NASA!!!...Psy-op, Photoshop, Terra-forming... What's Up, NASA?

[JTCoyoté]

Aside from the photo angle question ... about this last photo of iks83 ... does the area around the LM look like a rocket just landed minutes before?

No dust/sand on the pods? Or on the other surfaces?

It really looks like it was gently floated down from heaven like an angel's feather!

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5915.jpg

Jackson, if memory serves, in the final batch of missions (12 through 17) it was determined that the best result with the least problem occurring due to microscopic dust and lunar sand/refuse being kicked up around the lander getting into all kinds of undesirable places... it was decided that the power on the main thruster would be cut back at about 10 m above the surface and off at 6 m... At 1/6th gravity this would be easily absorbed by the landing gear, as one would experience from a drop of about 1/3 m at one G.... in other words there wouldn't be a crater!

--Oldyoti

"What we meant, in going for those redcoats was this --
we had always governed ourselves, and always meant to...
they, didn't mean we should."
~ An old New England militia
captain, after the battles of
Lexington and Concord
 April 19, 1775

[Take The Power Back]

The moon is not supposed to have an atmosphere, right? Why then is the light present in all moon photos diffused. It is the presence of Hydrogen, Oxygen and other molecules that allows light on our planet to bend around objects and illuminate all sides of an object regardless of the position of the light source. If moon photos were actually taken on the moon then this diffusion effect would not be present. This is enough evidence for me to seal the argument. These photos were not taken on the moon.

[iceman2]

Approach and Landing footage - starts at 8:30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7VPOzcWBc4


Pretty dusty!

Also look again at this footage! Check out around 11 mins 8 to 12 seconds into the film. Very odd how it appears to slow down so quickly. Looks to me like they have gone from about 80 MPH or something down to about 10 MPH in about 1.5 seconds ish.travelling horizontal. Where did the thrust to do that come form considering they were preparing to land and were presumably oriented into the landing position. That would be a awful lot of thruster force need to slow a machine like down that fast. You certainly would not get that level of boost from those silly little orientation thrusters.

Also nice point about light diffusion!

Sorry the evidence is increasing stacking up against the pro landing lobby. Looks to me like like  loosing this little skirmish on the war of words and evidence.       

[iks83]

The moon is not supposed to have an atmosphere, right? Why then is the light present in all moon photos diffused. It is the presence of Hydrogen, Oxygen and other molecules that allows light on our planet to bend around objects and illuminate all sides of an object regardless of the position of the light source. If moon photos were actually taken on the moon then this diffusion effect would not be present. This is enough evidence for me to seal the argument. These photos were not taken on the moon.

And here goes another BS claim without any source. Can you link to one of those "all photos"? I mean some guy comes in drops some general comment about all photos with nothing to back up. Just dump some shit and leave. And the idiots immediately jump on that... oh nice point about the diffused light! If you wanna see diffused light watch the china EVA they staged.

[JTCoyoté]

Motors where supposedly shut off around 6ft...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14716&page=43

My "m's" should be "ft's"... sorry... I don't sleep much these days...

In any case the exhaust dispersion past the nozzle of a rocket engine in a vacuum, demonstrates a completely different exhaust profile than what one sees inside the Earth's atmosphere where it shows itself as a spike of flame and gas escaping in direct line with the focus attitude of the nozzle... In a vacuum it escapes in a wide fan or cone of expanding gas since there is no atmospheric pressure pressing from all sides to focus it to a point in the low pressure area left behind the vehicle as it moves in reaction to the pressure differential created at the nozzle... If you have seen the film footage of the rocket engines on the space shuttle or a satellite launch, you will notice the higher they are in altitude the wider dispersed are the gases as they leave the nozzle... remember it isn't the gases that are moving the vehicle, it is the energy/pressure differential and direction they escape that is moving the vehicle...

In any case in most of the Apollo landing sites, the area beneath the lunar module was a layer of fine dust and small rocks, a few inches thick, on top of a hard base or bedrock...  there are photographs from Apollo 11 that show the fluid flow erosion from the lunar module engine after it landed... I will post those as well as... all of this is really quite simple to understand actually.

As to the photographs, as I've said before as with the film footage, it is very difficult to determine their origins... some are obviously from a Hollywood production... and some are actual footage from the moon... just because some Ph.D. is analyzing a particular photograph compared to a particular length of movie footage from the moon, doesn't make the photograph real in the first place, or the film footage... just because someone says it is does not prove it is.

A lot of the stuff that is being touted as lunar movies/photos, are from Hollywood productions and it is obvious they are... and just because some guy puts the movie up on youtube saying that they are from NASA, doesn't mean that they are from NASA... this is why this entire slant in the argument/discussion is nothing but a red herring. I have two catalogs of contact prints from the early Apollo missions... if these guys cannot cite a film frame number, or film sequence number... then I can only assume that they are outtakes from one of the miriad Hollywood productions...

The images that I will be posting, will have these NASA numbers... and they will show what's there, and not something that the movie guys screwed up... all of this photo/movie stuff is muddying this subject, because there has been no proof that any of this so far is NASA imagery...However, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that our friend einstein here can tell us all the names of all the NASA debunking movies to date, back to before Capricorn One... So if were going to discuss film here, then let's get some NASA numbers on that film so it can be traced and proven to be NASA, before we waste our time with it... that means you too, Einstein!

JTCoyoté

"Opinion polls are merely a random show of hands,
that indicates nothing more than who's propaganda
machine is working, and who's is not."
~Oldyoti

[Col3_11n12]

Speaking of movies...we visited NASA at Cape Canaveral recently, and that's all it was--a bunch of movies.   I was there just 10 years ago, and it was nothing like this.   You could go into mission control behind a plexiglass, live, while people were working on a real space mission.   You could ride right by the launching pad.  You can't do any of that now.  "Security concerns".  Now instead you walk up this 5-story platform, where you get to view the launching pad built with your tax dollars from 2 miles away.  You get to visit the old mission control where Apollo 11 was conducted from.  No more viewing live missions from up above anymore.   Most of the day you spend visiting NASA, all you do is watch movie after movie about it.  The hands-on it used to be is gone.

[iceman2]

Speaking of movies...we visited NASA at Cape Canaveral recently, and that's all it was--a bunch of movies.   I was there just 10 years ago, and it was nothing like this.   You could go into mission control behind a plexiglass, live, while people were working on a real space mission.   You could ride right by the launching pad.  You can't do any of that now.  "Security concerns".  Now instead you walk up this 5-story platform, where you get to view the launching pad built with your tax dollars from 2 miles away.  You get to visit the old mission control where Apollo 11 was conducted from.  No more viewing live missions from up above anymore.   Most of the day you spend visiting NASA, all you do is watch movie after movie about it.  The hands-on it used to be is gone.

"Security concerns" what a load of crap! more evidence of the NWO control freaks permeating fear through to the masses! probably now run a shape shifting lizards 200 mtrs below ground!!!! 

[yrpplmean]

Speaking of movies...we visited NASA at Cape Canaveral recently, and that's all it was--a bunch of movies.   I was there just 10 years ago, and it was nothing like this.   You could go into mission control behind a plexiglass, live, while people were working on a real space mission.   You could ride right by the launching pad.  You can't do any of that now.  "Security concerns".  Now instead you walk up this 5-story platform, where you get to view the launching pad built with your tax dollars from 2 miles away.  You get to visit the old mission control where Apollo 11 was conducted from.  No more viewing live missions from up above anymore.   Most of the day you spend visiting NASA, all you do is watch movie after movie about it.  The hands-on it used to be is gone.

lol "security concerns"  sheesh!!

I would presume that they know they have been outsmarted in this whole "moon walking" scenario, that they are afraid that people will figure more out than they should know or want them to know. lol typical cover up

[iceman2]

Also watch the rest of the film regards moon trips and landings, The bit I posted about the photography was just a small excerpt from it.s in total Irrefutable  evidence it all a scam! More government lies. Like they lie about the economy, world events, financial aspects, military information. They lie and cheat about everything. This is just another lid blown off their cheating scam pot..

One point we mentioned regards the landing pod. I have since found out that engine was burning near 2000c or it should have been. Such heat would have caused the surrounding area to have liquefied and turned it into crystal, if a volcano can turn rock molten at around 1000 to 1200c what would it have done to the moon surface?  Regards cutting their engine early, what rubbish, something weighing 2 or 3 tons or more being dropped from 10 or 20ft even taking the 1/6 gravity aspect into account would have smashed those legs to bits. It would have been like dropping at least a 1000lbs plus dead weight from several feet 10/ 20ft in the air or more. could you imagine the shock though the whole landing craft! CRAP it never happened. You imagine taking your average small car lifting to the first floor and a bit, and dropping it. and see the damage and shock to the car, and would you sit in it ?     

For me case closed! it was crap!   

[JTCoyoté]

Space Vehicles: Blast Craters, from CLAVIUS...

The Conspiracists points are printed in red.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

" The lunar module's descent engine should have dug a huge crater in the lunar surface.

 I have yet to see a conspiracist who has given any kind of quantifiable justification for this belief. We could simply ask, "Why do you expect a crater?" and probably be done with it. A few have made vague references to other vehicles in other situations that produce some kind of visible interaction with the soil underneath them. But none can explain why that ought to be immediately generalized to include the lunar module.

 The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, for example, didn't produce any craters. And it directed even more downward thrust than the lunar module. Harrier jets and large helicopters routinely produce vast amounts of downward thrust without leaving large craters behind.

 The rocket engine's thrust was focused on one point for quite some time. Surely there would be a significant visible effect.

 Not necessarily. It's difficult to tell from the landing film footage just how high above the surface they were. But until the very last few seconds, the approach profile for the lunar module called for some forward motion. The exhaust probably wasn't focused on any one spot for very long.

 The notion that it was focused at all displays some misunderstanding of how rocket engines behave in a vacuum. Watch very carefully at the next rocket launch. As the rocket climbs higher and higher, the exhaust plume spreads out. Because the surrounding air gets thinner as the rocket climbs, there is less air pressure to impede the dispersal of the exhaust gasses.

 The lunar module's descent engine produced 10,000 pounds (4,550 kgf) of thrust. Surely 10,000 pounds of pressure is enough to dig a very large hole.

 Basic Newtonian physics solves this problem.

 "Weight" is simply the force of gravity between two masses. If something weighs a certain amount on earth, that's the same as saying a force of that amount exists between the earth and the object. The force of gravity is computed partly by multiplying the masses of the two objects in question. The moon has only a fraction of the mass of the earth, and so exerts much less gravity. The force between the moon and that same object would be only 1/6 as much.

 Galileo's principle lets us treat force, weight, and acceleration as identical concepts when dealing with gravity. A falling object accelerates downward because gravity imparts a constant force resulting in a constant acceleration. This acceleration produces an increase in downward velocity.

 So if you want to descend at a constant rate you have to precisely negate that gravitational force so that your acceleration along the vertical axis is zero. This means the net force along the vertical axis must also be zero. So if you can apply a force exactly equal to the force of gravity, but in the upward direction instead, you can achieve that constant velocity. (Hovering is the same principle, but with the constant velocity being zero in that case.)

 The Apollo 12 lunar module, for example, had a mass of 33,325 lbm (15,148 kg) fully loaded. On earth gravity would exert a force of 33,325 lbf on that spacecraft. But near the end of the descent it was not fully loaded. Most of the descent engine (DPS) propellant had been burned away. Fortunately there are ample references to how much DPS propellant was consumed. We can therefore calculate the weight of the lunar module very accurately as it neared touchdown. According to telemetry, 705 lbm (320 kg) of DPS propellants remained from an initial load of 18,226 lbm (8,285 kg).[Reports12] This means at touchdown the lunar module had shed at least 17,521 lbm (7,964 kg) by burning its descent fuel. Subtracting this from the launch mass gives a landing mass of 15,804 lbm (7,184 kg).

 Earth's gravity would exert a force of 15,804 lbf on that mass, but the moon's gravity exerts only one-sixth that much: 2,634 lbf.

 So in order to negate the downward force of 2,634 lbf we merely have to apply an upward force of the same magnitude. Therefore a thrust of 2,634 lbf was required to hover or descent at a constant rate.

 Yes, it really is that easy.

 This describes the situation seconds before touchdown. The initial descent was of course very fast. And so to slow the rate of descent it would have been necessary to apply a larger thrust that surpasses the force of gravity. This amount of thrust was applied at high altitude where it did not affect the lunar surface.

 By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.

 The published strength of the lunar module descent engine is 10,000 pounds, not 3,000 pounds. With weight at a premium on the lunar module, the designers wouldn't have specified an engine larger than necessary. Therefore it's wrong to say that only 3,000 pounds of thrust was applied. [Aulis]

 The published capacity of the lunar module descent engine (DPS) is indeed just under 10,000 lbf (4,550 kgf), and weight certainly was at a premium. But managing the descent and hovering over the lunar surface just prior to touchdown wasn't the DPS's only task. It was also used to perform orbital maneuvers prior to the landing. The lander was bloated with fuel and supplies at the start of the descent, and orbital maneuvers are very time-critical. Having a large engine ensured they were carried out precisely with short burns, not sloppily with long burns from a weaker engine. Further, should the astronauts have needed to abort the landing and ascend, the engine would have to produce much more thrust than the force of gravity.

 Physics is obviously a mystery to the folks at Aulis. They're clearly grasping at straws. With 10,000 lbf of thrust applied upward, a constant rate of descent would have required an equal force of lunar gravity applied to the lander in order to produce zero net force and therefore no acceleration. Since gravity is six times stronger on earth, this means the lander would have massed 60,000 lbm on earth -- nearly twice its published takeoff mass. Aulis is only looking at the published lunar lander data that supports his theory. Then they apparently hope the physics will all work itself out.

 They don't.

 When I worked at Rocketdyne I saw tests of engines as powerful as the lunar module descent engine. They can move boulders across canyons. The engine should have dug clear down to bedrock on the moon. [Bill Kaysing]

Table 1

 Mr. Kaysing is clearly exaggerating, or is perhaps confused. Since he is not a trained engineer and was merely a spectator at any tests he may have witnessed at Rocketdyne, he may have not known the rating of the engines he saw tested. Rocketdyne would eventually build the most powerful rocket engines in the Apollo program, the F-1, and was the clear choice to design and build large rocket engines. Perhaps Mr. Kaysing saw one of those being tested. Since Mr. Kaysing never specifies what projects at Rocketdyne he actually worked on, we simply have to decide whether to take him at his word.

 10,000 lbf is not a very powerful engine as engines go. As noted above, people intuitively believe that any rocket engine is automatically more powerful than any jet engine. In fact they produce thrust in exactly the same way: by ejecting high-velocity gas from the rear nozzle. Many jet engines are in fact quite a bit more powerful than the lunar module descent engine. And Kaysing also seems unaware that the LM engine would have to be throttled back to about 25% -- 2,634 lbf -- in order to land.

 Table 1 compares the thrust of some common engines, both rocket and jet. The Boeing 747 certainly has a tremendous thrust, and care must be taken when those engines are operated near airport equipment. The Boeing 737 is a more common aircraft and many air travelers have seen and felt its engines operating at various thrust levels around airport personnel and equipment. The lunar module descent engine at 25% throttle is about the same as taxi thrust (5%) of a 737, the amount of thrust used to get the aircraft moving after it has pushed back from the gate. You don't see it throwing baggage carts or workers across the ramp. It is hard to imagine it digging down to bedrock.

 The exhaust plume was very hot, about 5,000 F. It should have melted the lunar surface. Yet no there is no sign of melting in the photographs.

 The exhaust gas was 5,000 F in the combustion chamber, where most of the combustion took place. At the nozzle exit the temperature was about 2,800 F. And as the plume expands into the vacuum of space, it cools very rapidly, down to 1,000 F or so. By the time it strikes the lunar surface it is not hot enough to melt it.

 The lunar surface is composed of rock and dust. It takes a tremendous amount of heat concentrated on such material for a long period of time to melt it. We collected some desert rocks and dust and heated them with an oxy-acetylene torch (5,700 F) for five minutes. They did not melt, and they were only slightly discolored. Photographs of the area under the Apollo 11 descent engine nozzle (Fig. 2) show an apparently discolored surface.

 Is there any evidence in the photographic record of the effect of the lunar module's descent engine?

Fig. 1 - Closeup of the lower left corner of AS11-40-5920 (396 KB). The ground shows unmistakable
 signs of fluid erosion. The DPS plume would have swept the surface from lower left to upper right. (NASA)

In Fig. 1 the exhaust plume can be seen to have swept the surface from lower left to upper right. The DPS exhaust nozzle is out of frame to the lower left.



Fig. 2 - The lunar surface directly beneath Apollo 11's descent engine. The spot directly beneath is
discolored and the surrounding area shows radial patterns of fluid erosion and signs of sooting.
(NASA: AS11-40-5921, 316 KB).

 Fig. 2 shows the area directly beneath the engine. In the hi-res version the erosion pattern from the exhaust can be clearly seen. The area directly beneath the nozzle, which would have been subjected to the most heat, is discolored slightly red. This could be a thermal effect, or a chemical effect from the nitrogen tetroxide used as oxidizer.

 Note carefully the lines of erosion that spread out in a radial pattern away from the point of impingement.

 The conspiracists seem disappointed that a more dramatic result was not produced. Unfortunately this is what we expect to see under the lunar module. The exhaust plume is simply not powerful enough to dig holes in the tightly-packed regolith. " CLAVIUS...

--Oldyoti

"The mind once enlightened
cannot again become dark."
 ~Thomas Paine
Common Sense

[iks83]

Also watch the rest of the film regards moon trips and landings, The bit I posted about the photography was just a small excerpt from it.s in total Irrefutable  evidence it all a scam! More government lies. Like they lie about the economy, world events, financial aspects, military information. They lie and cheat about everything. This is just another lid blown off their cheating scam pot..

One point we mentioned regards the landing pod. I have since found out that engine was burning near 2000c or it should have been. Such heat would have caused the surrounding area to have liquefied and turned it into crystal, if a volcano can turn rock molten at around 1000 to 1200c what would it have done to the moon surface?  Regards cutting their engine early, what rubbish, something weighing 2 or 3 tons or more being dropped from 10 or 20ft even taking the 1/6 gravity aspect into account would have smashed those legs to bits. It would have been like dropping at least a 1000lbs plus dead weight from several feet 10/ 20ft in the air or more. could you imagine the shock though the whole landing craft! CRAP it never happened. You imagine taking your average small car lifting to the first floor and a bit, and dropping it. and see the damage and shock to the car, and would you sit in it ?     

For me case closed! it was crap!   

Mind closed! For someone who has no understanding about even the simplest physics and using Einstein as his avatar is an insult to the man. How do you know how hot the exhaust was at what distance to judge if it could melt something. You dont even put time into the equation. Ah there is no point talking to you. You made up your mind based on total BS claims.

[truth=freedom]

Forgive me if this was asked before but I wasn't about to read all 51 pages. In order for fire to burn it needs oxygen. Where does it get oxygen from in space? Also in the videos of the moon lander et all why does there appear to be no fire coming from the rocket engine?

[Unintelligable Name]

Forgive me if this was asked before but I wasn't about to read all 51 pages. In order for fire to burn it needs oxygen. Where does it get oxygen from in space? Also in the videos of the moon lander et all why does there appear to be no fire coming from the rocket engine?

It's not open flame/combustion... I think they're chemical rockets, meaning they don't combust/ignite via flame, which cause the gas to expand which goes out the free end generating thrust. On the moon lander thing anyway, dunno.

Excerpt I just found: "Some engines ignite by 'hypergolic' effect. This is how the moon lander engines worked. There was no spark plug! They used nitrogen tetroxide (or similar) and hydrazine (monomethyl hydrazine). When these chemicals come together, they will spontaneously ignite"

But this explains your question: "When the propellants (fuel and oxidizer) are first injected, the pressure begins to build up in the chamber and then the torch comes on (or the hypergolic propellants meet up). There is enough pressure due to the pumping or pressurizing to sustain initial combustion. Then--whammo--you reach 'main stage'. In steady-state operation, the throat is 'choked' meaning that the flow at the throat is at the speed of sound. It can't go any faster at that point."

Basically says you create the needed "oxygen environment" within the rocket itself to initiate combustion.

[EvadingGrid]

* EvadingGrid rofl

[iceman2]

Mind closed! For someone who has no understanding about even the simplest physics and using Einstein as his avatar is an insult to the man. How do you know how hot the exhaust was at what distance to judge if it could melt something. You dont even put time into the equation. Ah there is no point talking to you. You made up your mind based on total BS claims.

So now who is picking what to believe regards laws of physics! You just brush over a whole bunch of valid discoveries and facts, highly qualified, very experienced people have made, saying gross generalized statements like, BS with totally no, rational, or contrary scientifically established rational behind you! Listen you NUT! these guys know far more about film and photo analysis then you an I will ever know. and they base there finds on established FACTS not BS, which is all you appear to offer as an alternative! Give it up you have lost! Listen to these people, they KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ON ABOUT! Unlike you and me. The pictures and footage are not genuine, IT's A FACT.  

You have a bunch of guys who known more about this area than us, and also another bunch of guys who know more about it than us! one lot says they did go, and the other say they did not go! we can only go on what those who know more than us say. It was clear to me from the film, one side offered nothing analytically or scientificaly to support the claim they went, other than vague insults about those who say they did not! On the other hand, Like the 9/11 stuff, if our conspiracy claims are such crap, why don't they sit down, and factually, rationally, scientificaly, answer the counter claims. Why? because like 9/11 THEY CAN"T. thats why I choose the side which offers a rational explanation and not the side which makes vague, generalized attacks and insults!

In other words it makes sense, when not offered any better to consider!           

[iks83]

So now who is picking what to believe regards laws of physics! You just brush over a whole bunch of valid discoveries and facts, highly qualified, very experienced people have made, saying gross generalized statements like, BS with totally no, rational, or contrary scientifically established rational behind you! Listen you NUT! these guys know far more about film and photo analysis then you an I will ever know. and they base there finds on established FACTS not BS, which is all you appear to offer as an alternative! Give it up you have lost! Listen to these people, they KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ON ABOUT! Unlike you and me. The pictures and footage are not genuine, IT's A FACT.  

You have a bunch of guys who known more about this area than us, and also another bunch of guys who know more about it than us! one lot says they did go, and the other say they did not go! we can only go on what those who know more than us say. It was clear to me from the film, one side offered nothing analytically or scientificaly to support the claim they went, other than vague insults about those who say they did not! On the other hand, Like the 9/11 stuff, if our conspiracy claims are such crap, why don't they sit down, and factually, rationally, scientificaly, answer the counter claims. Why? because like 9/11 THEY CAN"T. thats why I choose the side which offers a rational explanation and not the side which makes vague, generalized attacks and insults!

In other words it makes sense, when not offered any better to consider!           

Give me one valid discovery and fact made by one of those highly qualified and very expierienced people. I have yet to see one and the more I look into those moon hoax evidence the more I see it as utter BS. Why don't they sit down and answer claims? Because it has been done over and over and over and over and over again and today on thousands of websites. Also some of those claims are so OBVIOUS to be totally BS that it must arouse anger. And those claims doesnt make sense... there are 10000 explanations that make much more sense and can be proven to be much more plausible. And you cant compare 9/11 with the moon landing. The moon landing hoax is one of those conspiracies to discredit all actual conspiracies.

[iceman2]

Give me one valid discovery and fact made by one of those highly qualified and very expierienced people. I have yet to see one and the more I look into those moon hoax evidence the more I see it as utter BS. Why don't they sit down and answer claims? Because it has been done over and over and over and over and over again and today on thousands of websites. Also some of those claims are so OBVIOUS to be totally BS that it must arouse anger. And those claims doesnt make sense... there are 10000 explanations that make much more sense and can be proven to be much more plausible. And you cant compare 9/11 with the moon landing. The moon landing hoax is one of those conspiracies to discredit all actual conspiracies.

Well I on this occasion I have concede defeat! Yes your right, people have been to the moon. In fact I would go one stage further! some are still on it, and appears on this occasion your one of them. You prove beyond a shadow of a doubt people have been to the moon, your living proof! And as some have said, on other topics about me, which proves there are aliens! As I am supposed to be a MORON! Well you must be a Mooon-on, it's the only plausible answer. But BS, must be some secret code or language you mooon-on's use!   

God help us all!   

[Jackson Holly]

JT:

A lot of the stuff that is being touted as lunar movies/photos, are from Hollywood productions and it is obvious they are... and just because some guy puts the movie up on youtube saying that they are from NASA, doesn't mean that they are from NASA... this is why this entire slant in the argument/discussion is nothing but a red herring. I have two catalogs of contact prints from the early Apollo missions... if these guys cannot cite a film frame number, or film sequence number... then I can only assume that they are outtakes from one of the miriad Hollywood productions...

The images that I will be posting, will have these NASA numbers... and they will show what's there, and not something that the movie guys screwed up... all of this photo/movie stuff is muddying this subject, because there has been no proof that any of this so far is NASA imagery...However, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that our friend einstein here can tell us all the names of all the NASA debunking movies to date, back to before Capricorn One... So if were going to discuss film here, then let's get some NASA numbers on that film so it can be traced and proven to be NASA, before we waste our time with it... that means you too, Einstein!

~~~ REAL or FAKED? ~~~

JTCoyoté is right about the fact that we have to be careful with the photography out there in discussing this stuff. NASA was very guarded from the very begining with the release of footage and stills, doling out a few pics and a bit of video for propaganda purposes ... whether or not the moon landings were real or faked.

Our earlier discussion of the “lost” NASA material begins on about page 9 and runs for a few pages .... but it is well established that NASA reports that ALL original footage from the NASA landings was “lost” ... not just the few minutes from the first APOLLO 11. You have to be very trusting of our loving government NOT to smell a pile of you-know-what!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg680625#msg680625

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg687105#msg687105
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, by coincidence, this was about the time that it was becoming obvious that the Internet was about to take over the world (mid `80s), that the original material ‘disappeared’ out of storage ... and NASA got busy producing material from the ‘copies’ of the video that they did have laying around (and voluminous stills), to release on their new-fangled websites.

Any number of photo specialist were involved in ‘cleaning up’, ‘re-constructing’, ‘compositing’, 'manipulating' for it's release ... sometimes pointing out the faked stuff ... and apparently, sometimes not. And of course, with the state of the art today ... LOOK OUT! We have totally lost our grasp on where reality might lie.

We have to wonder if they didn’t fake it all ... they could have ... these pages show how it could have been done ... just like Hollywood does it.

So, here are a few photographs I found on NASA pages which they readily admit are faked/composited. I’ll give links to the hi-rez and please do check them out ... some are meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but really, they are very convincing .... you gotta wonder.

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/SaluteFlag.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/NewLookStation2Boulder.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/ap15-STATION-7L.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17leftovers.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/AP15_AT%20THE%20TERRACE_7.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~


Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.1653338_dmh.jpg

All or most of these photos are here:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[JTCoyoté]

Also watch the rest of the film regards moon trips and landings, The bit I posted about the photography was just a small excerpt from it.s in total Irrefutable  evidence it all a scam! More government lies. Like they lie about the economy, world events, financial aspects, military information. They lie and cheat about everything. This is just another lid blown off their cheating scam pot..

One point we mentioned regards the landing pod. I have since found out that engine was burning near 2000c or it should have been. Such heat would have caused the surrounding area to have liquefied and turned it into crystal, if a volcano can turn rock molten at around 1000 to 1200c what would it have done to the moon surface?  Regards cutting their engine early, what rubbish, something weighing 2 or 3 tons or more being dropped from 10 or 20ft even taking the 1/6 gravity aspect into account would have smashed those legs to bits. It would have been like dropping at least a 1000lbs plus dead weight from several feet 10/ 20ft in the air or more. could you imagine the shock though the whole landing craft! CRAP it never happened. You imagine taking your average small car lifting to the first floor and a bit, and dropping it. and see the damage and shock to the car, and would you sit in it ?    

For me case closed! it was crap!  

As my previous post points out, your analogy here is as ridiculous as most of the things that you posted, and show nothing but your opinionated arrogance as well as your complete ignorance of science... you are here obviously, as a red herring dragging, purveyor of strawman, iceman2.

And iks83, you have allowed this guy to get under your skin... neither one of you in your last four posts have addressed any of the real evidence that is being presented... if you continue with this little feud you are having on these pages, I will begin deleting your posts. There are people who want to know the truth here and your personality conflict merely leads us all away from the evidence being posted.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Coyoté

"To argue with a person who has renounced
the use of reason is like administering
medicine to the dead."
~Thomas Paine

[JTCoyoté]

JT:

~~~ REAL or FAKED? ~~~

JTCoyoté is right about the fact that we have to be careful with the photography out there in discussing this stuff. NASA was very guarded from the very begining with the release of footage and stills, doling out a few pics and a bit of video for propaganda purposes ... whether or not the moon landings were real or faked.

Our earlier discussion of the “lost” NASA material begins on about page 9 and runs for a few pages .... but it is well established that NASA reports that ALL original footage from the NASA landings was “lost” ... not just the few minutes from the first APOLLO 11. You have to be very trusting of our loving government NOT to smell a pile of you-know-what!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg680625#msg680625

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg687105#msg687105
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, by coincidence, this was about the time that it was becoming obvious that the Internet was about to take over the world (mid `80s), that the original material ‘disappeared’ out of storage ... and NASA got busy producing material from the ‘copies’ of the video that they did have laying around (and voluminous stills), to release on their new-fangled websites.

Any number of photo specialist were involved in ‘cleaning up’, ‘re-constructing’, ‘compositing’, 'manipulating' for it's release ... sometimes pointing out the faked stuff ... and apparently, sometimes not. And of course, with the state of the art today ... LOOK OUT! We have totally lost our grasp on where reality might lie.

We have to wonder if they didn’t fake it all ... they could have ... these pages show how it could have been done ... just like Hollywood does it.

So, here are a few photographs I found on NASA pages which they readily admit are faked/composited. I’ll give links to the hi-rez and please do check them out ... some are meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but really, they are very convincing .... you gotta wonder.

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/SaluteFlag.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/NewLookStation2Boulder.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/ap15-STATION-7L.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17leftovers.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/AP15_AT%20THE%20TERRACE_7.jpg

~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~

Hi Rez:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.1653338_dmh.jpg

All or most of these photos are here:  http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jackson,

You will have to point out what it is you see as anomalous with regard to these pictures... understanding the two f-stop/two shutter speed arrangement of the weak fisheye lens on the Hasselblad's... and the 0 atmosphere effect on depth of field, given the corrected close/infinity focus of the system... very much like the point-and-shoot cameras of today... what exactly are you looking at here.

JTCoyoté

"The Democrats and the Republicans are the two wings of
the same bird of prey, that is feasting upon the Constitution
and the American people."
~Pat Buchanan

[Jackson Holly]

^^^

JT, I wasn't showing them because they were anomalous or anything ... just the opposite ... they are not straight photos, they were photoshopped (or something else before photoshop) by NASA employees or wannabes, and look like all the rest! Just trying to make the point that it is near-impossible to tell what is real. I made some other posts with the Real or Faked? headline ... meant it to fit in with those. I have another post coming up showing how I was bamboozled by a fake earlier.

[Dig]

You want to know the purpose of NASA?

Arsenal of Hypocrisy
59 min - Apr 23, 2006 -    
The Space Program and the Military Industrial Complex
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456

[iceman2]

^^^

JT, I wasn't showing them because they were anomalous or anything ... just the opposite ... they are not straight photos, they were photoshopped (or something else before photoshop) by NASA employees or wannabes, and look like all the rest! Just trying to make the point that it is near-impossible to tell what is real. I made some other posts with the Real or Faked? headline ... meant it to fit in with those. I have another post coming up showing how I was bamboozled by a fake earlier.

So trusting what your saying is reasonable: film and stills photos, as we know can easily  be faked or modified in any number of ways, there leaves very little hard evidence, other than what the media have have said we went there at all! And we all know how we can trust what they say don't we.

regards those other inflammatory comments, the moderator was making statements about, regards my stupid comments and ridiculous claims. Before he wipes some of the previous comments off. I would like to ask one thing. If what these guys on the film were saying was rubbish, and it's so wrong, to him, and they know nothing about the subject they are debunking, with HPD's in physics, and over 25 years experience in photo analysis.   obviously as he said they know nothing about science. This must be so as, I was using their finding as my argument, I was only repeating and pointing other to their work and findings.   Perhaps he would like to furnish us with his qualifications and experience in this area, so we all know the quality of his his opinions. But somehow, I doubt this will happen! The posts will be deleted and the request will be brushed aside. In which case it will indicate such attitudes towards others are little better than those who run society already, There way or the highway, control, and more control! I watch and await the response!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!           

[Jackson Holly]

Iceman, JT is an optical expert and he does know what he is talking about. I may not totally agree with him all the time about NASA and the Moon landings, but he may be the perfect person to make the case FOR their side.

[EvadingGrid]

Great Video on NAZI NASA

You want to know the purpose of NASA?

Arsenal of Hypocrisy

59 min - Apr 23, 2006 -    

The Space Program and the Military Industrial Complex

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456

Cheers Sane,
really enjoyed that film.

[Jackson Holly]

^^^

That is a great movie, SANE ... really points out the pure insanity on many levels, of the NAZI concept "War in Space" ... people have watched way too much star wars predictive programming if they believe for an instant that is a viable concept:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=26984.msg107612#msg107612

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=26984.msg107626#msg107626

[JTCoyoté]

^^^

JT, I wasn't showing them because they were anomalous or anything ... just the opposite ... they are not straight photos, they were photoshopped (or something else before photoshop) by NASA employees or wannabes, and look like all the rest! Just trying to make the point that it is near-impossible to tell what is real. I made some other posts with the Real or Faked? headline ... meant it to fit in with those. I have another post coming up showing how I was bamboozled by a fake earlier.

Jackson, a lot of photographs and films that are floating around, are faked, intentionally so, in order to further muddy the water... and others are bona fide originals or NASA reconstructions.

When I wish to make a record of something, I will always use one of my film cameras primarily because it requires a negative to produce the print... and it is very hard to get a faked negative past a good photo expert.

In any case, this is primarily why I stand on the position that since we are analyzing NASA here, that only NASA photographs be used. That lessens the possibility of getting sidetracked by an intentional red herring.

Some time back I saw a website with originals, and the cleanups side-by-side that were produced from the original negatives. However in the present environment, with so much photo shopped stuff around, as well as doctored movie footage... it is insane to buy into the idea that by analyzing the images and the images only, you will somehow conclude whether or not we have sent men to the moon... the idea is ludicrous.

There is so much more evidence that shows that we have gone. I can go down to McDonald Observatory, and watch the on going laser experiments as they project and retrieve the laser signal from the reflector arrays that were placed there by the astronauts... in the ongoing project of measuring down to the millimeter, perturbations in the moon's orbit.

The bottom line is this controversy has become one of who has the better photo shoppers, and nothing more. If all we have to go on is a photographic record... then we will never know the truth.

JTCoyoté

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active
part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from
ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances,
their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations
of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor,
property, and lives of their people."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823

[Dig]

Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner

18th National Space Symposium – April 11, 2002
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/thompson.html
Dave Thompson
President & CEO, Spectrum Astro

Dave Thompson: Thank you Elliot.  Before I start my remarks, I think everybody in this room tonight ought to go out and buy one of those radio receivers.  We have some real pioneers here.  You know a lot of these commercial ventures have had trouble.  I think the least thing we can do is support the people in our industry who are pioneers, so my hat is off to these folks.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a nice video for you tonight including some remarks by our commander-in-chief, but as I was preparing my introduction for that, several people approached me from this crowd.  Please, no offense Elliot, but they told me that some of the sessions were a little boring.  One guy said, “You know I brought all of my crossword puzzles and I worked them in the back row.  So Dave, could you please spice it up a little bit tonight?  Could you maybe inject a little something that people can think about after the symposium is over?” 

So I racked my brain and I tried to think of who or what I could talk about tonight to send a useful message to such a distinguished audience.  Well, I couldn't jump on the industry like I did three years ago because they are making good progress.  And I won't talk about the Air Force, because as you will see in our video, their stuff is working pretty well right now.  Take a guess.  Well, what about NASA?  I talked about the great turnaround that they did last year - three guys.  So who's left - DARPA and NOAA - they seem to be doing fine so we can't have any fun there. 

Oh yes, then there's that other space agency - the one that spends a big fraction of the GNP - the National Reconnaissance Office or the NRO.  I think I can say that since I used to work there a few years ago.  Lets take an unclassified look at how the NRO is doing tonight.  You know, I went to the NRO's Web site today.  They have a public Web site now and on their Web site it says "One team revolutionizing global reconnaissance."  Let me repeat that: "One team revolutionizing global reconnaissance." 

Well, maybe they are one team but they aren't revolutionizing anything at the NRO.  They're evolving at about the speed fish evolved into reptiles.  Oh there's more.  Perhaps a better slogan for the NRO's Web site would be "You could buy better but you can't pay more."  For you see, the image that the NRO likes to portray to all of us regular people is the image of being lean, mean, fast and black.  Sadly today, the NRO is none of those.  Well, they'll probably be mean to me after they hear this pitch tonight.  But I say if you can't take the heat, get out of your mahogany paneled office. 

Over the past decade, the NRO has posted a sorry decline into mediocrity and aristocracy.  Today's NRO is a rogue agency arrogant and holier than thou.  And you know when you are holier than thou then you had better be holy.  Just ask the Catholic Church’s bishops about that.  The NRO staff is a know-it-all about everything.  You've dealt with them - you can't tell them anything.  They already know far more than you do. 

But there are a few things that the NRO is doing right, and I have one serious comment that I would like to make.  Today's NRO's security apparatus is 75% more efficient, 300% faster and focused on the right issues, and my hat goes off to the improved security program at the NRO.  And I hope you will join me in some applause for that because they worked that hard. 

Now beyond that let me tell you that the NRO knows how to build one hell of an office building.  They have the nicest office complex in all of America, granite and marble, soaring stainless steel and glass, and mahogany desks in private offices.  That new NRO Taj Mahal is really nice and they have the nicest cafeteria in all of America.  You can eat in little Mexico, little Italy, you can have southern grits and bacon, eight kinds of bread, five kinds of gourmet soup and sixteen toppings for your ice cream dessert.  Chairman Walker could you get President Bush and Laura out for Sunday brunch?  I'm sure they must have Sunday Brunch at the NRO cafeteria.  I promise you it's nicer than the White House cafeteria.  But where are those revolutionary satellites that they promised us? 

Lets blow up some myths about the NRO.  First, we know that they are not cheaper - they admit that, but they claim to be better.  Remember what I said about being holy?  For example, there was this one satellite system that they built a few years ago where they spent about $200 million redesigning the power sub system to make sure that they didn't run low on power a few days of the year.  Now you've heard of the $600 toilet seat.  I call that the $200 million light switch that’s called gold plating and you would call it waste. 

For $150 million NASA flew to Mars, landed on the planet, dropped off a Rover and sent back data for a month.  For $200 million the NRO bought a five-day insurance policy.  Now they claim to be streamlined and have the best-streamlined procurement system that’s faster - and that’s not true either.  The average time for the NRO to deploy a new major system to first launch is about ten years.  Actually they're slower than the Air Force and NASA.  Of course, that includes time for them to mangle the procurement a couple of times, decide what to do two or three times and actually build something.  In fact, I think a careful evaluation will show that the NRO has the worst track record for successfully completing first time procurements than the Air Force does. 

And they are certainly not lean.  They have thousands of staff members out there at the Taj Mahal, seas of contractors at their headquarters to make their viewgraphs and to do endless studies on what to do.  The NRO never heard of spiral, or maybe they lost the recipe in the last ten years, I don't know.  You know the NRO's procurement policy could be better described in three steps.  I call this the policy of the smoked filled room.  Step one - get all of the graybeards into the smoke filled room.  Step two - close the door.  Step three - pick the club member contractor who sucked up best. 

Well, I guess that does it for me.  What about the area of Industrial Base Management?  You know we've heard a lot about Industrial Base. I would say that the Industrial Base Management Policy of the NRO could best be described as lurching - lurching back and forth from over concentration at one contractor to over concentration at another, frittering away key investments and payload technology. 

A good example of that was on FIAF which was publicly announced a few years ago where they bundled the procurement and they vaporized huge investments in industrial base and technology.  Maybe Norman will have a few comments about that later.  Unfortunately, none of this has done anything to make innovative new satellites to fight Al Qaeda, which is our number one priority today. 

So I ask again, where are the innovative new satellites at a time when our president - who you're going to hear from in a minute - and the office of the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries are calling for transforming the military and skipping a generation of technology in some new systems.  The NRO is actually moving backwards, getting less capability and fielding less capable technology for the future.  You know the NRO's real slogan should be "Buying Yesterday's Technology at Tomorrow’s Prices." 

But of all the things that I have discussed tonight, the worst is yet to come.  The last bastion of NRO pride and arrogance is their technical performance, which has slowly melted away.  The NRO has suffered a shocking decline in the technical performance of its satellites over the past several years.  They haven't told you about that because it’s been kept behind those doors. 

At an unclassified level, let me describe how serious this is, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Satellites, where the primary mission payload failed a few days after launch.  Satellites - where components got so hot that they actually melted causing mission failure due to thermal analysis failures, something that we've known about since the 1960's.  Satellites - which after spending billions of dollars in development cannot perform their basic housekeeping functions, which we've been demonstrating again since the 1960's.  Satellites - which again, after spending billions of dollars in development, the primary payload does not meet its basic performance specifications.  It's the NRO's own version of the Hubble Space Telescope.  And that satellite that we spent the extra two hundred million on for the light switch, it had constant power upsets to its computer once it got in orbit.  Many satellites never even got launched as they meandered their way through years of technical and program management mismanagement.  Yet no one was held accountable.

I can't even describe many more technical disasters, as it would be too revealing.  Everything that I just described to you, and much more, was just swept quietly under the rug.  And then they have the nerve to beat their chest and make fun of the Air Force and NASA.  I say they are a bunch of hypocrites.  And I hear that some people are considering sending SBIRS High or Mil Satcom over to be executed by the NRO.  All I can say to that is "good luck." 

Last but not least, the NRO exhibits an astounding lack of revolutionary innovation to get Al Qaeda.  It's not because of a lack of good ideas.  They are getting tons of good ideas thrown at them.  The overrunning large programs are sucking every possible dollar out of the future cutting-edge projects.  What is the NRO's staffs answer to that? "We need more money."  Well, maybe they do, because we've got to get the capability somehow, but first I think they need a swift kick in the pants. 

So how can we fix the NRO?  It's too complex to discuss in the limited time we have available tonight, but I think we should start with accountability.  Luckily, we have three newly seated and highly qualified people who can fix the NRO if they will: Secretary Aldridge, Secretary Teets, who we heard from yesterday, and Mr. Fitzgerald.  We don't need, please, another commission or another panel or another group of graybeards. 

So, I call upon these men tonight and I call upon the NRO's employees.  I'm sure a few are in the audience tonight. I call upon you all in the audience tonight.  I call upon the space commanders that are here tonight, the Congressional Oversight Committees, and the White House itself and I call on Chairman Walker and the White House - please fix the broken NRO.  Tonight our country is at war, our young troops are on a battlefield a half a world away.  We would like to show you how our military space systems are helping them win and how we are going to make them even better for the future.  We'd like to open that with some words from our commander-in-chief.

[iceman2]

Jackson, a lot of photographs and films that are floating around, are faked, intentionally so, in order to further muddy the water... and others are bona fide originals or NASA reconstructions.

When I wish to make a record of something, I will always use one of my film cameras primarily because it requires a negative to produce the print... and it is very hard to get a faked negative past a good photo expert.

In any case, this is primarily why I stand on the position that since we are analyzing NASA here, that only NASA photographs be used. That lessens the possibility of getting sidetracked by an intentional red herring.

Some time back I saw a website with originals, and the cleanups side-by-side that were produced from the original negatives. However in the present environment, with so much photo shopped stuff around, as well as doctored movie footage... it is insane to buy into the idea that by analyzing the images and the images only, you will somehow conclude whether or not we have sent men to the moon... the idea is ludicrous.

There is so much more evidence that shows that we have gone. I can go down to McDonald Observatory, and watch the on going laser experiments as they project and retrieve the laser signal from the reflector arrays that were placed there by the astronauts... in the ongoing project of measuring down to the millimeter, perturbations in the moon's orbit.

The bottom line is this controversy has become one of who has the better photo shoppers, and nothing more. If all we have to go on is a photographic record... then we will never know the truth.

JTCoyoté

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active
part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from
ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances,
their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations
of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor,
property, and lives of their people."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823

So Ok: I am interested to know, how would you know what you are looking at are the originals? I can also see your point regards negatives and their importance, So as I am reading this, unless your there with those negs and take those prints off yourself, or at least watching the process, there seems no way anyone could say they are completely correct, accurate, and genuine.
Anyway, Those other guys in the film, would, I presume also have a significant level of knowledge about Photo shop or other picture manipulating software, and I would not have thought they would have gone to all that effort if they did not know, or feel they had the best or nearest to original material to work from in the first place. \

Photography and chemical science is not my area. My area is, communicative linguistic logic, logic, philosophy, and Psychology, of which I to am well qualified, hence I often pick up on logical, progressive inconsistency occurrences, in approaches to resolutions of a debate where differing opinions are offered. They are not structured progressive and deductive in searching for a commonly accepted truth. The approach to many areas are fractured and defused, hence nothing is ever concluded or resolved.           

[JTCoyoté]

Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner

18th National Space Symposium – April 11, 2002
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/thompson.html
Dave Thompson
President & CEO, Spectrum Astro

Dave Thompson: Thank you Elliot.  Before I start my remarks, I think everybody in this room tonight ought to go out and buy one of those radio receivers.  We have some real pioneers here.  You know a lot of these commercial ventures have had trouble.  I think the least thing we can do is support the people in our industry who are pioneers, so my hat is off to these folks.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a nice video for you tonight including some remarks by our commander-in-chief, but as I was preparing my introduction for that, several people approached me from this crowd.  Please, no offense Elliot, but they told me that some of the sessions were a little boring.  One guy said, “You know I brought all of my crossword puzzles and I worked them in the back row.  So Dave, could you please spice it up a little bit tonight?  Could you maybe inject a little something that people can think about after the symposium is over?”  

So I racked my brain and I tried to think of who or what I could talk about tonight to send a useful message to such a distinguished audience.  Well, I couldn't jump on the industry like I did three years ago because they are making good progress.  And I won't talk about the Air Force, because as you will see in our video, their stuff is working pretty well right now.  Take a guess.  Well, what about NASA?  I talked about the great turnaround that they did last year - three guys.  So who's left - DARPA and NOAA - they seem to be doing fine so we can't have any fun there.  

Oh yes, then there's that other space agency - the one that spends a big fraction of the GNP - the National Reconnaissance Office or the NRO.  I think I can say that since I used to work there a few years ago.  Lets take an unclassified look at how the NRO is doing tonight.  You know, I went to the NRO's Web site today.  They have a public Web site now and on their Web site it says "One team revolutionizing global reconnaissance."  Let me repeat that: "One team revolutionizing global reconnaissance."  

Well, maybe they are one team but they aren't revolutionizing anything at the NRO.  They're evolving at about the speed fish evolved into reptiles.  Oh there's more.  Perhaps a better slogan for the NRO's Web site would be "You could buy better but you can't pay more."  For you see, the image that the NRO likes to portray to all of us regular people is the image of being lean, mean, fast and black.  Sadly today, the NRO is none of those.  Well, they'll probably be mean to me after they hear this pitch tonight.  But I say if you can't take the heat, get out of your mahogany paneled office.  

Over the past decade, the NRO has posted a sorry decline into mediocrity and aristocracy.  Today's NRO is a rogue agency arrogant and holier than thou.  And you know when you are holier than thou then you had better be holy.  Just ask the Catholic Church’s bishops about that.  The NRO staff is a know-it-all about everything.  You've dealt with them - you can't tell them anything.  They already know far more than you do.  

But there are a few things that the NRO is doing right, and I have one serious comment that I would like to make.  Today's NRO's security apparatus is 75% more efficient, 300% faster and focused on the right issues, and my hat goes off to the improved security program at the NRO.  And I hope you will join me in some applause for that because they worked that hard.  

Now beyond that let me tell you that the NRO knows how to build one hell of an office building.  They have the nicest office complex in all of America, granite and marble, soaring stainless steel and glass, and mahogany desks in private offices.  That new NRO Taj Mahal is really nice and they have the nicest cafeteria in all of America.  You can eat in little Mexico, little Italy, you can have southern grits and bacon, eight kinds of bread, five kinds of gourmet soup and sixteen toppings for your ice cream dessert.  Chairman Walker could you get President Bush and Laura out for Sunday brunch?  I'm sure they must have Sunday Brunch at the NRO cafeteria.  I promise you it's nicer than the White House cafeteria.  But where are those revolutionary satellites that they promised us?  

Lets blow up some myths about the NRO.  First, we know that they are not cheaper - they admit that, but they claim to be better.  Remember what I said about being holy?  For example, there was this one satellite system that they built a few years ago where they spent about $200 million redesigning the power sub system to make sure that they didn't run low on power a few days of the year.  Now you've heard of the $600 toilet seat.  I call that the $200 million light switch that’s called gold plating and you would call it waste.  

For $150 million NASA flew to Mars, landed on the planet, dropped off a Rover and sent back data for a month.  For $200 million the NRO bought a five-day insurance policy.  Now they claim to be streamlined and have the best-streamlined procurement system that’s faster - and that’s not true either.  The average time for the NRO to deploy a new major system to first launch is about ten years.  Actually they're slower than the Air Force and NASA.  Of course, that includes time for them to mangle the procurement a couple of times, decide what to do two or three times and actually build something.  In fact, I think a careful evaluation will show that the NRO has the worst track record for successfully completing first time procurements than the Air Force does.  

And they are certainly not lean.  They have thousands of staff members out there at the Taj Mahal, seas of contractors at their headquarters to make their viewgraphs and to do endless studies on what to do.  The NRO never heard of spiral, or maybe they lost the recipe in the last ten years, I don't know.  You know the NRO's procurement policy could be better described in three steps.  I call this the policy of the smoked filled room.  Step one - get all of the graybeards into the smoke filled room.  Step two - close the door.  Step three - pick the club member contractor who sucked up best.  

Well, I guess that does it for me.  What about the area of Industrial Base Management?  You know we've heard a lot about Industrial Base. I would say that the Industrial Base Management Policy of the NRO could best be described as lurching - lurching back and forth from over concentration at one contractor to over concentration at another, frittering away key investments and payload technology.  

A good example of that was on FIAF which was publicly announced a few years ago where they bundled the procurement and they vaporized huge investments in industrial base and technology.  Maybe Norman will have a few comments about that later.  Unfortunately, none of this has done anything to make innovative new satellites to fight Al Qaeda, which is our number one priority today.  

So I ask again, where are the innovative new satellites at a time when our president - who you're going to hear from in a minute - and the office of the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries are calling for transforming the military and skipping a generation of technology in some new systems.  The NRO is actually moving backwards, getting less capability and fielding less capable technology for the future.  You know the NRO's real slogan should be "Buying Yesterday's Technology at Tomorrow’s Prices."  

But of all the things that I have discussed tonight, the worst is yet to come.  The last bastion of NRO pride and arrogance is their technical performance, which has slowly melted away.  The NRO has suffered a shocking decline in the technical performance of its satellites over the past several years.  They haven't told you about that because it’s been kept behind those doors.  

At an unclassified level, let me describe how serious this is, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Satellites, where the primary mission payload failed a few days after launch.  Satellites - where components got so hot that they actually melted causing mission failure due to thermal analysis failures, something that we've known about since the 1960's.  Satellites - which after spending billions of dollars in development cannot perform their basic housekeeping functions, which we've been demonstrating again since the 1960's.  Satellites - which again, after spending billions of dollars in development, the primary payload does not meet its basic performance specifications.  It's the NRO's own version of the Hubble Space Telescope.  And that satellite that we spent the extra two hundred million on for the light switch, it had constant power upsets to its computer once it got in orbit.  Many satellites never even got launched as they meandered their way through years of technical and program management mismanagement.  Yet no one was held accountable.

I can't even describe many more technical disasters, as it would be too revealing.  Everything that I just described to you, and much more, was just swept quietly under the rug.  And then they have the nerve to beat their chest and make fun of the Air Force and NASA.  I say they are a bunch of hypocrites.  And I hear that some people are considering sending SBIRS High or Mil Satcom over to be executed by the NRO.  All I can say to that is "good luck."  

Last but not least, the NRO exhibits an astounding lack of revolutionary innovation to get Al Qaeda.  It's not because of a lack of good ideas.  They are getting tons of good ideas thrown at them.  The overrunning large programs are sucking every possible dollar out of the future cutting-edge projects.  What is the NRO's staffs answer to that? "We need more money."  Well, maybe they do, because we've got to get the capability somehow, but first I think they need a swift kick in the pants.  

So how can we fix the NRO?  It's too complex to discuss in the limited time we have available tonight, but I think we should start with accountability.  Luckily, we have three newly seated and highly qualified people who can fix the NRO if they will: Secretary Aldridge, Secretary Teets, who we heard from yesterday, and Mr. Fitzgerald.  We don't need, please, another commission or another panel or another group of graybeards.  

So, I call upon these men tonight and I call upon the NRO's employees.  I'm sure a few are in the audience tonight. I call upon you all in the audience tonight.  I call upon the space commanders that are here tonight, the Congressional Oversight Committees, and the White House itself and I call on Chairman Walker and the White House - please fix the broken NRO.  Tonight our country is at war, our young troops are on a battlefield a half a world away.  We would like to show you how our military space systems are helping them win and how we are going to make them even better for the future.  We'd like to open that with some words from our commander-in-chief.

Sane,

Thank you for this little glimpse into the NRO, NASA's gluttonous evil twin Skippy. Over the last decade or so, some of their technology has filtered over into bona fide NASA projects, like the LRO, (lunar reconnaissance orbiter) and the HiRISE Mars reconnaissance orbiter. These two missions are actually doing some science, rather than just orbiting the earth, cataloging resources, and monitoring the movements of individuals on earth, using black operations and advanced technology financed off budget by our tax dollars, into the hands of the global elite.

The whole idea of "no landings" and the demonizing of NASA to hide this nasty little NRO secret, while making NASA look like the evil one, the one stealing all the money, the one creating all of the side technology to be used against the people... and lord knows what else... this is finger pointing slight of hand obfuscation... your basic dipole finagling.

And the video you linked to, gets to the heart of today's technological "fascist/socialist" system and its more recent history... which includes convincing the American people that somehow we defeated the fascists, the so-called globalists after World War II, and then, the globalist communist socialists later when the Wall of the "Cold War" fell...

Most don't realize that these groups, this dichotomy, or controlled dipole, can trace it's lineage under various competing names clear back to the beginning of the "quest for the world." The most recent having begun as the competition between the British East India Co. and the Dutch East India Co. in the 1530s under the reign of Elizabeth I.  Everything we see today is an outgrowth of this latest, elitist controlled system.

JTCoyoté

"All government without the consent of the
governed is the very definition of slavery."
~Jonathan Swift

[iceman2]

Looks like a return trip to the moon is impossible....or at least almost.

 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1185467.html



WASHINGTON -- NASA doesn't have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 -- and it might be the wrong place to go, anyway. That's one of the harsh messages emerging from a sweeping review of NASA's human space flight program.

The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, has been trying to stitch together some kind of plausible strategy for America's manned space program. The panel has struggled to find options that stay under the current budget and include missions worthy of the cost and effort.

The committee members will meet with administration officials Friday and will report that there is no realistic way to get Americans back on the moon by the target date of 2020, which has been the agency's goal since President George W. Bush signed off on the ``Vision for Space Exploration'' in 2004. Landing on the moon by 2020 would require such drastic budgetary maneuvers as de-orbiting the International Space Station -- crashing it into the South Pacific -- in 2016.

The final list of options being explored by the Augustine group will include some variation of a lunar base down the road. But the committee is most animated by what it calls the ``Deep Space'' option, a strategy that emphasizes getting astronauts far beyond Low Earth Orbit but not necessarily plunking them down on alien worlds.

Instead, the ``Deep Space'' strategy would send them to near-Earth asteroids and to gravitationally significant points in space, known as Lagrange points, that are beyond the Earth's protective magnetosphere. Astronauts might even go all the way to Phobos, a tiny moon of Mars, where the spaceship wouldn't land so much as rendezvous, in the same way that a spacecraft docks at the International Space Station.

The Earth's moon would be a possible ``off-ramp'' of such a strategy but not a central target for exploration. Putting astronauts on the surface of Mars, and then returning them to Earth, would be prohibitively expensive, according to an analysis by the committee, which will send its report to the president by the end of this month.

$50 BILLION GAP

The ``program of record'' -- NASA's current strategy -- has not fared well in the committee's review. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the panel, said the gap between NASA's goals and its current budget totals roughly $50 billion by 2020. If the space station's life is extended for five years, she said, the current budget would allow for the completion of a heavy-boost moon rocket only in 2028, and that would be without spending money on developing the components of a lunar base.

``If you're willing to wait until 2028, you've got a heavy lift vehicle, but you've got nothing to lift,'' she said. ``You cannot do this program on this budget.''

Committee member Jeff Greason, an aerospace executive, was even more eviscerating of the NASA strategy, noting that the fixed costs of the current strategy are sure to bust the budget down the road: ``If Santa Claus brought us this system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it.''

The panel will give the administration a menu of options that include some that require a boost in funding for human space flight, which currently costs about $9 billion a year. Unknown, though, is how the Obama administration feels about human space flight in general. The president, both as a candidate and in the White House, has explicitly endorsed sending humans back to the moon, but his decision to create the Augustine committee is a sign that the status quo strategy, which carries the imprimatur of his predecessor and is endorsed by Congress, is not long for this Earth.

John Logsdon, the former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, observed the panel's session and said he wasn't sure that the Deep Space option, with its emphasis on ``fly-bys'' rather than landings, would be easy to sell to the public.

``I wonder myself if just flying around and not landing anywhere would be very attractive,'' he said.

OTHER PROGRAMS

The panel is certain to recommend extending the life of the International Space Station. It is also pushing hard for greater commercialization of space, including using private companies to taxi astronauts to Low Earth Orbit.

Some options include pulling the plug on the Ares I rocket that NASA has been building for four years. The Ares I is supposed to replace the space shuttle, the final flight of which is slated for late 2010. Billions have already been spent on the rocket, which is scheduled for an inaugural test flight this month.
The Miami Herald

Funny that! When you think the tech has been there for over 40 years! Once something has been established, normally the costs start to decrease not increase! According to some, the tech need to get to and land on the moon is not that advanced relative to whats around today. So why the hold up. but it is interesesting about ( just flying around) Ummmmm!  

[trailhound]

JTCoyote

There is so much more evidence that shows that we have gone. I can go down to McDonald Observatory, and watch the on going laser experiments as they project and retrieve the laser signal from the reflector arrays that were placed there by the astronauts... in the ongoing project of measuring down to the millimeter, perturbations in the moon's orbit.

 They could have been put there by machines. ..not saying that is the case im just saying.

[Jackson Holly]

I've got a good idea!

They have a Lander (LM) at the Space Museum ... let's get it outa the mothballs, stick on top of some big rocket ... VOILA!

JTCoyote
 They could have been put there by machines. ..not saying that is the case im just saying.

Previous post about the reflector array:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg750803#msg750803

[JTCoyoté]

Looks like a return trip to the moon is impossible....or at least almost.

 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1185467.html



WASHINGTON -- NASA doesn't have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 -- and it might be the wrong place to go, anyway. That's one of the harsh messages emerging from a sweeping review of NASA's human space flight program.

The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, has been trying to stitch together some kind of plausible strategy for America's manned space program. The panel has struggled to find options that stay under the current budget and include missions worthy of the cost and effort.

The committee members will meet with administration officials Friday and will report that there is no realistic way to get Americans back on the moon by the target date of 2020, which has been the agency's goal since President George W. Bush signed off on the ``Vision for Space Exploration'' in 2004. Landing on the moon by 2020 would require such drastic budgetary maneuvers as de-orbiting the International Space Station -- crashing it into the South Pacific -- in 2016.

The final list of options being explored by the Augustine group will include some variation of a lunar base down the road. But the committee is most animated by what it calls the ``Deep Space'' option, a strategy that emphasizes getting astronauts far beyond Low Earth Orbit but not necessarily plunking them down on alien worlds.

Instead, the ``Deep Space'' strategy would send them to near-Earth asteroids and to gravitationally significant points in space, known as Lagrange points, that are beyond the Earth's protective magnetosphere. Astronauts might even go all the way to Phobos, a tiny moon of Mars, where the spaceship wouldn't land so much as rendezvous, in the same way that a spacecraft docks at the International Space Station.

The Earth's moon would be a possible ``off-ramp'' of such a strategy but not a central target for exploration. Putting astronauts on the surface of Mars, and then returning them to Earth, would be prohibitively expensive, according to an analysis by the committee, which will send its report to the president by the end of this month.

$50 BILLION GAP

The ``program of record'' -- NASA's current strategy -- has not fared well in the committee's review. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the panel, said the gap between NASA's goals and its current budget totals roughly $50 billion by 2020. If the space station's life is extended for five years, she said, the current budget would allow for the completion of a heavy-boost moon rocket only in 2028, and that would be without spending money on developing the components of a lunar base.

``If you're willing to wait until 2028, you've got a heavy lift vehicle, but you've got nothing to lift,'' she said. ``You cannot do this program on this budget.''

Committee member Jeff Greason, an aerospace executive, was even more eviscerating of the NASA strategy, noting that the fixed costs of the current strategy are sure to bust the budget down the road: ``If Santa Claus brought us this system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it.''

The panel will give the administration a menu of options that include some that require a boost in funding for human space flight, which currently costs about $9 billion a year. Unknown, though, is how the Obama administration feels about human space flight in general. The president, both as a candidate and in the White House, has explicitly endorsed sending humans back to the moon, but his decision to create the Augustine committee is a sign that the status quo strategy, which carries the imprimatur of his predecessor and is endorsed by Congress, is not long for this Earth.

John Logsdon, the former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, observed the panel's session and said he wasn't sure that the Deep Space option, with its emphasis on ``fly-bys'' rather than landings, would be easy to sell to the public.

``I wonder myself if just flying around and not landing anywhere would be very attractive,'' he said.

OTHER PROGRAMS

The panel is certain to recommend extending the life of the International Space Station. It is also pushing hard for greater commercialization of space, including using private companies to taxi astronauts to Low Earth Orbit.

Some options include pulling the plug on the Ares I rocket that NASA has been building for four years. The Ares I is supposed to replace the space shuttle, the final flight of which is slated for late 2010. Billions have already been spent on the rocket, which is scheduled for an inaugural test flight this month.
The Miami Herald

You might read my previous post again, and then go here ... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=126301.0 and read where NASA's supposed budget goes, and what for... and then read Sane's post above mine... once again...

JTCoyoté

"Opinion polls are merely a random show of hands,
that indicates no truth, only who's propaganda
is working, and who's is not."
~Oldyoti

[iceman2]

I knew those Aliens were there somewhere!

They are spending the money, so does this mean D Icke was sort of right all along?


THE BLACK BUDGET AND THE UNDERGROUND EMPIRE

 

 

On Oct. 20, 1991, California researcher Michael Lindemann, founder of 'The 20/20 Group', gave a lecture before a large crowd of interested investigators. During the course of his lecture wherein he discussed the Military-Industrial Complex's underground bases outside of Lancaster, California, he made the following statements:

 

"...How many of you have seen the book 'BLANK CHECK'?... It is not a UFO book. I strongly recommend that you read the book 'BLANK CHECK' so that you can understand something about how these projects are funded without your say so, indeed without the say so of Congress. Most citizens don't know for example that the National Security Act of 1947 made it illegal to ever say how much money is spent on the CIA. Indeed all of our tremendous alphabet soup collection of Intelligence Agencies. Whether your talking about the CIA, or the NRO, or the NSA or the DIA, etc., all of them are in the same category.

"You cannot say how much these things cost. All you can do if you want to find out is add-up the numbers on the Budget that aren't assigned to anything that actually means anything. There are these huge categories that have tens of billions of dollars in them that say nothing but 'Special Projects...' And every year the Congress dutifully passes this bloated budget that has some $300,000,000,000 or more with HUGE chunks of cash labeled like that: 'Special Projects,' 'Unusual Stuff.' -- Ten billion dollars. O.K., well where does the 'unusual stuff' money go? Well, it DOES go to 'unusual stuff', that's for sure, and one of the places it goes is that it goes into the underground bases. Indeed TIM said recently since the publication of his book [BLANK CHECK]... MORE Black Budget money goes into underground bases than ANY OTHER kind of work.

"Now I don't believe that 35 billion, which is the approximate size of the black budget money that you can find by analyzing the budget, I don't think that comes CLOSE to the real figure because there is absolutely unequivocal evidence that a great deal of additional money was generated in other ways, such as the surreptitious running of guns and drugs. And one wonderful example of that is coming to light with the B.C.C.I. scandal which I hope you've heard of... a number of very high-ranking American officials are caught in the undertow of the BCCI tidal wave... Even though these guys are tying to pull 'fast ones' on an immense scale they are getting caught. These things don't always work. Indeed they are very, very vulnerable.

Indeed this whole 'end game' is very vulnerable and that's why they feel it requires such secrecy. The American people wouldn't stand for this stuff if they had the information, and that's the reason why we have to get the information out and take it seriously because it really is a matter of our money and our future that's being mortgaged here.

"But my friend who worked in the underground bases, who was doing sheet-rock was down on, he thinks, approximately the 30th level underground... these bases are perhaps 30-35 stories deep ['ground-scrapers']. As I say they are not just mine shafts, these are huge, giant facilities... many city blocks in circumference, able to house tens of thousands of people. One of them, the YANO Facility [we're told... by the county fire dept. director, the county fire dept. chief who had to go in there to look at a minor fire infraction] there's a 400-car parking lot on the 1st level of the YANO Facility, but cars never come in and out, those are the cars that they use INSIDE.

"O.K., so... a very interesting situation down there. Our guy was doing sheet-rock on the 30th floor, maybe the 30th floor, underground. He and his crew are working on a wall and right over here is an elevator door. The elevator door opens and, a kind of reflex action you look, and he saw three 'guys'. Two of them, human engineers that he's seen before. And between them a 'guy' that stood about 8 to 8 1/2 feet tall. Green skin, reptilian features, extra-long arms, wearing a lab coat, holding a clip-board...

"I tend to believe that story because, first of all because we have other stories like it, but more importantly because he walked off that job that very day. And he was getting paid a GREAT deal of money... If your basically a sheet-rock kind of guy, if you can do sheet-rock in a place like that then you get paid way more than standard sheet-rock wages, you can count on it.

"So, he walked off that job. His buddy on that same crew turned into an alcoholic shortly after. This is an extremely upsetting thing. You know, it wasn't like this alien jumped out and bit his head off or anything, it was just standing there for a few minutes, the doors closed. He has a feeling that that elevator was malfunctioning, otherwise he never would have seen that except by accident..."

 

According to former Wackenhut employee Michael Riconosciuto, there is a direct underground connection between the Nevada Military Complex and the underground facilities near Lancaster, California, such as the Tehachapi mountain base. Several people have referred to the subsurface as well as the operational 'connections' between the Dulce base in New Mexico and the Dreamland or Area-51 base in Nevada, connections that exist via Dugway, Utah and Page, Arizona. If alien forces are intent on taking control of this planet, then it would be logical for them to target our major military weapons research and development centers. This might involve actual 'infiltration' of our military-industrial complexes and control of the line-of-command through mind control of specific and strategic personnel. The 'deeper' one descends into the underground 'alien empire' the greater the security and therefore the greater the 'control' will be in regards to this "...from the bottom up..." takeover attempt. In many cases patriotic Americans have become caught in the middle of this 'underground war' between loyal American military personnel and alien or alien-controlled 'personnel', as was the case in the Dulce and the Groom wars themselves. Some have managed to escape from their terrifying encounters and -- whether intentionally or unintentionally, as in the following incident -- have voiced their fears, concerns or even rage to those on the 'outside' who will listen.

 

The following conversation, in relation to the Nevada Military Complex and the 'underground facilities', took place on the "Billy Goodman Happening" - KVEG Radio 840 AM, Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 19, 1989. It was transcribed by a Las Vegas resident.

Billy Goodman incidentally, has personally planned visits, in collaboration with KNBC Radio in Los Angeles, to observe the 'disks' which are being tested at Groom Lake, Nevada. Goodman and others claimed to have seen these disks in operation, and back-up these claims with video documentation. One such video shows a hovering object making a vertical ascent, stopping in mid-air, followed by a horizontal traverse, followed by another vertical ascent. Something like this would be impossible for any conventionally known aircraft of the time to duplicate. Billy Goodman, who has since moved to another radio station in Los Angeles, has been very instrumental in getting the information out about the underground base at Site 51 [or Area-51]. One contact of ours has informed us that a good friend of hers in Las Vegas, Nevada, had uncovered some very disturbing facts and testimonies concerning construction workers and others who had been involved in the installation of certain equipment within the tunnels beneath the Nevada Military Complex, and particularly under the Mercury, Nevada area. Many of these later died under bizarre circumstances, and there were rumors that others were being held captive underground because they "saw too much". This informant, Stacey Borland, was later found dead -- along with a brother of hers -- in Las Vegas, as the result of a gangland-type execution. Someone had apparently entered her place and murdered them in cold blood.

In the following annotated transcript, the caller who claims to be a worker in the underground facilities below Mercury, Nevada, will be identified as 'C' and Billy Goodman as 'G':

 

G: Hi! Your on the Billy Goodman Happening on KVEG! Sir, what can I do for you tonight?

C: O.K. Are you ready? Hang on to your seats! Here goes! We are going 3,000 feet underground! O.K. We get to that point, 3,000 feet. We come out into a stainless steel atmosphere... and we come upon people that are ah... construction people... working people, and so forth that are supposed to be in that area. Then we come upon another people who push us into another little room. They tell us, "Do not come out of that area, until you're told to." These guys are 6 minute marines, all right? They tell us, "If you do, you are going to get hurt!" OK? So we are construction workers!

G: Where are you working? Where is what you are describing to us.

C: On a certain test site!

G: A certain test site! Which one? You can't reveal which one?

C: We're kind'a mixed up! We don't know what the hell is going on. We're making ah... good bucks... and everything has come down on us... and they are hurting us! OK? So we are contractors! We are workers! OK? So there's a person that I called and explained what is happening to me and they told me to call you and tell you! So, that is what I am doing right now! Calling you!

G: You presented it in a very odd way! First of all I didn't know if you were going to be serious or what! Are you saying to me that you are a construction worker and you had to go 3,000 feet under ground? First of all what would you be doing underground? Let me ask you that!

C: We are running lights and power.

G: And who assigned you this job?

C: It's through Reynold's Electronics. I have to say that because I get my pay check from someone else! (Note: Reynold's Electronics is a branch of "E.G. & G." Corporation which DOES IN FACT work with and contract through the Nevada and Utah Test Sites - Branton)

G: They tell you to put these lights underground?

C: Yeh, but there's more to it than that! I'm sort of afraid of expressing. Am I talking to you or what?

G: Yes, you are talking directly to me!

C: OK. You know some of the things that are happening, shouldn't be. It should be made public! The public should know what the hell is going on! And it scares the hell out of me. What is not being brought out you know? For example, can I give you an example? Here's an example! A few weeks back we were inside a certain cavern going through stainless steel halls, going north, and as we move along we are hanging lights. In the rooms are... they're like operating rooms. All of a sudden, off the elevator, our U.S. Marines come out, crash us down off our scaffold, pushing us down, and then into a room. This is taking a hell of a lot out of me to tell you this right now! The bosses come into the room and we're getting debriefed and all this kind of stuff and all of a sudden they are carrying fixed bayonets. Now I fought in Vietnam and I thought these guys were my buddies! Oh, no way! Forget it! These guys are from outer space! These people brought these little characters on gurneys, OK? They had big heads and little bodies and they went into this little room. Then, behind them, these doctors in white coats and stuff! And we was really at ah... we didn't know what the hell was going on! We were shocked to hell! ...I was SCARED man!

G: Well, sure you didn't know what was going on and didn't expect it! I guess them handling you upset you first of all. Being man to man, you thought why should you treat me this way! And that's to be expected. As far as knowing where you are I have no idea.

C: I know where I was! I worked there every day! I keep a log and if someone asks me I know what's going on! I'm telling you man they're not telling us the truth. There is something damn wrong within our government. I only got a glimpse of this scientist on television (i.e. most likely referring to Robert Lazar - Branton), but I know he's not telling much of what he knows. I'm just a worker. A hammer and nail man. This guy's got more brains than I do, and would know more about it than I do. There's something INSIDE they aren't telling us!

G: OK. I understand that! Now what do you want us to do about it?

C: EXPOSE IT!!!

G: I think you've done that yourself, just now! Now you haven't told us your location and I think that's important so we have some idea where this is. I hope you understand at this moment...

C: I work at Mercury, Nevada and I'm the best electrician there. This is between you and me now. I don't want anybody else to know about this!

G: But you're on the air Sir!

C: You mean somebody knows about this besides you and me?

G: But you are talking over the radio, Sir! Everybody, all over the West Coast that is listening has just heard you! So you've gotten your word out. Now let's see if anybody else knows about it. Maybe just maybe, we'll get some calls from some of the people that work with you.

C: Wait a minute! You mean somebody else knows about this besides you and me?

G: Now, this is a talk show, you called a talk show. I am over the radio -- that's where you called!

C: OH, MY GOD!!!

G: Why, what's wrong with that? You called a talk show!

C: I thought I was just talking to you!

G: Now you said someone told you to call me. Was it someone you work with?

C: Yes.

G: Nobody knows who you are. You haven't said your name or anything! Now, let's see if anyone will back up your story!

C: But I didn't know other people would hear this. Now I'm scared for my life! There's tremendous stuff out there that's being hidden. It's being corrupted inside. It's being stashed away.

G: Well that's what we do here. We are trying to bring the information out, and it's people like yourself who are making that happen. They bring us information all the time! Are you trying to bring the information out yourself because you don't like what's going on?

C: I fear for my life because I've seen what happened. I fear for my life because the government is lying to me.

G: OK. Why do you fear for your life? Have you been threatened?

C: Before you even go down in the pit they threaten you! That is you tell anything of what you saw, you are dead!!!

G: But you're not saying more than what you saw. Is there anything else you want to say before we say thank you for calling?

C: Yes, one other thing. Whenever it gets down to the nitty gritty, it will be clear to the people, that what they are seeing on the news, is true! We've got six little bodies under ground, man!!!

G: Please keep in touch, OK? [end of transcript]

 

 

[TheCaliKid]

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says

A panel reviewing NASA's current plans for human space flight will report that there is no realistic way to return to the moon by 2020 -- or even 2028.


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1185467.html


LMFAO!!!! We are never, ever, ever, ever, going "back" to the Moon. It's not part of the Satanic agenda for humanity. Got that?

[luckee1]

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says

A panel reviewing NASA's current plans for human space flight will report that there is no realistic way to return to the moon by 2020 -- or even 2028.


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1185467.html


LMFAO!!!! We are never, ever, ever, ever, going "back" to the Moon. It's not part of the Satanic agenda for humanity. Got that?

I just spit and coughed coffee reading that.  Lmao!

[iceman2]

It's too  ambitious because they probably never went in the first place. And all those pictures and film footage taken of the the Apollo missions were fake. And still are fake. And to all those fools who still insist they are real.  Don't' sling generalized rubbish, exhibiting low levels of intelligence, by say it's BS, and crap, come on answer the bloody questions, and points mentioned on the films!!!!!  watch the films, and answer those specific points


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&feature=related

[iks83]

It's too  ambitious because they probably never went in the first place. And all those pictures and film footage taken of the the Apollo missions were fake. And still are fake. And to all those fools who still insist they are real.  Don't' sling generalized rubbish, exhibiting low levels of intelligence, by say it's BS, and crap, come on answer the bloody questions, and points mentioned on the films!!!!!  watch the films, and answer those specific points


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&feature=related

Those films have been debunked over and over and over and over again in this thread and on 1000 websites all over the internet. Saying the video footage of the apollo missions are fake is just the same generalized rubbish, exhibiting low levels of intelligence.  How do you explain the behavior of kicked around sand on the footage that behaves in exactly the way sand should when kicked around in a low gravity, vacuum environment. And no playing the videos back at 2x speed to counter the evil trickery of NASA doesnt change that. I know its hard to understand with no education and understanding of the simplest things but hey... grab a camera, grab some sand or rather fine dry dust and kick it around, record it and play it back half speed... maybe you will understand it but I doubt that.

You are just posting the same BS all over again never accepting anything that explains perfectly the seen "anomalies" (that arent really anomalies).

http://www.clavius.org/  for example goes in quite much detail.

I mean seriously the explanations those moon hoaxers come up with are just retarded... so astronauts jumped on wires? Then how do you explain the sand thats kicked around and still behaves like in a low gravity, vacuum environment? Did they string up every grain?

And again those hoax videos never source anything so that people can check the highres photos and see how they are being scammed by them. Those hoaxers can only work with a population that doesnt have access to the information. Back then they can just claim their BS, show some low quality videos that have been tempered with and noone could check it. They either had to believe it or not and since they were on TV they must be correct. The internet destroyed that so now those moon hoaxers can be exposed so easily that its rather suprising that there are still so many people pushing that crap. Its just.... its so INSANE! Like if the horizon lines up with the horizon reflected in the helmet of the astronaut its proof of fakery and blablabla... what if the astronaut moves his head down a bit... omfg the horizon is now even higher in the reflection! what does it mean?!!

[iceman2]

Those films have been debunked over and over and over and over again in this thread and on 1000 websites all over the internet. Saying the video footage of the apollo missions are fake is just the same generalized rubbish, exhibiting low levels of intelligence.  How do you explain the behavior of kicked around sand on the footage that behaves in exactly the way sand should when kicked around in a low gravity, vacuum environment. And no playing the videos back at 2x speed to counter the evil trickery of NASA doesnt change that. I know its hard to understand with no education and understanding of the simplest things but hey... grab a camera, grab some sand or rather fine dry dust and kick it around, record it and play it back half speed... maybe you will understand it but I doubt that.

You are just posting the same BS all over again never accepting anything that explains perfectly the seen "anomalies" (that arent really anomalies).

http://www.clavius.org/  for example goes in quite much detail.

I mean seriously the explanations those moon hoaxers come up with are just retarded... so astronauts jumped on wires? Then how do you explain the sand thats kicked around and still behaves like in a low gravity, vacuum environment? Did they string up every grain?

And again those hoax videos never source anything so that people can check the highres photos and see how they are being scammed by them. Those hoaxers can only work with a population that doesnt have access to the information. Back then they can just claim their BS, show some low quality videos that have been tempered with and noone could check it. They either had to believe it or not and since they were on TV they must be correct. The internet destroyed that so now those moon hoaxers can be exposed so easily that its rather suprising that there are still so many people pushing that crap. Its just.... its so INSANE! Like if the horizon lines up with the horizon reflected in the helmet of the astronaut its proof of fakery and blablabla... what if the astronaut moves his head down a bit... omfg the horizon is now even higher in the reflection! what does it mean?!!

Thats all you lot appear to say! " been debunked over and over and over and over again" So WHERE are the facts that debunk them then?  4.05 ish in this film, reference 7% of the light reflected is a constant! FACT! so the rubbish about areas being light by reflexion to the level claimed is crap, as can be seen, it does not even have enough power to do this to a few small rocks! Thats a FACT!

Now look at 6.05 in to first film, ref, Uneven lighting, fall off, fill in light, to illuminate the left side of picture! placement of center marker of left leg, shadows prove depth of astronaut was not deep enough to place the center, where it was shown. Also, other pictures showing center marker which cannot be moved as it's designed and built into camera, can be seen to be behind objects showing without doubt the object must be placed between cross hair ( center) and the camera! NOW THATS IMPOSSIBLE! Unless of course you have other rational, None earthly, I expect!

So lets start with the above, instead of ( as said before) being vague, insulting, and (unspecific) deal with the above, give us all some alternative scientific logic! It's impossible to do, as they are FACTS scientific facts! So instead of call me uneducated, which I will accept when you manage to show me answers to the above, which refute these scientific facts! Until such a time, it would appear you in fact are the provocateur of insults and empty meaningless statements!

P.S. You prove your depth or ignorance, by making generalized derogatory comments about my level of intelligence! You know nothing about me, so based upon a few rational comments made, you somehow extrapolated an individual humans entire level of intelligence. A bit presumptuous and bigoted on your part, wouldn't you say! And theres me believing I was able to get an intelligent answer to perfectly rational, reasonable questions posed! How wrong I was.........