"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:i_G3h.9472$rn6.4283@newsfe1-win.ntli.net: 

In news:Xns9873A7D1B2BFAkiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Hqa2h.26798
$gO3.10286@newsfe7-win.ntli.net:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm

You can see whatever you like to see, in a pile of rocks,
amongst shadows, with blurry photographs.

I wouldn't be confident about anything sighted on an Apollo mission.
In that there is a lot of questions remaining unanswered as to
whether NASA faked their moon landings?
The Lunar Rover, like the LEM is a remarkable piece of hardware, too
unbelievable to believe it functioned so well?
The same with the Hasselblad cameras that were used. According to
"What Happened on the Moon" - these cameras were still standard, just
with oversized controls. They were not sealed nor shielded from the
radiation and extreme temperatures on the moon, nor that they were to
be used in a vacuum. How did the film ever manage to function in that
alien environment?
Oh, if you watch "The Secret NASA Transmissions" - it is normal for
astronauts not to mention anything strange before them - they won't
describe or even notice anything strange in their immediate
environment, even if it shows up so obviously on video footage.
They literally have to bump into it, or fall over it - before they
will acknowledge it. (Shows the difference between Apollo and the
Shuttle missions - NASA becomes dumb and dumber)

Harvey

I've considered the possibility of the Moon landings having been faked
and watched a number of documentaries on Youtube and other places that
take that view. To be honest with you although the arguments sometimes
seem superficially convincing with a layman's knowledge of science.
Practically every argument presented falls apart on closer
examination. There other aspect is there were simply too many people
and different countries involved to carry off a charade of that
magnitude. You might get away with it once but not 5 times.

I would agree the Astronauts seem to miss things (an hide things to).
In that particular instance they were talking about orange soil. Which
of course indicates Iron Oxide which would be consistent with what
that site appears to be, you have what appears to be twisted wreckage
and the remains of what appears to be an android. That would seem to
indicate it's the crash site of some sort of space craft that would
very possibly have contained water, oxygen and other fuels and would
have exploded and burned on impact causing localised oxidation. The
fact they found "Orange soil" in this crater (which BTW they called
"Shorty") is actually quite significant since it indicates oxidation
caused by whatever created the crater. There can be little doubt of
that. 

So even if you ignore the fact that it looks like a crashed spaceship
you have evidence of large amounts of Oxygen deposited on the moon
from an ET or Extra-Lunar source. Obviously it could also have been a
meteor expelled from the Earth at the very least it supports the
theory of panspermia and the possibility of life on other planets.

Of course another interesting coincidence is they called this crater
"Shorty", given you have what appears to be the remains of some form
of android that appears to have both legs blown off, this is
remarkably ironic and sounds more like a slightly sick military sense
of humour than pure coincidence. What are they trying to tell us here?
LOL. 

To be honest with you this is the most amazing anomaly I have seen in
any NASA photograph. I'd agree you can sometimes see faces in rocks,
e.g the so called face on Mars. But to find something that looks like
a head plus half a skeleton on the moon which although damaged is
anatomically correct and even has what appears to be two hip joints
exactly where one would expect them to be, the chances of something
that complex appearing in such a configuration completely and totally
by accident or even by simple imagination is pretty remote.

Couple that with what appears to be wreckage and the orange soil
indicative of both oxygen and significant amounts of Iron or even
steel, possible the presence of water and a whole load of heat, you
need oxygen for something to oxidise in a fire. IMO this is the most
significant evidence of ET civilisation and technology ever shown and
released in a NASA photograph. Because all the evidence is consistent
with what it looks like. Which is basically the site of a crashed
spaceship or UFO of Extraterrestrial Origin. Well it ain't a weather
balloon that's for sure LOL 

I suppose it could be the wreckage of a Russian space craft, if those
are however human remains they would have to have been fairly recent,
there was to my knowledge no failed Russian manned moon landing, but
who knows perhaps it was carried out in secret and was never reported
because it failed, but if it isn't of earthly origin then it must be
ET. 

I actually couldn't see what you saw in the photograph - so maybe you
need to circle it for me? Of course, you cannot rely upon one still
photograph - with photomanipulation possible with photoshop, anyone
competent enough with photoshop can plant objects on the moon or 
manipulate them to look what they want them to look like.

One documentary mentioned that when footage was shown of Gagarin -
that he appeared on camera, and then it was most likely that the
man who stepped into the capsule was not he - as this was propanganda
footage, and they couldn't risk losing him (in public), and so as to
not let chance and fate play their hands, they didn't send him on the
mission, meaning someone else boarded the craft.
Such was the climate - and with the Apollo missions, more so.
Failure to complete their mission would have been a huge embarressment
for the US - whereas Apollo 13 was purposefully flawed so as to draw
attention back to the Apollo missions - or so the conspiracists say?

It would not surprise me that various countries, who have the capability 
- to have tried to put a man into space - and failed.
And we don't know about those attempts. China has great ambitions to
put a man into space - if they aim for a low Earth orbit, he should be
fine - but an upper limit orbit, would put that man's life into jeopardy?

If that footage didn't exist - that was shown in "A funny thing happened
on the way to the Moon"of astronauts faking where they supposedly were -
then I think, all the arguments about this, would be without proof or
foundation.  There is a big list of anomalies that need to be explained,
for the official story to be watertight and solid.
It is convenient (and very odd) that there was no Russian attempt to
go to the moon, and not further missions by the USA.
I mean, it is very very odd there is no moonbase NOW - even a remote
operated one - surely robotics is possible. Why is the moon so off-limits
to us??? I sure would like to see a rover eye's view of all the Apollo
missions junk, that were left behind. It is just so convenient there is
no evidence to back up that NASA did send men to the moon, etc etc.




I've just watched a documentary about Viktor Schauberger - he's very
much a genuis along the lines of Nikola Tesla - observing nature and
learning from nature. You can learn something about this man from that
text by Nick Cook "The Hunt for Zero Point" I mentioned earlier on,
some time ago. There are some very interesting things in this documentary 
- "Nature was my teacher - the vision of Viktor Schauberger". Also I
would recomend any documentary that deals with Tesla.

Harvey