if you knew.
What kind of place would that be.

Be careful what you wish for.

"The Journey is the Reward"

Don't feed the "rat's"


Nice apostrophe.

Wish I'd thought of that.

Christmas is coming.
On the way to the store, if the kids see the list.....

It may ruin the suprise.

The landings on the moon were real and what's more, the us government is going back to the moon and build a post there and will have a manned space station built there by 2021, so knock off the stupid mess about the landing being faked.

eh, it's nothing unusual around here.
we have woo woos like other boards do.

The landings on the moon were real and what's more, the us government is going back to the moon and build a post there and will have a manned space station built there by 2021, so knock off the stupid mess about the landing being faked.

the reality saddens me. Americans have been on moon and now they are coming there in the same crap technology as 50 years before...this is outrageous! whats more...the plan to get there is somehow prolonged to the year 2021...like space agency doesnt have tech and resources to get there now. And how long does the tountreched Lockheed Martin planning to design pre-cromagnon vehicle with a spectacular name "Orion"?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17675&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Burt Rutan of ScaledComposites...was right, the space agency now has lost its power and will to accomplish anything.

http://www.scaled.com/

Absolutely...The Orion project.

Same technology...why?

Do you want to know?

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1233733&postcount=1

Absolutely...The Orion project.

Same technology...why?

Do you want to know?

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1233733&postcount=1

I dont know...but I dont believe in all the "black Unconventional Aerodynamic development" simply because I have seen so many publication struggling to overcome the many problems air and space vehicle will face theoretically... of course its nice to dream that the military, the pride of the human race so to speak, has got a UFO like VTOL stored up its sleeve and is riding them vehicles to other universes...but I just dont feel like any of this is true. It really feels like humans are what they are, the VTOL's designed by Langley NASA center...never got off the CAD model stages...the Area-51 technology was a weather balloon yet people want to see aliens there no matter what...

.the Area-51 technology was a weather balloon yet people want to see aliens there no matter what...

Another sponge-bob headed monkey's uncle.
I'm joking of course.

I laboriously stated it isn't aliens......technically that is....(you don't want to go there right now)
And you turn around mis-quote me and talk about weather balloons.....

I'm starting to agree they should wipe this thing off, and start again.

I give you the answers on a silver plater and the pigs put the pearl in their snout.
But I have to humbly admit "there but by the grace of God go I...
What I have seen I was given, it is nothing for me to brag about, so I'm sorry son.

It really feels like humans are what they are..

I wasn't going to go there but you're so close....

I'm throwing one more pearl.....don't put this one in your nose.

What are humans anyway...vessels, hosts for souls.
Can you see the fine line here.
I said they weren't aliens...technically, that is.
The hosts may be from here.
But there ares so many worlds out there the only way they aren't from there is a blockade in place.
Or is that yet to come?
I get turned around ...I hate quantum physics.


Morpheus said "You can't be told what the matrix is"
You have to see it for your self.

Those Wachowski brothers were inspired by God.
I am serious.....the first part of the movie is Solid Gold.

I hope some of you get that chance, I really do....to see the real show.
The one the movie is just a pale allegory of by comparison.

The plan, the drama...it's sublime.

What are humans anyway...vessels, hosts for souls.


well thats like saying computers are plastic boxes with light in them...

well thats like saying computers are plastic boxes with light in them...

You've got dummy terminals that recieve their data from the mainframe, right?

No more pearls for you, son.

You've got dummy terminals (like you) that recieve their data from the mainframe, right?

snap out of Matrix, it has gotten you. seriously, Nio does not approve of this.

So,
Can you look at the surface of the moon with a telescope or not?

I'm starting to wonder why we have not been shown more pictures of what the moon is like. Landing on the moon is a HUGE achievement. I've never really thought about it before. Where the fuck are all the pictures of what could arguably be biggest achievement of mankind. I've seen more pictures of peoples vacation to amish country than I have of the moon. There are mountains on the moon, there may even be ice on the moon but we have pictures of nothing. Am I the only one that thinks that's strange? Pure speculation, but if there are legitimate anomalies in the pictures we are shown of the moon landings (and I tend to think there are, but the counter-arguments are also pretty convincing) couldn't it be that its not that the landing was fake, its just that the pictures are fake (i.e., the world is not being shown what is really there).

So,
Can you look at the surface of the moon with a telescope or not?


Yeah I have looked at it...it moves so fast, I am trying to focus on the crater...but it just moves away to the right...of course with my lenses...but than I sold that telescope...Yes you can see the moon.

Then my question is why aren't there more publicly available photographs. Or are they available and there really is nothing to see?

Then my question is why aren't there more publicly available photographs. Or are they available and there really is nothing to see?

the problem here is that you are interested in Moon. But Moon...as small as it may seem...is actually large. It had different sectors with common names...astronomers spend hours taking photos of a particular sector. just typing in "moon photos" in google or some other search engine will not cut it...you have to look for names...like Mare Imbrium...

Here is a topographical cheese map of the Moon

http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/features.jpg

http://moon.google.com/

http://moon.google.com/

that is just a small trip and in no way a high quality

I chose Gassendi...very dramatical little asteroid impact with excavation in the center.

http://www.astromanie.de/astromania/galerie/alpenfahrt/gassendi2.jpg

http://www.google.com/mars/

Gassendi crater close up, by americans who never went to moon...:) :p

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/orbiter/5lo178m.gif

http://www.google.com/mars/

Mars on retrospective has much higher detailed photos than the moon...thanks to the many satellites orbiting it.

http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/22000/22477-Fake-Moon-Landing_w.jpg

This here shows Utopia Planitia (Mars):

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/nonmaps/M0402655.gif

http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/22000/22477-Fake-Moon-Landing_w.jpg

funny.

The new: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

Is what brought the news of water on Mars...the technology on the craft is amazing.

And this is truly amazing, the hq MRO produces is truly amazing: http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/gallery/press/20061213a/PIA09097-PSP_001334_2645_color_cropped.jpg

Who knew that Mars would be so beautifull? I knew...

Fatal attraction.

Fatal attraction.

but so rewarding, I am willing to give my life for it all.

And this is truly amazing, the hq MRO produces is truly amazing: http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/gallery/press/20061213a/PIA09097-PSP_001334_2645_color_cropped.jpg

Who knew that Mars would be so beautifull? I knew...

Holy crap, took a while to load but it's worth it.

Holy crap, took a while to load but it's worth it.

...took a while to get there but it was worth it...

So,
Can you look at the surface of the moon with a telescope or not?

I'm starting to wonder why we have not been shown more pictures of what the moon is like. Landing on the moon is a HUGE achievement. I've never really thought about it before. Where the fuck are all the pictures of what could arguably be biggest achievement of mankind. I've seen more pictures of peoples vacation to amish country than I have of the moon. There are mountains on the moon, there may even be ice on the moon but we have pictures of nothing. Am I the only one that thinks that's strange? Pure speculation, but if there are legitimate anomalies in the pictures we are shown of the moon landings (and I tend to think there are, but the counter-arguments are also pretty convincing) couldn't it be that its not that the landing was fake, its just that the pictures are fake (i.e., the world is not being shown what is really there).

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/index.html

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/cla/

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-moon.html

http://moon.google.com/

plenty of pictures

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/index.html

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/cla/

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-moon.html

http://moon.google.com/

plenty of pictures

yeah but those...were made on stage! in Hollywood you see! :p

Can you look at the surface of the moon with a telescope or not?Sure you can see the surface of the Moon. What you can't see is stuff that is essentially no bigger than a large car, which is the largest that any man-made thing was that got left behind.
I've never really thought about it before. Where the fuck are all the pictures of what could arguably be biggest achievement of mankind. Reason One: A certain lack of cameramen. Two men were on the moon at a time, and they were quite busy. It's amazing how many pictures there are, in fact.

One reason you may keep seeing the same 10-20 pictures is because those are the pictures that the Hoax believers have found apparent 'anomalies' in!

like space agency doesnt have tech and resources to get there now. Erm, but they don't. If they had a fleet of 20 shuttles, plus an assortment of other non-reusable rockets for manned flight, plus a completed space station capable of assembling launching large spacecraft on deep space missions, then just maybe. As it is, the Shuttle is pretty much stuck in the design configuration completed around 1975, and unlike any other kind of transportation you can think of, they haven't even been building its replacement during the decades that the current vehicle has been in use. They haven't even started now, when the Shuttle's retirement has been fixed in a way that actually imperils the completion of the ISS!

To get to the moon Werhner Von Braun built the Saturn V, the most powerful rocket in human history. The few left (and they're only left over because of Apollo's cancellation) are antique museum pieces, and it would take a huge effort to recreate their power and reliability (not one of them failed, something else that's unique to the Saturn V).

Resources are the one thing that Nasa absolutely does not have unlimited amounts of. That's why all manned spaceflight stops for two to two and a half years when one of them crashes.

Could someone explain to me why it is that moon.google picture makes it look like all the landings were in one large maria?

Saturn V, the most powerful rocket in human history.

You are wrong about it being the most powerfull rocket in human history. Soviet N1 rocket is what I speak of. Yes it exploded, but that is because of the tank leak...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/russia/n1-1.jpg

You are wrong about it being the most powerfull rocket in human history. Soviet N1 rocket is what I speak of. Yes it exploded, but that is because of the tank leak...



Wrong I'm afraid, the Soviet 'Energia' holds the record for the most powerful rocket ever produced.

Saturn5's still hold the record for being the most powerful rockets to go into service, as the Energia rockets only flew a couple of test missions, which were at least successful, compared to the four failures on the N1's. You don't get recognition for failure.

Wrong I'm afraid, the Soviet 'Energia' holds the record for the most powerful rocket ever produced.


I doubt that...lemme check. Yeah your correct, Energia and Saturn V seem to be the powerfull ones.