Anonymous Moon Video

www.youtube.com...

An interesting vid on stuff to do with the moon by the anonymous youtube channel.








Mod Note: IMPORTANT: New (old) Standards Are Being Enforced (again) For New Threads - Please Review This Link.

a reply to: Brigadier

Interesting video if even half is true

originally posted by: Brigadier
www.youtube.com...

An interesting vid on stuff to do with the moon by the anonymous youtube channel.

Fabrication from start to finish.

a reply to: 727Sky
Yeah for sure, my own conceptualisation of the moon landing topic is that the 1969 footage is definitely fake, but that doesn't neccesarily exclude the possibility we went to the moon.

Essentially either the footage is fake AND we never went or the footage is fake AND we did go, but just didn't see the footage from the actual moon.
Motivations for such possibilites are endless.

If both video is fake and we didn't go, one explanation could be, the MIC needed funding for developing ICBMs but forecast public and congressional intolerance to such spending so lied about what the money was for, built the ICBMs anyway through the apollo project etc.

If vid is fake and we DID go, then likely what they were expecting to find was either too horrible / shocking for the public to see or any other number of reasons.

a reply to: Brigadier

Good to see this again
In 2010 I made a website of it. Many links don't work anymore and I don't have the courage to restore them. But maybe you can get some ideas ... who knows
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: Brigadier

Or the video is fake, we did go, and the footage and photography seen by the public is absolutely genuine. Which it is.

Take the first few minutes. The alleged comment by Armstrong: Bull***t. Never happened. The so called NASA press release they flashed up on screen is from July 2nd 1969 discussing the plaque they were to unveil. In other words they had landed yet (though had been around it twice). The footage of the supposed 1996 press conference? Look closely at it, it's from the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 in 2009.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Brigadier
www.youtube.com...

An interesting vid on stuff to do with the moon by the anonymous youtube channel.

Fabrication from start to finish.

Thanks for the explanation 👍🏼

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Brigadier

Interesting video if even half is true

Isn't China on the Moon ?

a reply to: musicismagic

Yes with their Chinese rover however they have bigger grand plans for the moon which has lit a fire under the west's desire to get there and set up some kind of station.

This competition is exactly what was needed to get the west off their butts because there is still a strong belief that whoever controls the high ground wins in any future conflict..

a reply to: 727Sky

Imagine trying to use the moon as an operational platform for military conflict within the next 3 decades though...

Somewhat nonsensical right now to bother. LEO platforms make more sense than that... If you have some kind of laser weapon though, maybe the moon gives an advantage in anti-satellite warfare?

a reply to: Albert999

If I saved you time it was worth it. Of course you could always find any of it that's true and make me look stupid...

originally posted by: Brigadier
a reply to: 727Sky
Yeah for sure, my own conceptualisation of the moon landing topic is that the 1969 footage is definitely fake, but that doesn't neccesarily exclude the possibility we went to the moon.

Essentially either the footage is fake AND we never went or the footage is fake AND we did go, but just didn't see the footage from the actual moon.
Motivations for such possibilites are endless.

If both video is fake and we didn't go, one explanation could be, the MIC needed funding for developing ICBMs but forecast public and congressional intolerance to such spending so lied about what the money was for, built the ICBMs anyway through the apollo project etc.

If vid is fake and we DID go, then likely what they were expecting to find was either too horrible / shocking for the public to see or any other number of reasons.

Just a heads up.
This here what ive quoted should be part of your OP, not a link with one line.

As for the video, for me, the biggest evidence that something unnatural might be on the Moon, is the press conference they had afterwards. Look at the faces and mannerisms of the astronauts. They should be smiling laughing joking. Having a great rapport with the reporters. But they look like they're at a funeral.
They certainly don't look like they've just come back from the Moon. I'd say they were severely warned not to say anything about what they saw up there

Well, at least someone other than me has produced this notion into a video format. I really don't, ahem, actually feel this is in any wat a documentary it seems to implicitly be, I agree that

A) We went to the moon, as advertised.
B) The "leaders" were never courageous enough to risk us actually "seeing" what was happening. The politics of fear.
C) The synched media stream was "produced" using state of the art techniques, similar to those masterfully used by Stanley Kubrick.
D) The "Looney UFO community" has been drip-fed conflicting information ever since.

Several questions are pending. Just as a hint "Stone Henge on the Moon?" What are those audio beeps for? Why go back for all the other Apollo missions if we were warned off? Landers on the moon have done nothing to corroborate this possibility - or have they?

youtu.be...

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

They hadn't just come back from the moon, it was several weeks later. Thebpicture of them immediately after returning home show them to be very happy indeed.

There were many moments of levity in the conference, but they aren't the ones cherry picked to present a biased view. They wee three guys, not trained media professionals, under the spotlight of hundreds of journalists. How comfortable would you be under those circumstances?

If the only solid proof that the missions were not carried out as recorded by history is a few glum faces from one mission then you don't have much.

originally posted by: Maxmars

C) The synched media stream was "produced" using state of the art techniques, similar to those masterfully used by Stanley Kubrick.

The state of the art technology at the time was incapable of producing the 'synched media stream'.

Kubrick's techniques took way longer than the missions, certainly weren't able to produce live views of Earth matching satellite images that weren't taken at the time of broadcast.

Or we tried to go (we being you yanks) and banged into the solid firmament.

a reply to: Brigadier

Some things about the information in the video:

1 - It talks about an official press release. Where is it?
2 - Don't they know that the name is Hoagland, not Holland?
3 - Which "partially destroyed objects" can't be considered geological formations?
4 - Don't they know that it's Rima Hadley, not Rema?
5 - Where is the supposed "construction surrounded by a D shaped wall"?
6 - Don't they know it's Tycho crater, not Taiko?
7 - How can they be sure about what natural geological processes on the Moon can and cannot do?
8 - What "factory area" are they talking about?
9 - The rectangular, transparent-looking shapes are, most likely, taken from the first (or second, I don't remember) version of the Clementine online viewer, that used wavelets technology show the photos and that tried to create an image based on the images of adjacent photos for areas without any photos. As the video doesn't explain about it (or about anything else, in fact), it's not possible to know.
10 - The photo of the "pyramidal object" (AS17-135-20680) is part of a series of photos taken on the Apollo 17 mission. Those photos (from AS17-135-20676 to AS17-135-20680) are at the end of the roll and are all of the rover's floor.
11 - Never trust auto-generated text from speech.

The decent module and rover tracks can be seen from orbital images. Were those photo shopped in? Anything Greer and Hoagland says is a bunch of hooey. Two charlatans.

Astronauts will say anything NASA wants them to say just to keep the funding coming in.

The big controversy about the moving flag is easily explained. It waved because the astronaut planting the flag was twisting the pole back and forth to sink it into the ground. Anyone with any critical thinking skills would realize this.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Maxmars

C) The synched media stream was "produced" using state of the art techniques, similar to those masterfully used by Stanley Kubrick.

The state of the art technology at the time was incapable of producing the 'synched media stream'.

Kubrick's techniques took way longer than the missions, certainly weren't able to produce live views of Earth matching satellite images that weren't taken at the time of broadcast.

I contend that we are never completely apprised of the state of the art. Technology isn't only what we can see and know of. There are technologies that are not shared publicly. (Usually not shared unless they don't threaten commerce.)