Hi all,

It's great to have a area to discuss conspiracies other than 9/11 (not taking anything away from 9/11 research, of course).

If you have never looked into this (Apollo) issue, check these links out to wet your appetite. If you have looked into it, then you probably know more than I do.


Mother site:

http://www.aulis.com/


Jack White's Photo Studies (awesome!):

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html


New:

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm



Other:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


(see in particular: bottom page... 'Still not convinced? Here's 33 things that need to be answered')


http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/surveyor3.htm




This is perhaps my favorite conspiracy area (Apollo/Moon), before the New World Order, and more recently... 9/11---> almost entirely thanks to Loose Change.

If anyone knows of more links / books / videos / articles; please list them here so I can continue my research as much as possible.

Also, in regards to the above links, the Apollo 'Jack White Photo Studies' have been described as a "masterclass in photoanalysis", and I agree. The most detailed Apollo photoanalysis I've seen yet!

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Jack is also in the process of tackling the photographic record of 9/11...

http://www.911studies.com/




Cheers.

Well at random the lack of rover tracks is largely due to the rovers being picked up rather than driven around corners.

See

http://www.clavius.org/

for a fairly solid debunking of moon landing hoax accusations

Great archives, this is the first time I have looked into this and It is quit interesting.

Hi there.


I checked out that 'debunking' site you listed, and it is quite interesting. I just had a quick view (5 minutes or so), so this isn't enough time to make a judgment. However, already, I'm pretty sure I can take issue with at least a few of these supposed 'debunks', but maybe I'm wrong. When I get some more time to check the site out in detail, and check it against my compiled information, I will do that.

I'll mention one that I just saw on your site as an example of where I might take issue...

http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html

The above link is about the 'Jump Salute'. Unless I missed it, I'm pretty sure this particular page makes no mention about the claims such as the----> 'cloud of dust proves fakery of jump salute photo'; please, I ask respectfully that you see the following link to see exactly what I'm talking about...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.html

I'll investigate your site further one day soon.

I always try to keep an open and balanced mind, but from what I've seen over the years so far... heaps of stuff simply doesn't add up, especially with Apollo. Thank you for the link though.



To that other dude-----> I'm glad you like the links, and hope you enjoy looking into the Apollo issue for yourself, and coming to your own conclusions.


Rock on!

Not dust. That looks like ghosting due to the fairly low quality of the camera.

Hey, I'm back for a sec...

I was just using a favorite book of mine for some info on another area, and flicked to page 120...

Here's what it says...

"The most convincing evidence: If you look at the shadows of the rocks in the Moon Landing photos, you'll see that they point in an arc of different directions - sure proof of a point source of light just off camera. If the illumination was solar, as it would be on the Moon, the shadows would all point in the same direction. They would also have higher contrasts to the earth around them, as there is no atmospheric scatter of light on the Moon."

('Conspiracy Files' by David Southwell and Sean Twist, 2004).

* An pointless footnote: it just so happens that the photo I'm looking at in the book, is the one Jack uses here, titled: 'Flag with no shadow'...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_2.html


I only put that in coz I had it at hand (the book), and figured what the Hell!.... I mean, that's a well know argument/point in conspiracy theory anyway.


I'll look into that 'Ghosting' thing, too, later. However, as an experienced and acknowledged professional in the field of photography/photoanalysis... I doubt that Jack White would have missed something so basic. i.e. re: link.

Starburn is that your site?

Any way, I think what is really interesting (as this is the first time I've researched this) is the background scernery is the same.

Does anyone have link to all the pictures from te Apollo missions? the 5,500+ of them? Or at least alot, I just don't want to be fooled into looking at only a few pictures, altough I do think the scenery looks the same. Thanks.

For low resolution versions of all Apollo Hasselblad images, see here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/

For medium and high resolution versions of a large majority of the Apollo images, see here:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

For detailed information on systems and lunar surface activities, see here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

For individual explanations of why each of Jack White's "analysis" is incorrect, see here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

For the locations of all the various pieces of hardware associated with not only Apollo, but Mercury, Gemini, and Skylab, see here:

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pa...ndex/home1.html

Lastly, a good site with images and explanations of various pieces of Apollo equipment (tools, the rover, the LM and the differences between the various ones used, the EMU 'space suit', etc), see here:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/sitemap.htm

Hey Seek,

I'm not sure where you can get a list of the 'entire' list of images (and video footage, radio communications, etc), all in one single spot, but...

The links I gave you have numerous 'sub-links' to NASA pages and stuff, where you can get extra info. For example, see...


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html


These above are just two examples of sub-links from places like this...


http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/surveyor3.htm


*** Actually, I can't remember exactly where I got these two NASA links, because I bookmark everything without noting where the link came from originally. However, I'm extremely sure that they came from the last couple I mentioned.


It's good you don't want to be spoon-fed bullshit, and want to see directly for yourself. that's the attitude you have to have.

Enjoy.


PS. See the film, 'Dark Moon', if you ever get the chance.

"Apollo debates are usually dominated by physics arguments which can be confusing for most people. Jack White's new analysis is breath-taking in its simplicity: now anyone can understand the evidence and come to their own conclusion."
John P. Costella PhD
Dr. Costella is a physicist living in Australia

Read Mr White's studies. Read the counter-claims on the link I posted. Research the subject, and the claims made by both sides. Decide for yourself.

If you have any questions, please post them & I'd be happy to answer wherever I can.

P.S. GunStar, do you mean read the book 'Dark Moon', or see the film "Dark Side of the Moon". The latter is a "mockumentry". It's very good and I would recommend watching it - but it's a parody, not fact.

Oh, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (the ALSJ link previously provided) has most - if not all - of the video footage from the Apollo missions.

oops,

I got the titles mixed up.

Yes: 'Book : DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers'

There was a documentary I watched quite a while back, and I was very impressed, and I thought this was called 'Dark Moon', sorry. Now I don't know what it was called! grrrr. Was the book, 'Dark Moon', ever made into a film???

And also, one I've been wanting to see (has anyone seen it?)...

'DVD : WHAT happened on the MOON?'


Peace-out

Oh, Soop...

That film that I did see, and can't remember the title of...

It was a serious film; i.e. an investigation into the official account. God I wish I could remember what it was called!!!

There are a couple that I am aware of. The most prolific is Bart Sibrel. Naturally, I disagree with his take on events but I also take umbrage at some of his methods (e.g. Astronauts Gone Wild).

There are some available on YouTube and Google, and you should watch them - but you should not limit yourself to what you see there.

As we have both said earlier, you have to research the subject and decide for yourself what is truth and what is not. The most important things I could say with regard to that are:

- Limiting yourself to YouTube and / or the Internet is NOT research;

- Always check the accuracy of claims made ("They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true..."); and

- If a subject involves technical matter you don't have the training to understand, don't just abandon it. Contact those people who are professionals in that field, and seek their advice - and don't just take one 'experts' word on it. Get several opinions (especially if it is a key matter), and see what the majority opinion is.

THEN you have all the material to make up your own mind about events. Even then, don't close yourself off to a contrary opinion - listen to it and evaluate it. It might prove wrong, but it might be new information which means you decide to change your opinion.

I like your work Soop, You don't seem condescending like most. :)

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Shadow_Angles.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Shadow_Lengths.htm

if it were a hollywood set, as some have claimed (nasa set) then wouldn't ther be a shadow for the flag as well? How much do you trust that the author of that site hasn't simply taken out the shadow or added the flag in a photo that didnt' previously have one?

Because I've seen that same photo numerous times, in numerous places, and it's always the same... no shadow.

Curious read...

http://www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htm

"Of all history's great conspiracy theories – one of the most enduring, and one with which I have particular sympathy, is concerned with men landing on the Moon. Was it all, as some have reasonably opined, not a lunar touchdown but instead a strikingly recreated stunt on a movie sound stage . . . well away from prying eyes?"

Quentin Falk, The Daily Telegraph

http://www.aulis.com/moonshadows.htm




I'm just throwing random shit in here, hehe.

DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers
The book DARK MOON is the answer to a question that was first asked in July 1969 – did the Apollo missions really land a man on the Moon and return him alive and well to Earth, or is the record incorrect?

''We don't have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs.''

NASA spokesman

But NASA, the photographs have been shown to be FAKED!

By asking the very question that has haunted NASA from 1969 until the present day, the authors have uncovered a deception that appears to emanate from the very top regarding the exploration of the Moon.

DARK MOON is an extensively researched and balanced assessment of the people and parallels within the USSR/USA space programs and an in-depth examination of the material regarded by NASA as proof that the named Apollo astronauts did indeed walk on the lunar surface.

The circumstances surrounding the Apollo 13 'accident' are closely scrutinised revealing the fact that the account is full of serious discrepancies. Now, more than thirty years after these events we have the technology and perspective to amply demonstrate that the Apollo record is seriously flawed, and that NASA has a case to answer. NASA continues its refusal to address the numerous anomalies unearthed by the research.
DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers:

* Investigates why NASA chose to present the Apollo scenario with which we are all familiar, when research evidence suggests that a parallel operation was actually executed.
* Demonstrates that lighting was used in the Apollo photographs – yet none was taken to the Moon.
* Shows that impossibly high photographic viewpoints were employed – the images should have been taken from cameras fixed to the astronauts' chest brackets.
* Analyses numerous lunar surface photographs that appear to be encoded with deliberate mistakes and compares the still images with the claimed 'live' TV coverage of the Apollo missions.
* Highlights the severe dangers of space radiation, graphically detailing the numerous potential hazards to be overcome during manned exploration of deep space.
* Presents the testimony of Whistle-Blowers together with interviews and comments from specialists and scientists involved in the development of manned space travel.
* Provokes the discussion of many subjects that some may not wish to address, including new hypotheses concerning gravity and light.
* Proposes that spacecraft will require radical conceptual renewal before we can send a man to Mars and return him safely to Earth.
* Reveals the role that the Roswell Incident played in the overall project to get to Mars following a trial run to the Moon.

Just finished this one. Couldn't put it down and have passed it round the office! I was nine years old when the 'first moon landing' happened. This book has uprooted that part of my childhood. I won't be able to look at science in the same way again. As Eisenhower said: 'Beware the industrial-military complex'. Please pass on thanks to the authors for this excellent (if shattering) detective masterpiece; it's a wake up call we all need.

N.W. UK


"Dark Moon is two amazing books in one. On the one hand it is an admirably documented investigation of the greatest sting in history—the alleged Apollo Moon landings. As if that were not enough, the further investigation of the reasons behind this monumental operation leads to the structures observed on Mars and their exact counterparts on Earth, the almost incredible age of the Moon, the real message of the Egyptian Sphinx and much else besides. Dark Moon is then also a serious contender and complement to Fingerprints of the Gods, The Sirius Mystery and Serpent in the Sky."

Stan Gooch, author of Total Man and many other works

"In Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers authors David Percy and Mary Bennett manage the impressive feat of uniting crop circles, the Face on Mars, ancient Egypt, and the mystery of Stonehenge."

Michael Hanlon Science Editor Daily Mail UK

"I am sorry to say, I think that most of the book really is true. I have friends here in Houston who work at NASA and some believe it [Dark Moon] to be true."

Fred Woods
HUFON Report

"The moon landings, real or staged, very controversial. A MUST READ."

The Voice May 2000

I was lucky enough to be sent a copy of your book DARK MOON. The book is in my view a masterpiece and everyone should really have the opportunity of reading this work. It succeeded, as far as I was concerned, in drawing together so many of the mysteries with which we are presented. Very well done.

S. Y. Portsmouth UK

"One thing is clear–the moonshots may have been for real, but some of the photographic evidence appears to be crudely faked."

Uri Geller
The Times
22 September 1999

I bought and read your book (Dark Moon) several years ago and was duly impressed–great effort at trying to stir the pot of our cultural addiction to myth. The bottom line in all this for me is not so much were we fooled but could we have been fooled? And the answer to the latter is a resounding and absolute, YES!

Apollo researcher
USA

http://www.aulis.com/nasa3.htm

*** This sounds like a good read; I'll have to get my hands on it ASAP ***

OK,

I can accept that perhaps there is a good point in these two links you listed.

However, I'd have a hard time trying to apply the argument contained in the first link to the following photo (i.e. title, 'confused lighting')...


http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_22.html


Any thoughts? (just so there's no confusion... I'm talking about the photo with the little rocks with shadows going every which way----> or so it is claimed). Anyway, what do you think?

I won't say much except for: Set up a similar scene for yourself. Get some rocks, get a low sun angle, see what happens with your own images. Do your best to recreate the same scene as shown in the image, then decide for yourself if something is wrong or not.

Thanks!

I can understand why some people are like that; they hear the same things over and over again, and so tend to be a little terse (especially if they are basic questions)..

If someone is like that towards you, I'd advise you to tell them politely your impressions, and ask them to refrain from such behaviour. That being said, it is also incumbent on you to ask questions if you are unsure... but if if you make sweeping statements of "fact", then be prepared to have to validate those facts.

the suggested shadow angles are wrong.

Hi Gunstar

Just wanted to say this thread is like a breath of fresh air in the moon hoax debate: it's nice to hear from people who are prepared to look at all manner sources and come to their own conclusions.

I'd like to offer some insight into the "cloud of dust" issue in the John Young salute, since this is something I've looked at in depth myself a while ago. I did have a GIF on my website which showed where the dust was in the Hasselblad images quite clearly - sods law that I removed it just a couple of days ago. If required I can upload it again as it does help to shed some light on the issue.

The crop I've shown below highlights where the dust is in this image:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg



Compare with the photo of the second jump, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18340HR.jpg. If you look closely you can see where the dust pattern in the air changes from one image to the next.

It's useful to ask, why is the dust so much more visible in the TV footage than it is in the Hasselblad camera images? I suspect this is to do with the speed of the camera shutter. A fast shutter speed would effectively "freeze" the individual dust particles that have been kicked up. Since the particles are small, and the same colour as the backgrouond, they are naturally difficult to see (though not impossible when you know where to look). The TV records images in a different way to the Hasselblad camera.

Take a look at the hi-resolution images of the two photos I gave links for - what is your opinion on the dust issue? Can you see dust in either image? If not let me know and I'll re-upload that GIF for you which is quite clear (though rather large).

That's very interesting 'Post', thank you,

Yes, I did have a look at those links and you are right! You can see the dust slightly, and is that.... yes.... I think I can see footprints too.


Yes it is great to have this discussion. I'm naturally always leaning to the conspiracy side of things with most stuff. I don't know. I guess this makes me automatically biased against the official version of most things. I just love conspiracy theory, and to think that the boring official story of everything is correct, is quite boring. LOL. I want to believe in the alternative, if for nothing else, for enternment value for myself.

On a serious note... what do you make of these?...

Would a higher resolution show up footprints in Conrad's picture here, or would another explanation be required?...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1.html

or what about the two Astronauts here; do you think bootprints may turn up here on these photos with a different resolution...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html


I would also like to discuss, with you or anyone, the apparent anomalies in regards to reticules (sometimes they appear behind an object, which according to what I've heard, is impossible as the reticules should always be in front of everything. I think there is other reticule stuff too). Does anyone have anything to say on this issue?


Thanks for dropping in postbaguk,

I really appreciate it.


I would describe myself as a fascinated observer. I love all this conspiracy stuff. I have collected lots of bits and pieces of info over the years, but clearly...... there a many many people like most of you guys who know a lot more than me.... especially in regards to technical photography stuff...........

I am completely open and willing to learn. It's a great chance to exchange thoughts, ideas, links, book titles, etc., but please always note (if I sometimes seem biased in favor of conspiracy)------------- I LOVE A GOOD CONSPIRACY THEORY!



Cheers, and keep this discussion going. It's great. I'm picking up and bookmarking some really brilliant website resources and stuff.!!! Thank you everybody!!!



Peace.


GS.

I just noticed that these are listed as 'new' on aulis online...


http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html


http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1.html


and here...


http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm



I listed these before, I know, but only just now I noticed the 'NEW' label beside them. Exactly how new I'm not quite sure.

Cheers.

Everyone loves a good mystery! I've had a lot of fun unravelling the Apollo one - IMO the truth is more fantastic than the conspiracy.

Firstly, some friendly advice. I would say ALWAYS look at the highest resolution versions of images you can get your hands on - very often they can reveal detail that just isn't there in other images. There were plenty of good links given by an earlier poster - my favourites are the ALSJ and the LPI. There's also another site which has many of the Apollo Hasselblad images scanned from the original positives at a whacking 4400x4600 pixels, WITHOUT any image processing done to the image. These files have to be requested from an ftp server which takes about 5 minutes, the URL for this site is http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm - note that you can't really browse images on this site, you need to know the mission, roll and frame number.

Now let's look at some of the questions you've raised.

The Conrad picture, if you look at the highest resolution image, shows plenty of bootprints, but doesn't seem to show any leading up to the astronauts position. Perhaps they're hidden by his own shadow, perhaps they're partially covered by kicked up dust, perhaps there is another explanation - I don't know for certain the answer to that one.

The question I ask is, if I ran the zoo, is this how I would go about faking images? Would I really have astronauts lowered into position on wires? I would know full well that there would be missing bootprints. Why go to all the trouble of making the pictures as realisitic as possible just to do that? Doesn't make any sense to me. Some people will say it's the work of a whistle-blower, but for that to work then everyone involved in faking the photos must not only have been in on the hoax, but also been a whistle-blower. The guy in the spacesuit (he'd want to know why he was being lowered on a wire), the camera operator, all the stage hands, the film's director, the security team. All of them present would have had to be in on it! But if they were all in on it (the whistle-blowing), why did they agree to get involved in the hoax? Why have none come forward in the last 39 years? It doesn't make any sense to me. Anyway, have a look at a high resolution version of the picture, and see what you think.

The study with the rover's "missing tyre tracks" is a good one, but to solve that one you DO need to look at high resolution versions of the images in question. They show plenty of bootprints around the rovers, caused as the astronauts busied themselves loading and unloading equipment. They left bootprints and kicked up dust every time they took a step, so I don't find it surprising that many rover tracks got covered up. I'd urge you to take a look at some high resolution images for yourself and see what conclusions you come to.

The reticule issue is one that fascinated me when I first got interested in the moon hoax a few years ago. I had no idea what might cause this, and being utterly ignorant of all things photographic at the time, the only explanation I had was that they were somehow added individually to each photo. Before I go on to the explanation, let's think about that one. There are thousands upon thousands of images in the Apollo catalogue - why would NASA insist on adding reticules to each and every one, and why would they want some of them to appear behind objects? Even though I didn't know the explanation at the time, it was this question that nagged me into finding out what caused this apparent anomaly.

The answer becomes apparent when you look at where this anomaly occurs. Every single time it happens, it is when the reticule crosses over a bright region on the photograph, such as an astronauts suit, some sun glare, or a white piece of equipment. You can even see some where the reticule isn't "cut off", but fades slightly as the object behind it gets brighter. This is caused by a bleeding effect in the emulsion of the film itself, which occurs when an area of film is highly exposed. When this happens near a reticule, the over-exposed (white) part of the film bleeds into the less exposed area, giving the impression that the reticule has disappeared behind the object.

Example - look at this photo http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7136HR.jpg

Here's a crop of the relevant part:-



See the central cross-hair, the one that goes over the astronauts white helmet? It's noticeably fainter than the crosshair to the right of it. On top of that, the bottom part of th crosshair is completely obliterated by the reflection of the sun's glare in the astronaut's visor. Check it out yourself, and take a look at other images where this happens (there will be many!) Ask yourself whether it's more likely to be a bleeding effect of the emulsion, or something more sinister.

Once again postbaguk,

Thank you. I like the links I'm getting here, and the discussion you gave was enlightening.

Perhaps it would be easier if we made a list of the most common alleged 'anomalies' / sparks for discussion, for example,



RETICULES:



SHADOW DIRECTIONS:



VISOR REFLECTIONS:



STARS / NO STARS IN SKY:



MARKINGS IN MOON DUST (E.G. BOOT PRINTS, T. TRACKS):



FLAG WAVING:



ASTRONAUT ATTIRE:



CHEST MOUNTED CAMERA:




And all this kind of stuff, you know? The usual 'hot topics' that get people's blood pumping.




RADIATION:



etc...




Then we could more clearly tackle one issue at a time. I don't know, I'm just throwing up ideas here. What do you think? If we could sort of categorize and define a little better under headings, it will make for easier future reference for certain links and info. I think so.


You mentioned the foloowing.... and I quote you...

"Everyone loves a good mystery! I've had a lot of fun unravelling the Apollo one - IMO the truth is more fantastic than the conspiracy."


- What exactly do you mean by this statement. I'm fascinated to hear you elaborate! Can you explain and maybe give me some more good links on the issue please?


Thanks,


GS.

I'm guessing that the story of how the challenges were overcome, of the engineering that went into the systems, of the discoveries made, is as good (if not better) than any mystery.

Don't worry Soop, I know exactly what you mean.

I grew up all starry-eyed and idealistic, dreaming of space and all that; worshiping astronauts like Gods, marveling at what Man can achieve if he puts his mind to something (obviously the moon missions being the ultimate example of this). Even today, I am still passionate about astronomy (I always loved the planets/universe/science) due to the early inspiration I had. I still follow the robotic missions keenly, and I weep like a baby almost sometimes when I see us still stuck in Earth Orbit-----> when we could be heading to Mars! or at least back to the Moon. I had so many dreams-----> A new orbiting space telescope, and deeper space telescope, a moon-based one, man on the Moon again, on Mars, and all the usual dreams of us 'space dreamers'. So when I see hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on wars like Iraq, I get soooooooo depressed. I'm like-------- OH SHIT!!!!!! Just imagine if all that money was being given to NASA..... imagine what goals could be reached. Imagine how positive this could be for humanity: give us all something to unite behind to achieve rather than all this bullshit war and garbage that is wasting our time a potential. It breaks my heart. We are being held back!!!!


So clearly you can see I'm no NASA-Hater, and you can imagine that how much it hurts me to think that the Apollo Missions could have a sinister history. However, if there is anomalies, I can't just ignore them. I have to, as the LC guys say, 'Ask Questions, Demand Answers.' Well, I've been doing a lot of asking but not much demanding. LOL. Seriously, I would love nothing more than to go to my grave with 100% assurance that events happened exactly as they are claimed to have happened.... YES, this would certainly be more comforting than dabbling around with Conspirology.

Anyway, my point is.... Jesus.... of course I understand what you mean with the challenges overcome etc, and I wish this whole conspiracy thing could be properly put to bed, because it is not good for NASA's image - correct or not. NASA should be worshiped for what it has achieved, not mocked...

but... on the other hand, I do love a good conspiracy theory!



OK, back to the reticules, postbaguk...

I think the following relevant images can be explained by your 'bleeding' explanation; what do you think?...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_7.html

One issue that is concerning me lately is the differing attire of Astronauts on the Moon, or 'the Moon' (depending on your views). I never thought of this before.

See Jack's views on this point. And note that the reason I find this keeping me up a little at night is that I doubt this can be dismissed by a simple 'High Resolution / Low Resolution' argument. Color is color and attire is and attire. I mean, if you do or don't have a chest camera or you have or have not got whatever color gloves on, a high res image shouldn't make that appear, should it?

Have a look and get back to me with any comments.


This is about attire, titled 'With and without Hasselblad cameras':

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_13.html

This is about attire, titled: ''Buzz' different in various images':

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_4.html


Have you come across this issue before? I noticed it wasn't covered in the earlier listed 'debunking' site in their photo section. Unless I missed it.



I'll be back soon I guess, keep it coming guys.

Cheers!

Thanks! Too many people jsut along with wahtever, even 911 truth. I know what I say isn't popular about 911 truthers, but often they are sooo biased they don't look at the big picture.

But looking at pictures, I can see how It could haev been faked. Is it important?? Well, sorta, but it is an interesting, fairly credible point that it was faked. I'll check out that vid to, It was popping up in my searchs.

URGENT TO: seek_the_truth


Please note my correction (i.e. it is the '''''' Book ''''' Dark Moon, sorry... see the above discussion where I corrected this error, sorry man...


https://aulis.com/order.php3

......

Book : DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers



Book : Two-Thirds : A History of our Galaxy

Book : Cities of Dreams

Video : WHAT happened on the MOON?

DVD : WHAT happened on the MOON?

Video : The Face on Mars

Video : The Terrestrial Connection

Other Products

DVD : Ace Your Exams [more info]

DVD : Mindpower [more info]



*** I got everything screwed up man, sorry again. Still: read the book Dark Moon, and see every documentary you can on the issue. Speak to the other guys in this forum about titles, because they know more than I do.


Cheers.

FOR YOU, SEEK THE TRUTH:

DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers
The book DARK MOON is the answer to a question that was first asked in July 1969 – did the Apollo missions really land a man on the Moon and return him alive and well to Earth, or is the record incorrect?

''We don't have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs.''

NASA spokesman

But NASA, the photographs have been shown to be FAKED!

By asking the very question that has haunted NASA from 1969 until the present day, the authors have uncovered a deception that appears to emanate from the very top regarding the exploration of the Moon.

DARK MOON is an extensively researched and balanced assessment of the people and parallels within the USSR/USA space programs and an in-depth examination of the material regarded by NASA as proof that the named Apollo astronauts did indeed walk on the lunar surface.

The circumstances surrounding the Apollo 13 'accident' are closely scrutinised revealing the fact that the account is full of serious discrepancies. Now, more than thirty years after these events we have the technology and perspective to amply demonstrate that the Apollo record is seriously flawed, and that NASA has a case to answer. NASA continues its refusal to address the numerous anomalies unearthed by the research.
DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers:

* Investigates why NASA chose to present the Apollo scenario with which we are all familiar, when research evidence suggests that a parallel operation was actually executed.
* Demonstrates that lighting was used in the Apollo photographs – yet none was taken to the Moon.
* Shows that impossibly high photographic viewpoints were employed – the images should have been taken from cameras fixed to the astronauts' chest brackets.
* Analyses numerous lunar surface photographs that appear to be encoded with deliberate mistakes and compares the still images with the claimed 'live' TV coverage of the Apollo missions.
* Highlights the severe dangers of space radiation, graphically detailing the numerous potential hazards to be overcome during manned exploration of deep space.
* Presents the testimony of Whistle-Blowers together with interviews and comments from specialists and scientists involved in the development of manned space travel.
* Provokes the discussion of many subjects that some may not wish to address, including new hypotheses concerning gravity and light.
* Proposes that spacecraft will require radical conceptual renewal before we can send a man to Mars and return him safely to Earth.
* Reveals the role that the Roswell Incident played in the overall project to get to Mars following a trial run to the Moon.

Just finished this one. Couldn't put it down and have passed it round the office! I was nine years old when the 'first moon landing' happened. This book has uprooted that part of my childhood. I won't be able to look at science in the same way again. As Eisenhower said: 'Beware the industrial-military complex'. Please pass on thanks to the authors for this excellent (if shattering) detective masterpiece; it's a wake up call we all need.

N.W. UK


"Dark Moon is two amazing books in one. On the one hand it is an admirably documented investigation of the greatest sting in history—the alleged Apollo Moon landings. As if that were not enough, the further investigation of the reasons behind this monumental operation leads to the structures observed on Mars and their exact counterparts on Earth, the almost incredible age of the Moon, the real message of the Egyptian Sphinx and much else besides. Dark Moon is then also a serious contender and complement to Fingerprints of the Gods, The Sirius Mystery and Serpent in the Sky."

Stan Gooch, author of Total Man and many other works

"In Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers authors David Percy and Mary Bennett manage the impressive feat of uniting crop circles, the Face on Mars, ancient Egypt, and the mystery of Stonehenge."

Michael Hanlon Science Editor Daily Mail UK

"I am sorry to say, I think that most of the book really is true. I have friends here in Houston who work at NASA and some believe it [Dark Moon] to be true."

Fred Woods
HUFON Report

"The moon landings, real or staged, very controversial. A MUST READ."

The Voice May 2000

I was lucky enough to be sent a copy of your book DARK MOON. The book is in my view a masterpiece and everyone should really have the opportunity of reading this work. It succeeded, as far as I was concerned, in drawing together so many of the mysteries with which we are presented. Very well done.

S. Y. Portsmouth UK

"One thing is clear–the moonshots may have been for real, but some of the photographic evidence appears to be crudely faked."

Uri Geller
The Times
22 September 1999

I bought and read your book (Dark Moon) several years ago and was duly impressed–great effort at trying to stir the pot of our cultural addiction to myth. The bottom line in all this for me is not so much were we fooled but could we have been fooled? And the answer to the latter is a resounding and absolute, YES!

Apollo researcher
USA

http://www.aulis.com/nasa3.htm

*** I have not yet read the book 'Dark Moon', so can't comment personally yet. But I'd like to hear from someone who has read it from cover to cover. ***


GS

GS

Glad to hear someone so enthused by Apollo and the hoax conspiracy surrounding it that they want to learn more and find out whether there was something sinister going on or not. That's how I got started, and came to the conclusion that Apollo really did happen pretty much as recorded in history. Other people have come to different conclusions. Hopefully you'll have as much fun along the way as I did trying to get to the truth of the matter.

Re my statement about the truth being more fantastic than the conspiracy. Soop had it spot on: the fact that human beings are capable of designing machines that can take us to the surface of the moon, allow us to live there for a few days, then fly us safely back to earth, is quite astonishing. I think that's another reason why people who think it was hoaxed believe what they do: it's simply too incredible to contemplate. The alternative explanation, that we pretended to go to the moon to win a propaganda victory, while it would shake the US to it's foundations if it really WAS true, would be a testament to human duplicity rather than perseverance, bravery and achievement.

As for looking into the different aspects of why people believe in a hoax, why don't you pick a particular topic that most interests you, and find a photo to go with it (either from a hoax site or from your own research). We can then go into it in a bit more detail: I'll explain it from my point of view and try to show you how my thought processes work, and how I do my research. Once we're finished with a particular subject we can move onto another one. Anyone else should of course feel free to weigh in with their opinion from either side of the debate. I think we need to stick to one topic at a time though and try and discuss it as throughly as possible: I've seen too many forums get swamped with all manner of subjects, it takes ages for things to get resolved (if at all).

So say we all?

Thanx for comments man. Yes, mankind is capable of so much good and so much evil, so much genius and so much stupidity! The Moon missions are are shining example of the most positive potential of man.

I'm a bit busy right now, but I will do that, i.e. "As for looking into the different aspects of why people believe in a hoax, why don't you pick a particular topic that most interests you, and find a photo to go with it (either from a hoax site or from your own research). We can then go into it in a bit more detail: I'll explain it from my point of view and try to show you how my thought processes work, and how I do my research. Once we're finished with a particular subject we can move onto another one. Anyone else should of course feel free to weigh in with their opinion from either side of the debate. I think we need to stick to one topic at a time though and try and discuss it as throughly as possible: I've seen too many forums get swamped with all manner of subjects, it takes ages for things to get resolved (if at all)."



OK everyone, keep chatting, and I'll be back soon.

Cheers.


GS.