That would prove nothing other than the fact that it is possible for man to go to the moon. It would not prove man actually went to the moon in 1969. The recent "lost" original moon footage made me think something is very wrong at NASA. I checked it out further and now I am covinced they faked the whole thing.
#19. To: RickyJ, PaulCJ, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, Lod, all (#5)
Let's go back to the moon and find out.
That would prove nothing other than the fact that it is possible for man to go to the moon. It would not prove man actually went to the moon in 1969. The recent "lost" original moon footage made me think something is very wrong at NASA. I checked it out further and now I am covinced they faked the whole thing.
I think the one possibility that gets overlooked is that both are TRUE
Yes we did go to the Moon.
And Yes some of the video footage released to the public is fake.
But why both?
If they went to the moon why not release the footage taken there and eliminate the possibility that someone would catch on?
It finally hit me why. There was something, or things, which the elites running the show did now want people to see e.g., that there are surface structures, artificial constructed structures, on the moon. This recognition did not occur to me overnight and is the result of lots of little pieces of information that began to come together much as the picture in jigsaw puzzles forms - piece by piece - and you can generally get a good idea of the puzzle picture long before all the pieces are assembled. Some of the details might be yet missing but you know what the picture is about.
The direction that I come from this goes back, again, to my interest in Archaeology and the awareness of what Michael Cremo (co-author of "Forbidden Archaeology") calls the "Knowledge Filter". The way the Knowledge Filter works is that data, evidence, which does not fit the popular, and officially preferred, theories of human origins and the history of civilization, as taught in colleges and universities, is discarded, derided, or ignored.
Then take into account "The Brookings Report" which was generated for NASA back in 1959-1961 which had as one of its key conclusions that the discovery of artifacts from an advanced civilization would be very disruptive to our current society - that knowledge and awareness of such would upset a lot of apple carts and possibly cause an inferiority complex among scientists in particular.
Back in the 1990's Richard Hoagland did a presentation at the U.N. which was videoed, and which I have a copy of, wherein he demonstrated several things:
1. That there appear to be remnants of ancient structures on the moon - verrrrrrry ancient, and he has the photographs (gotten directly from NASA's own archives and through some of his "contacts" at NASA).
2. Some of the photos appear to have been "adjusted" to remove "inconvenient" details.
3. The photos appear to show some very LARGE structures - reminiscent of Paolo Solari's "Arcology" concept - massive structures that are an entire city in one building.
4. NASA has lied, and lied repeatedly, about what they have found and, at the top, acted to bottle up the information and prevent it from becoming public.
So, rhetorical question, if you had structures that you wanted to investigate with the moon landings, but did not want awareness and knowledge of them loose into the public mind, what might you do to accomplish both goals?
Produce phony films purporting to be the moon, for public consumption, while keeping the films of "inconvenient" evidence of a prior civilization hidden. The "why" again goes back to the massive, and pervasive, Psychiatric manipulation of what the general public is allowed to "know" and thus are able to see, think, and talk about. It helps to create the hive-like society being created if people are kept, generally, ignorant and unaware of things which raise questions as to who and what we are, and ultimately may have come from. If you want an ant hive society you don't want the ants questioning the hive.
There is a lot more to this but that's the "thumbnail"
Isn't he the guy that sez something about the moon landings being faked?
I believe that what he said was that the landings were real but some of the supporting material had been faked.
That is exactly what I said. However, Bucky don't read too well.
And it is not a final answer. It is a hypothesis which seems to account for all the data.
Some of the photos are undeniably legit.
Some of the photos are very questionable.
So, the hypothesis is that NASA in order to prevent "disturbing" data into the public domain "dummied" some of the shots. That is what has led to the "Moon Mission was a hoax" i.e., that both camps are right and both are wrong.
Isn't he the guy that sez something about the moon landings being faked?
I believe that what he said was that the landings were real but some of the supporting material had been faked.
That is exactly what I said. However, Bucky don't read too well.
And it is not a final answer. It is a hypothesis which seems to account for all the data.
Some of the photos are undeniably legit.
Some of the photos are very questionable.
So, the hypothesis is that NASA in order to prevent "disturbing" data into the public domain "dummied" some of the shots. That is what has led to the "Moon Mission was a hoax" i.e., that both camps are right and both are wrong.
Yes, sorry. You didn't say they were fake, you said, well what you said.
You come across kinda like you're stoned and just want to give a people a hard time on a Saturday night sometimes, buck.