What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

[Charlie Prime]

This DVD set made me angry. Although I am a seasoned political conspiracy theorist, I thought the Apollo faked photo theories were a bunch of nonsense only goofy people believed.

On a whim I downloaded this 2 DVD set and watched them yesterday. I wish I had not. My Mom decorated my birthday cake for my 7th birthday party with a Saturn 5 rocket. I'm growing weary of discovering how many things I used to believe are not true.

How to watch:

* Install DownloadHelper - Media download Firefox extension ('http://www.downloadhelper.net')

* Download theses videos to your computer as .mp4 files.

* Copy them to your Home Theater PC or cell phone or whatever.

Note: To get DownloadHelper to download these videos as .mp4, you must open these YouTube videos in their own tab. To do that, click on the video where it says "YouTube", like this...

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb466/CharliePrime/openyoutube-1.jpg

You can buy these here: What Happened On The Moon?: Hoax, Lies & Video Tape - Special Expanded Edition - 2DVD Disk Set : UFOTV ('http://www.ufotv.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=K481&Category_Code=')


DVD 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5w0pm24ic

DVD 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MalYSn_qIU4

[Doc]

Thanks for this great find! There's a lot of video viewing there and I'll get to it ASAP. I hope it generates some discussion. Current events keep teaching me that my general rejection of conspiracy theories is wrong. I've been far too trusting of institutions.

[Garuda]

It's important to understand that it is not because there are faked videos and photos that we didn't go to the moon.
One does not necessarily imply the other.

From what I understand, they weren't sure whether they'd be able have any decent photographs because of a number of reasons which had to do with unknown factors: how would the film and the camera react to the radiation, the exposure, ...
So they wanted a plan B because the PR aspect of the whole operation was too important to leave it open the chance.

What allegedly happened in reality was that they found structures etc., which were visible in some of the pictures, so those were 're-shot' in a studio.

[Edgar Fouche]

Who Built the Moon? Natural or NOT!

Interesting viewpoint!

I personally don't believe the moon is natural. I believe 'Ingo Swann' who was the best remote viewer according to my friend Dr. Hal Puthoff, who ran the Remote Viewing Project at SRI for the CIA who told me that Ingo was the absolute best remote viewer in the WORLD, ever! My great friend and co-author Brad Steiger knew Ingo Swann his whole life. Ed Fouche

Ingo wrote a best seller called 'Penetration' and in the last chapters describes massive alien structures on the Far Side of the moon.

You can read it on Scribd.com I hate to mention this site, as the steal everyone's books and pay NO roylties at all. They are scum, but you can still read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/212586063/Penetration-Ingo-Swann
http://www.scribd.com/doc/212586063/Penetration-Ingo-Swann


http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2012/11/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight-Aliens-ET.html

See related:
http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/02/hangar-1-new-ufo-series.html

[Zaggan]

I believe the same, and always have. I believe the pictures were staged only as a PR angle for LIFE magazine and how it would be presented to the world.


It's important to understand that it is not because there are faked videos and photos that we didn't go to the moon.
One does not necessarily imply the other.

From what I understand, they weren't sure whether they'd be able have any decent photographs because of a number of reasons which had to do with unknown factors: how would the film and the camera react to the radiation, the exposure, ...
So they wanted a plan B because the PR aspect of the whole operation was too important to leave it open the chance.

What allegedly happened in reality was that they found structures etc., which were visible in some of the pictures, so those were 're-shot' in a studio.

[majicbar]

If you ever get a chance to examine TIFF images from the NASA archives you will note the higher image numbers on the rolls of mission films show radiation damage. This damage was airbrushed out in the JPEG images that were released to the press and in PIA's that were sent out of the NASA management offices. The high quality re-scans for scientific study are entirely genuine, but the occasional fogged image in the archives might well be those images which were not supposed to get released, at least not released prior to the disclosure we all await.