It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And anyone who thinks the lunar landings did not take place are just seeing what they want to see. Did you see the photograph earlier of the earth rising over the moon. The footage that was filmed from the moon surface of earth as she came over the horizon???
Originally posted by karen61057
Originally posted by pshea38
Originally posted by discostu123
reply to post by pshea38
if you have a brain then how can you think the moon landings were hoaxed? Anybody who thinks that is a moron and just adds more wight to the 'all conspiracy theorists are nutters' argument.
sorry...
i do have a brain mate. you look it up and get back to me explaining all the photographic anomalies and impossibilities and we will see what kind of a brain you have, and what class of a moron you are. anyone who does not hold conspiratorial views about quite a few issues now is a nutter in my book and is lacking in cognitive abilities and grey matter density.
And anyone who thinks the lunar landings did not take place are just seeing what they want to see. Did you see the photograph earlier of the earth rising over the moon. The footage that was filmed from the moon surface of earth as she came over the horizon???
Now karen, how can a camera (especially one from the 1960's) take a picture and keep both near object and distant object images in perfect focus?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pshea38
Now karen, how can a camera (especially one from the 1960's) take a picture and keep both near object and distant object images in perfect focus?
Sorry....I had to wipe the tears from my eyes....this really isn't the thread, but....that was just so, well.....
....I'd highly recommend a few lessons in photography for you!!
(muttering to myself....."especially one from the 1960's".....!! Sheesh!! :shk: .....mutter, mutter.....)
There is an awful lot of dots there weedywacker.
Maybe you should consider joining them.... Do you mutter to yourself often?....parff...
Originally posted by Screwed
I am laughing my arse off here.
People keep yammering on and on for "Disclosure".
When will it happen?
Will it ever happen?
How will it happen?
Guess what sugar tits?
IT'S HAPPENING!!!!
RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
and all I see are people who are too stupid to realize it.
I am now fully convinced that there are those unfortunate peolpe who cannot,will not, under any circumstance
believe that we are and have been visited by intelligent space fareing life from other planets.
They may SAY they believe it is possible but they just need proof.
Fine, here's proof.
"Ohh, well, that's not really proof, he was an Astronaut, Electromagnetic field this, mentally unstable that,"
You people DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES!!!!
It threatens to bring crashing down your pretty little world view and everything you ever thought you knew.
This mans testimony would be good enough in a court of law!
Any prosecuting attourney would LOVE to have his testimony.
But not some people here.
It's not good enough because of Earths electromagnetic Field???????
You gotta be #ting me!!!!!
Now this has officially gotten rediculous!
I am OUT!!!!
Originally posted by Diluted
reply to post by pshea38
Damn it okay. I'm a logical person.
If one half of my brain says the moon landings were a hoax (or mostly a hoax?)
and the other half says lets believe what this guy says is true -
I feel like a bing "search overload" commercial.
I haven't seen in my brief research where Cooper mentions the actual names of the photographers. I only offered the idea of two different cases as one possible explanation, not the only one.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Either he has amnesia or was incredibly mistaken or he's a liar.
Or we're talking about two different cases. One recorded and in public domain, and the other not.
Two separate cases, both involving cameramen named Bittick and Gettys, who conveniently FORGOT to mention the second case when discussing the 'first' one with investigators? Extremely unlikely, IMHO.
Tell me how it evolved here I am not a ufologist and have other things I do in life.
Cooper shows no signs of being a liar, although his story has 'evolved' over the years [which may be why Mitchell refuses to disclose the version of it that Cooper probably told him in 1968-9].
I linked to an interview of Gordon Cooper where he explicitly states that the incident he encountered where he packaged the film himself and sent it off to washington was never recorded by Blue Book. What you say here directly conflicts with his statement in the interview. But, as you say, his statements have evolved. So please elaborate on how they have evolved.
Now, in fact those photographs did not vanish after all: they had been sent to Project Blue Book, at Wright- Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, per regulations (I even have talked to the officer who did the original Blue Book interviews, former Captain Hubert Davis, who had been greatly impressed with the witness's sincerity) . Years later the photos were pulled out of the retired Air Force files by UFO writers and investigators, as yet ignorant of the still-unpublished "Cooper connection". Two of the photos appear in Brad Steiger's paperback "Project Blue Book" (Ballantine, 1976) in the set of illustrations between pages 360 and 361. Wrote Steiger in the caption: "UFOs on target! Photos taken by United States military personnel" for case #4715, Edwards AFB, May 2 [sic!] 1957. But that case number did not appear on another list in Steiger's book, which included all "unsolved" cases. The Air Force must have found a satisfactory solution -- but what?
Bottom line, irregardless of the inconsistencies, if you read McDonalds report, Case 41 here:
There is no evidence that Cooper ever heard this explanation, but he evidently had same misgivings about the case. In 1978, in his second interview with Spiegel (this time for OMNI), he evaded any discussion of the Edwards case by saying, "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really." That it was, and Cooper's caution was commendable -- if perhaps a bit tardy. His name had already been interwoven with the incident, and probably permanently.
So the two photographers, despite being at variance with coopers account, still believe that what they saw was not a weather balloon. In fact, they were told it was a weather balloon by base personnel, according to McDonald, on the very exact same day that the incident happened. They didn't buy that explanation and I'm not sure we should, either. Nor do I think anyone should automatically assume that Cooper told us everything he knew or that the photographers or Hubert Davis present us the whole story. The quote above mentions that "The photos were shortly taken by Base military authorities and were never seen again by the men." Do we know for sure that Cooper wasn't one of the 'base military authorities'? While it's true plenty of what you have referenced is at odds with Coopers version of the story, that doesn't mean nothing can be gained from it.
...They drove into the base and processed the film immediately. All three of the men I interviewed emphasized that the shots taken at the closer range were very sharp, except for the hazy rim. They said the dome and the markings or openings showed in the photos. The photos were shortly taken by Base military authorities and were never seen again by the men. In a session later that day, Bittick and Carson were informed that they had seen a weather balloon distorted by the desert atmospheric effects, an interpretation that neither of them accepted since, as-they stated to me, they saw weather balloons being released frequently there and knew what balloons looked like...