Incredible Crashed UFO **Video**on Moon

Originally posted by zarp3333
I consider myself extremely jaded, skeptical and particularly suspicious of people's motives. I honed my ability to identify bull crap as a 15 year heroin addict copping on the street everyday.

The consequences of a wrong determination were immediately devastating and nearly unbearable. I am notproud of that portion of my life.

I state this to back up my question to other jaded skeptics. To what end would a person spend thousands of dollars and countless hours perpetrating such a hoax?????

For the "beat artists" selling bad dope, its obvious. For goverment and military officials it is a little ambiguios but understandable in terms of greed, power and protecting us "ignorant masses" from ourselves. But why on earth would somebody go to such extreme lengths to pull off a hoax?

Your out of hand dismissals are becoming much harder to swallow than apollo 20. Are you trying also to protect us?

Any half competent computer graphics dude or dudess can produce the Apollo 20 hoax.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars. It takes the right attitude, the right computer programs (which are free), some research and the time to make it.

And for motive?
People out there are more than happy to mess with you. They enjoy making a hoax and then see how many will jump to prove their hoax to be "The Real McCoy".
And quite frankly - it IS highly entertaining and sometimes frightening.

EDIT:
Not to mention that sometimes their hoax ends up in books and are used as reference material for UFO buffs. Hilarious.

[edit on 6.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]
EDIT: for lousy gramma


[edit on 6.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

There is deffinately life on the moon. It could be alien based, it could be earth based, but it does exist.

Last but not least, the reason NASA never returned to the moon. Great documentary I highly recommend seeing. You just can't debunk the overwhelming eyewitness testimony including some of the greatest astronomers of all time confessing to aliens on the moon.




[edit on 6-6-2009 by libertytoall]

reply to post by ArMaP


That image, to me, looks like a "blur" tool was used around the object in question.

reply to post by libertytoall


Hey mate, hard for me to believe anything in that first video after they showed proven fakes (the video taken on the surface of the moon showing structures).

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


That is just because of the lack of contrast.

A levels change and the image looks more like the best known photo of this feature.

Honestly, I don't know why we have 9 pages of people discussing the Apollo 20 hoax. We've mostly gathered that it's a hoax. Most of the evidence we've gathered about Apollo 20, suggests that it did not happen. Now, that doesn't mean it really didn't happen, it just means that it more than likely did not happen.

So, please, let's move past that and focus on the issues we do know are happening, like the object(s) on the moon.

The thread was never geared toward Apollo 20. So, why the heck are we discussing it?

Let me repeat the title of this thread...it's "Incredible Crashed UFO..."

I see nothing about Apollo 20 in that heading. We have a federal pilot coming forward with some interesting "facts" about the UFO phenomenon on PART 2. We have Edgar Mitchell discussing the subject and we have some very incredible photos to work with, but for some odd reason, we're debating something that is totally unproven and lacks the evidence needed to even really consider it, instead of dealing with topics that have a lot more weight to them in this same very video.

I don't know about you...but that just seems like a huge waste of time and very stupid. Sorry, if that offends some of you, but it does seem stupid. Wouldn't you say so?

Now, please, let's get back entirely on topic.

Thank you!

reply to post by sdrawkcabII

Let me repeat the title of this thread...it's "Incredible Crashed UFO..."

So what you're asking is that we should openly discuss the possibility that this object is a crashed UFO but then totally ignore the only video evidence, namely the Apollo 20 footage, which claims to show this object close up? I don't get your reluctance to discuss this! Surely if you believe that the object is worthy of investigation and debate then we should study and apraise all the relevent information that relates to it. . .

reply to post by sdrawkcabII


I understand what you mean, but Mintwithahole. also has a point, without that supposed Apollo 20 video we are left with very little do discuss, just the 34 photos that show something that has a slight resemblance to what we can see on the Apollo 20 video but that look natural, without any signs of artificiality, so I think that discussion of the hypothetical Apollo 20 mission is not entirely off-topic.

reply to post by ArMaP


Especially when it is the Apollo 20 video that is being presented as some of the evidence for said crashed object.

The previous 9 pages are discussing the evidence presented. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you all are saying, and I agree, but to a certain extent.

It's clear that using the Apollo 20 claim for the origin of this video is a weak claim, as we are unable to determine whether or not Apollo 20 even took place. So far, it looks like Apollo 20 never even occured. So what now? We continue debating in circles about something no one is very clear about? That's not very profitable.

Obviously however, there are other forms of media showing this crashed object, so Apollo 20 is not the only stemming source we have. That being said, It's clear that we can say, because Apollo 20 may not have occured, doesn't necessarily mean this supposed crashed object is also a dupe.

I think we can therefore conclude that, the Apollo 20 source for this particular sighting may very well be a hoax, but the sighting may not be a hoax. The claimed source may be fodder, but the sighting can be very real, because we have other, more credible sources of info.

That being said, I just don't find it very wise extensively debating the validity of the Apollo 20 mission, when we do not seem to have any real certainty about its occurence. If, however, someone can provide info that totally and entirely debunks the Apollo 20 mission, without a doubt, then we can rule it out entirely. Or, if someone can provide us with info, that proves without a doubt, that the mission actually took place. And, we'd still be left with the fact that, regardless of what mission that video was taken on, the video itself is still very real, and that's what we should be mainly focusing on at this time.

I don't have a problem with investigating or debating the Apollo 20 mission. But when we've been doing this for the past 8 pages or so and haven't really gotten anywhere, I think we should start considering refocusing our points on a matter that we do actually have some supporting evidence of, i.e, this object on the moon, and the rest of the video.

Can we optimize some of these photos?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by sdrawkcabII]

I looked at this mans efforts to explain the video,
going back a couple of years,what does come out of it is
the incredible detail that Rutledge has gone to align
what the video shows with actual sites,
and then uses an audio tape taken from
another Saturn launch.
It is a bit of a puzzle from that point of view,

www.angelismarriti.it...


[edit on 7-6-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by sdrawkcabII
Maybe to get back on topic,
and also to discuss the Apollo 20 video itself I perceive
yet another seeming anomaly from Rutledge,
and which makes me think that this is somehow,yet
another disinformation movie,why should anyone presume
that this is a crashed spaceship by just looking at the pictures?
because it is on the Moon?
With the deep markings/hieroglyphs? all over the object,
(heavy shadows there) it looks to me more like a fallen Totem pole,
and with an estimated length of 4 kms,so lengthwise okay
I suppose for a spaceship,but not so practical for a Totem pole.
The whole thing doesn't make any sense.

I own Blender- and while I haven't hit sophisticated 3D nirvana... The stuff I have seen others do would blow AWAY the Apollo 20 footage. That was second rate stuff, and IT IS A HOAX.

Now, as for the object in the pics? Even if it isn't a ship, I am seriously wondering if it isn't a crystal formation of some sort that is massive. The way it sits after looking at a couple larger pics of it suggests a hard object with geometry. The craters may be only going into the layer of dirt on the surface of this thing. Heck, it could be electrostaticaly charged, and be basically a dust magnet for who knows how long... Underneath, a bonanza of quality gem or metal...

I'm confused here and I need to know the following:

Is that actual proven footage from apollo 20? Not debating whether it happened or not but has NASA stamped this footage as real?

If so then--this would appear to show an alien craft or at least something lying on the moon that came from earth? Intriguing either way, of course, less so if it's from earth but still!

If not then this would seem to me to be a hoax that I could pull off with a couple of guys from the AV department at the local high school.

Next question is if there is any japanese footage of the same area release either video or photo?

Thanks!

reply to post by ArMaP

Many thanks for the pictures ArMap.

Interesting I will have a look at them when I have the time.

Apollo 20 is one of those never proven legends, probably invented to create missinformation and keep us all busy chasing these cheesy models and cheap effect shots instead of focusing on other lines of evidece, that in my humble opinion, are much stronger and easier to argue and research....

of course, "they" could have launched the apollo 20 from a secret underwater base in the artic, for example, and as far as i know maybe they did... although i think it's just BS and ultimately a waste of time...

my opinion is that instead of searching for chewie and the millenium falcon hidden in the shades of the moon, we should all concentrate on the testimonies of hundred of airline pilots, astronauts and all the rest, including the NASA films....

but then again maybe half the fun is debunking and i should have more patience, and go along, exercising our ability to recognise true films form fake, hoaxes from the Truth...

ATS is great because anyone can publish what they want, and we all want it to stay that way, god forbid....
But since many of us have a solid experience in aeronautics, film analysis, knowledge of the missions and on the data retreived and all the rest, i think we should all try to really push the envelope instead of chasing BS and fake plastic models...

and that , of course is just my opinion (..... man ! )
the Dude Abides

The Nazi's were the first of our modern age to reach the moon. They created a base there and on Antarctica. The Nazi's continued genetic engineering and formed a compromise with the US toward the end of the war.

As the war came to an end, the US gained incredible information in research through the rescue and adoptions of former Nazi top scientists through the help of Rockefeller's initiatives. ( Hitler's body was never found, maybe he died, or maybe he went to Antarctica, maybe even the moon? ) The Nazi's genetically engineered the Greys to help control the Earth and the US Government through the help of Reptilians. The Nazi's fascination with tunnels and underground bases may have had much deeper meaning.

Hitler himself was obsessed with the occult. Hitler read the book The Coming Race by Rosecrucian Grandmaster E. Bulwer Lytton, which describes a an underground reptilian race which has supernatural powers and technology and were fixated on taking the surface as their own world.

Our entire moon program was founded on the research of 1 Nazi scientist. The Roswell crash in 1947 was caused by Nazi genetically engineered Greys flying a spaceship which malfunctioned. The US has to keep this covered up. Could you imagine if the world found out the Nazi's were never actually beat and were calling the shots from someplace out of earth?

Disclosure will come when America and the rest of the world look like a full fledged Fascist state.





[edit on 8-6-2009 by libertytoall]

The Apollo 20 footage is worthy of serious consideration and shouldn't be entirely dismissed out-of-hand. Yes there's all sorts of problems with William Routledge (if indeed it is him who has posted the videos?) , the moon city footage is fake and is made from extracts of the Apollo 17 film taken near Bear Mountain, and YES the so-called Mona Lisa footage looks like a poorly made clay doll. But lets look at the parts of the film which are genuinely hard to explain! Where did he get a life sized fully functioning LEM to film in? Where did he get the large, extremely detailed and accurate moon scape from which he could film his alleged fly over of the anomaly? And why hasn't someone thought to ask the Russian cosmonaut who supposedly flew to the moon aboard Apollo 20 with Routledge to see if he can confirm or deny his claims?
There are more things wrong with the claims of William Routledge than are right but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater! There's still plenty to debate.

Please Forget the Apollo 20 hoax, what about the 5 minutes of footage before that story?

What about ;

The Mir Video

The Objects above the White House

The Object being suddenly changing direction and shooting off in to space?

These seem far more plausible than the apollo 20 garbage.

Anyone care to comment on those???

Cheers

Robbie

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

Where did he get a life sized fully functioning LEM to film in?

What gives you the impression it's a 'fully functioning' LM? All you see are a few panels, switches and a window frame. Heck, he could have rented "Apollo 13" and built sets for filming, copying the designs from the movie.

Where did he get the large, extremely detailed and accurate moon scape from which he could film his alleged fly over of the anomaly?

Large? How do you define 'large'? If the model of the ancient 'spaceship' is two feet long, is that 'large'? IF it was a model, and not CGI.

Consider this: The original Star Trek model Enterprise used for filming in the 1960s was 11 feet long. (there was a smaller 4-foot version for long shots, but the big beauty was for close-ups).

Now, and since sometime in the 1990s, they don't even build spaceship models anymore, they're ALL CGI.

As to the 'alleged fly over'...that is 100% correct. "Alleged". It's like we are supposed to believe the "Apollo 20" was hovering, based on the hoaxed footage. Extremely accurate? Hardly.


quote tag edits.

[edit on 6/8/0909 by weedwhacker]