"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:9Q04h.2456$371.700@newsfe5-win.ntli.net: 

In news:Xns98749EA227BF9kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"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.

Well to be honest with you I don't have any problems with any of the
so called fake footage. It was no secret that the astronauts undertook
training in simulated Lunar environments in large aircraft hangers and
such like. There is no doubt in my mind that NASA would have used
studio images and footage for some publicity images and films
surrounding the Moon missions and the Space program. This is common
practice in the public relations business. It's common practice in the
shooting of any factual film or creating any visually documented
story. A certain proportion of imagery will always be faked up for the
benefit of the story. To embellish the facts. To give it the Hollywood
treament and create the dream. This is what artists are paid to do.

Of course the problem is at this point in time NASA don't know which
parts are faked and which parts are real, it is likely that a lot of
this work would have been contracted out to PR experts, Artists and
photographers in any case. Whose sole job is to sell a story to the
public. So there is bound to be a degree of artifice and embellishment
in the story this is inevitable.

The fact that such fakery exists and can be proven to exist is
therfore a total non-issue and has no bearing on the facts. It's not
evidence that NASA faked the moon landings it just shows scientists
aren't usually good at art and need to employ others to present the
facts to the public in a form the public can run with. So IMO all
evidence of faked up footage is irrelevent and totally invalid as an
indication of what actually took place. 

All the doubts really show is the public have become more
sophisticated and can recognise the faked bits.

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.

Yes there's quite a lot of stuff on Google Videos and youtube now
which is good. I have never suceeded in getting any of these
documentaries on P2P networks.

The footage I was referring to, was what was going on inside the
Command module, in which the video and audio clearly has the astronauts
faking that they were further out, 1/2 way to the moon, and sticking
a transparency onto the window, setting the camera inside - faking
the whole thing - that this footage exists, shows something totally 
amiss.
If the documentary makers, do have the original film, then obviously
this can be scrutinised for authenticity and age.
Without that film - the case for the faking, is much much weaker,
with no proper evidence at all, and only circumstantial.
Only experts debating two sides of an argument.

Obviously if there were moon rovers, these can go to the sites, and
check out the rubbish/junk left behind.
[For NASA to cover this up, would be for them, to send junk to the
 moon, to authentic history - which is a huge task in itself, so the
 junk is already there, or not?]

Note - apparently with the first screening of Apollo coverage, this
was sent and aired in Australia first - and an Australian woman does
recall seeing a coke bottle on the lunar surface - but this was later
edited out.

I have listed documentaries at
http://truthbox.blog.co.nz

I haven't checked out YouTube - but if you can find these documentaries
there - they are worth watching.
I can send you a DVD with a lot of these documentaries on it, if you 
wish? I have already grouped them together, in their specific groups.

Harvey