LOL
Maybe it was a russian, first dog on the moon.


"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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.
--
Amanda