The smoking gun NASA a Fraud Proof Of Life On Moon

[Reader]

Hey Philbert, nice work. Any ideas as to who these et's are ?

[Peace of mind]

cool...thanks

here's Fox news discussing disclosure,
yes, a very unlikely source...imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQgF4zzfQKQ

Peace

[Majorion]

It goes way beyond just the Moon.

Life exists everywhere in the Solar System, everywhere in the Universe.

How this is covered up? .. ridicule, suppression, lies, discrediting the most prominent figures associated with exposing this cover up.

[Philbert]

I agree 1000% with this Majorion, I have investigated many satellite images of mars, venis, jupiters moon and have found signs of inhabitants. Structures and buildings.
Please feel free to look over the images I have posted at this webpage below. You will find images from Nasa satellites that show the evidence of life on mars, humans, vehicles, animals, housing, structures.


http://oursolarsystemthetruthishere.webs.com/

[THE eXchanger]

doesn't John Leer get into that ???
if so, http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=16128
i'll put a link to this thread, also, from that thread too

[Ravens and Doves]

Originally Posted by Reader

Hey Philbert, nice work. Any ideas as to who these et's are ?

Personally, and it pains me to say this, but compared to some older space shuttle smoking guns, those moon shots are the weakest eveidence I've seen so far on Avelon. I used to work with celluloid and all kinds of specks would appear from one (piec of dust mangified) to several frames (fiber or human hair or?) until it's knocked away by air movement cause by the flickering shutter or other disturbace. The was true for vide tape in those days, too.

Ket's just cut to the case. I've seen day light disc with my own two, sober lying eyes (along with countless witnesses - read "UFOs Over Topanga Canyon" by Preston Dennet - Topanga is near Santa Monica... it's just half of went on above the L.A. skies).

Now THIS is a smoking gun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH9eZ...03CE3&index=40

One two-bit debunker says "there's no movement in the trees." Right now, I look out my window and the branches are saying, does that mean I have fake trees? Ohters have ointed out the causual reaction of the woman. In 1994 some of us were so desensitized by all the sighting that the reaction was not "OH MY GOD! IT'S A FLYING SAUCER!!!! HELP!!!" (I know of one fellow who did loose it) but more like "Cool! That's a beutiful one!"

Got to go.

Paul

[Philbert]

[QUOTE=Ravens and Doves;213057]Personally, and it pains me to say this, but compared to some older space shuttle smoking guns, those moon shots are the weakest eveidence I've seen so far o

Originally Posted by Ravens and Doves

Personally, and it pains me to say this, but compared to some older space shuttle smoking guns, those moon shots are the weakest evidence I've seen so far on Avalon.

In reply to your statement the direct significance of this particular sequence of footage is to document the historical implications. This is just a piece of the entire picture, but a large piece.

In fact anyone who will take time to seriously ponder the footage using some reasoning can analyze the objects and see they are clearly coming from the moon. Clearly enough to anyone applying simple reasoning can see that these are not dust or hairs on the film. These are objects that where with out a single doubt in my mind filmed while near the moon. I mean come on I understand that some of the zoom are not very clear, but a single square pixel that is going to move across the footage, come up from the moon and lands on the Command Module is not a defect in the film or hair or scratch.
Also defects in film will not constantly through 300 frames, depict structures on the surface, obvious flying objects, objects that clearly get larger as they come closer to view and smaller as they go away or fade because they are moving so fast.
If we do the math, we have many very unusual things going on in the film.
#1. Objects that appear to be real moving up to and around the command module,
#2. Objects that appear to be structures and buildings on the surface of the moon.
#3. Objects that appear to come up and land on the command module it two sections of this footage.
#4.Evidence of a manufactured fake horizon,
#5. Evidence of too little contrast in the released footage from NASA.
Putting these all together and with a little study and homework they add up to a huge cover up.
Yes many other evidences are out there that also are beginning to weigh in heavy on the big picture.


Many false presentations are out also. I did watch the video link you had posted here, and as much as this is going to hurt it has to be said. Many false video of U.F.Os have been created using cgi.
Another thing is that the video you posted shows a definite phenomenon in the footage that can not be identified. But the sad thing is that it has no credibility. It is a video shot by citizen here on earth.
That could be a government experiment or technology that was caught on the film in your link.

Remember false flags are used here on the people to confuse.


As far as a smoking gun I can see no smoke. The smoke on the other hand seen in the NASA deception footage can be traced back to a source that is real - NASA.
The way I see it, Nasa has shot themselves in the leg, and soon to shoot their other limbs off as soon as more people put the undeniable evidence together from Nasas own footage.

Trust me there is plenty to put together, just not many people can work with the film archives.

Another thing I would like to say is that I did not compile and post this footage of the nasa deception series for fame or fortune or popularity, I am doing this because these things are important for everyone to hear, even if they don’t believe in them.

Sorry your posted video link is just not a smoking gun to me there just is no smoke to follow.

Originally Posted by Ravens and Doves

I used to work with celluloid and all kinds of specks would appear from one (piece of dust magnified) to several frames (fiber or human hair or?) until it's knocked away by air movement cause by the flickering shutter or other disturbance. The was true for video tape in those days, too.

Sorry but I need to address this also. The characteristics you explain do not hold any water with at least 6-10 anomalies that appear in the Apollo footage that seem to defy this explanation you have given. Things such as I stated before, that are flying outside around the Command Module and then landing on it or stopping next to it and them returning to the moon surface. Again these defects you talk about, specks dust, fibers, hair will not appear continually like flying objects or structures on the moon either. Unless you have some really contaminated film footage that these things could build up and create look alikes. But then I still doubt that specs, dust, fibers and hair even if they had a chance to build up in an area of the footage, would precisely track along with known real object in the footage, as though they are real objects captured in the film footage themselves.

Originally Posted by Ravens and Doves

Ket's just cut to the case. I've seen day light disc with my own two, sober lying eyes (along with countless witnesses - read "UFOs Over Topanga Canyon" by Preston Dennet - Topanga is near Santa Monica... it's just half of went on above the L.A. skies).

Again the things you claim to have seen could be of government projects.

The NASA film Archives are important evidences that open up a totally different story than what tradition has told us.

We can look at footage of U.F.Os from all across the world, but the question remains in this day who is the intelligence operating the craft, off planet beings or government.

I believe strongly that the important answers are hidden in the NASAs own Work, displayed for everyone to investigate for themselves. Giving the assurance of their source also.

That is why I am going to post footage I recently compiled again from Nasa own files.

Oh by the way Jaxa is Japans Space agency, But in fact they are in bed with NASA. You can check out some of the images from jaxa website and find that they also display the Nasa Logo in images and on their uniforms.

Here are the latest smoking guns.


Jaxa Japans space agency deceptions proof of life on the Moon Released today World News Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOQXWXTPsFU

Breaking News Japan Space Agency Announces The Proof Of Civilization On Earths Moon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVBYUE-1Npc


Real Alien encounters Apollo 11 Crew Must see Undeniable Proof Of Life On The Moon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5HExSkAzR8

[Ravens and Doves]

[QUOTE=Philbert;213215pixel that is going to move across the footage, come up from the moon and lands on the Command Module is not a defect in the film or hair or scratch.
Also defects in film will not constantly through 300 frames,


Philbert and Friends,

It's good that we have this dialogue and agree to disagree on certian points without any personal attacks. Actually, we're on the same page regarding moon and planetary scrutuers. Other clips you have posted are better, In my opinion.

A few things I'd like to clear up. I said "a few frames" not 300 and I used the "human hair" term only as an example of the many difficulties that arise in making (especialy celluloid) copies of motion pictures. Also, pixels never move - but specks do.

If you've ever seen at the very end of a Hollywwod flick "Color by Delux." Delux was/is essentially Twentieth Century Fox's film processing lab - full post production facillity and archives. My brother was their chief engineer for many years before he went to Lazer Pacific when Kodak bought Lazer to be tech ready for the now unfolding, global, ULTRA high def digital broadcast AND theater output. Now, due to the economy thing, he's temping with ABC, NBC or whoever beeps his phone. I saw first hand a painstaking process:

Even through the processing and editing rooms are highly temp and humidity controlled, the back side of film is like an a vinyl record - in the cleanest of rooms, movement generates a static charge that can pull clothing fibers off a tech's shirt and unless the editing or other hardware is sophisticated enough to have a back-up, self film cleaning unit, tiny little dots appear and disapper.
I'm not saying that that is what is in the first NASA clip you posted, I'm just saying "camera artifacts" are something to consider regard SOME anomalies.


#4.Evidence of a manufactured fake horizon,

I have no clue as to why they would bother using a fake horizon when simpley leaving the real one in place would be easier and give the shots more credibility. Could the film have been shot through the NASA craft window? (the round portal frame getting in the way?)

*****

Many false presentations are out also. I did watch the video link you had posted here, and as much as this is going to hurt it has to be said. Many false video of U.F.Os have been created using cgi.
Another thing is that the video you posted shows a definite phenomenon in the footage that can not be identified. But the sad thing is that it has no credibility. It is a video shot by citizen here on earth.

*****


"...a video shot by citizen here on earth."

Ahem... ever heard of Project Camelot? It contains videos shot by citizens here on plenet Earth. I'm afraid it's the best we can do, for now.

The Santa Monica clip has already be studied for CGI and no evidence of that was found. Unfortunatly that analytical clip was taken off U-Toob or is very hard to find, but it does exist.

*****

That could be a government experiment or technology that was caught on the film in your link.

Remember false flags are used here on the people to confuse.

*****

I agree, but ANYTHING can be a government experiment at this point.

*****
Trust me there is plenty to put together, just not many people can work with the film archives.

*****

My bro and a woman I breifly dated and who is on my facebook worked with the raw footage of the Discovery Channel, Nat. Geo. and about one quarter of the entire A-list film and TV product (in one respect or another) in the Engish speaking world (that's one reason they got five Emmy's in a row). As Kerry Kassidy can tell you, post-production is highly problem intensive until that precious "final cut" is "in the can" (for the producer and distributors) and the negetives with a master positive go to archives.


******


Sorry your posted video link is just not a smoking gun to me there just is no smoke to follow.

[/COLOR]


There is a small luminous orb that dashes benieth the main object from left to right. These have also dashed undernieth the Space Shuttle just befor or after very convincing ET caft sightings that have baffled the crew... then the video is just down by Houston, NRO, NSA or?

[COLOR="Yellow"]
Again the things you claim to have seen could be of government projects.


******

Nope. I have seen BOTH. My main sighting WAS NOT government... the military intels would show up AFTER the events, stumbling over themselves, nearly crashing their unmarked choppers together. Years later I had tall blonde contact similiar as to what Miriam Delecado experienced, but I was not aboard a craft (others saw orange discs nearby... I saw flashes of light... then proceeded to have my mind blown... ultimatly for the better. I just finished a 300+ page book about it all and need to edit it down for publishing)


I need to close as I just got home after a very eventful (almost TOO eventful... threre's a party in the hills that is STILL going on!) New Years wing-ding.

Thank you for stimulating these trembling, post-temporal lobe siezure hands to work. Re; the brain thing. I WAS NOT having one at the time of my sightings or contact. To me, if that is suggested, it would be as offensive and redundant as the old "weather balloon/swamp gas/sleep paralysis" cop out.

Actually, I could use some good sleep paralysis (with the fear factor) right now.

May 2010 be a better year for us all,

Paul

PS. For those who have acess, go to my profile to see the kind of patch my uncle used to wear in the spookyland of western Nevada. I had my first off-the-consensual-radar experience there when I was about 10 years old.

PS.2. The Adams Family from Outer Space had a very difficult holiday season. The silence is DEAFENING.

[Ravens and Doves]

Originally Posted by Ravens and Doves;
*****


[COLOR="Yellow"

Actually, I could use some good sleep paralysis (with the fear factor) right now.

May 2010 be a better year for us all,

Paul

PS. For those who have acess, go to my profile to see the kind of patch my uncle used to wear in the spookyland of western Nevada. I had my first off-the-consensual-radar experience there when I was about 10 years old.

PS.2. The Adams Family from Outer Space had a very difficult holiday season. The silence is DEAFENING.

Oops, I meant to say WITHOUT the fear factor.

Last night I was breifly surrounded by US fan club of the UK women's equvelent of Manchester United... all tall, buff women who wanted to make sure I was treating the British lady of soccer with respect and not dissing her palzy walzy Mr. Beckham. So I took of my hat, toasted Mancester U, said good-night and left the club with life and limb intact.

Another lesson learned without the need for violence.

[Majorion]

Recently released JAXA image, discovery of hole/tunnel on the Moon.



Lava tubes?

Nah, leads to the underworld

[Dantheman62]

I love the hole pictures!




A new image reveals a wall on this dark feature, suggesting it is a pit at least 78 metres deep

[Dantheman62]

[QUOTE=Ravens and Doves;213057]Personally, and it pains me to say this, but compared to some older space shuttle smoking guns, those moon shots are the weakest eveidence I've seen so far on Avelon.



I agree with Ravens and Doves, kind of, I would say that it's not the weakest evidence I've seen, but it's definitly not the "smoking gun" LOL

I don't think as of yet that JAXA has admitted to the so called proof.

And yes eXchanger, John Lear is into it, but it's like following Richard Hoagland, or as I call him, "Richard Hoaxland", where Hoaxland says "see that bump over there next to that other bump?, it's a bridge, and it's 10 miles long!" LOL

Next!

[Majorion]

Originally Posted by Dantheman62

but it's like following Richard Hoagland, or as I call him, "Richard Hoaxland", where Hoaxland says "see that bump over there next to that other bump?, it's a bridge, and it's 10 miles long!" LOL

Hey buddy, I was under the impression this wasn't a debunker website.

I've seen hundreds of artists like yourself call Richard a hoaxer, and while his views are undoubtedly controversial and open to discussion, I've never seen him hoax anyone with anything.

If it weren't for Richard, people would never have looked into this in the first place.

Unless you have something more substantial to offer, I suggest you keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

[Dantheman62]

Originally Posted by Majorion

Hey buddy, I was under the impression this wasn't a debunker website.

I've seen hundreds of artists like yourself call Richard a hoaxer, and while his views are undoubtedly controversial and open to discussion, I've never seen him hoax anyone with anything.

If it weren't for Richard, people would never have looked into this in the first place.

Unless you have something more substantial to offer, I suggest you keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

OK, actually you're right about Hoagland, he's not a hoaxer and is an extremely intelligent person, but he's got an imagination that's running rampant!
I shouldn't have used the "Hoaxland" comment because it's really not true and is an inside joke anyway. So I retract that!
Oh, and I'm not your buddy, I'm not an artist, and I'm not ignorant, just very well grounded and very tired of looking at blurry/fuzzy pictures that people are calling proof!

[Majorion]

Originally Posted by Dantheman62

Oh, and I'm not your buddy, I'm not an artist, and I'm not ignorant, just very well grounded and very tired of looking at blurry/fuzzy pictures that people are calling proof!

Since apparently you've appointed yourself the evaluator of evidence here, why don't you first demonstrate your standards of proof before evaluating others? Only fair wouldn't you agree? bring about your own evidence first, then you can speak of standards.

Interesting the hypocrisy here, first you condemn the man, then retract the statement, when Hoagland had nothing to do with this topic anyway, there was no mention of him in the first place.

[Dantheman62]

hmmm, no thanks! I'm not playing the "who's evidence is better" game. Have I got pictures? sure, are they better than those blurry videos that are supposedly "proof of life on the moon" sure.

Standards? It really doesn't take much to see what's what in a picture or video, just open eyes.

I retracted the statement because it's true that he's not a hoaxer!
Like I said, it's an inside joke, and it doesn't matter here (for those that are Hoagland followers).

I mentioned him because it 'does' have something to do with this thread as far as "proof of life on the moon", as Hoagland is claiming similar things!

Smile Majorion!

[Majorion]

Originally Posted by Dantheman62

hmmm, no thanks! I'm not playing the "who's evidence is better" game. Have I got pictures? sure, are they better than those blurry videos that are supposedly "proof of life on the moon" sure.

Thank you for establishing you haven't a shred of credibility on this matter.

Ironic you get all uncomfortable. Scrutiny works both ways.

[Dantheman62]

Uncomfortable? Where do you get that?
You don't know me, I'm far from uncomfortable, LOL
In fact I'm very comfortable knowing that I'm not a Hoagland follower, or that I'm not following these videos as proof of life on the moon! LOL
We all know NASA's a fraud, (or should know by now), but these videos aren't proof of anything except that some people will bite down hard on this ****!
hmmm, seems I might know you though, as you sound very familiar to someone who used to be on this forum, hmmm
That's ok, keep being a follower, I hope they lead you in the right direction, LOL

[taomation]

I must agree with Ravens and Doves. I have also done a fair amount of film restoration and these could easily be dirt specs. If there were life on the moon (and I am not saying that there isn't) I doubt they would send up twenty ships up to do recon and if they did, they would probably hover for a while to check things out. The ships may be fast, but unless they are insect people there reaction time wouldn't be much different than ours.

But I also feel that the "smoking gun" that Ravens and Doves gives could easily be those man made laterns. I have never heard of or seen evidence of this type of craft.

The "smoking gun" is a ship for all to see or your own experience. Mexico has had much better evidence than either of these examples.

I am not trying to put anyone down, but we have to rise to a higher standard. Film is a deceptive medium and if it is a film or video medium the example must be obvious and be able to hold up under scientific scrutiny...

[Philbert]

It is unfortunate that you did not understand my reply explaining the smoking gun. The smoking gun is intended not about the Ufos the unidentifiables in images. The smoking gun is about NASA and their lies.
You may have images that you think are real U.F.Os, but as I said before, many of these images showing unidentified objects photographed here on earth by the average person does not carry as much weight as a space agency proofs of image manipulations, along with anomalies that appear to defy the common sense theory’s. Defying common conceptions

When you have a Smoking Gun the smoke
can be seen coming from the barrel of the tool. In the case of the Nasa Moon footage there is more smoke rising than most U.F.O images declared to be taken here on earth.

Many Images of U.F.Os are more probably real phenomenon that is unidentified objects moving capered on the photo. There are also many video footage from citizens that looks to be real also. I believe that at least 50% of them are real. But in the same respect I cannot prove them or disprove them because there just is not any smoke that can be followed to prove them. Understand now I am not saying any of them are false. They just cannot be traced to a credible source. Just like the videos I posted, I could not expect anyone here to believe me because I say these are substantial proof. The footage source does that for me. As I said, anyone can reproduce the results that I got with official footage from an agency that has been in space, photographed the moon anomalies and objects flying through the air defying logic. But the logic involved here is a knowledge curve. The information given in the Apollo presentation establishes a who=what=when=where=and why. The who is Nasa- the where is outer space near the moon. When is 1969 ,The what is Structures on the moon surface and flying objects- the why is because of a cover up. Show me a photo that holds these characteristics in proof. Then you will have smoke rising from the source.

Sorry but this area has been played like a game of chess for so many years. The truth is beginning to be evident all across the world.
I believe strongly in many things that John Lear and Richard Hoagland have said. Using empty accusations to discredit these people gives me the interpretation that some are of little knowledge while others don't need to stoop to the level of slander.
Many never consider that these men have risked everything to bring out what they have come to know. Sure they may not know it all but they hold a piece of the truth.

Sorry again but the Nasa footage sums it up for me. The smoke is pouring out of the nasa guns, nasa has shot themselves in the leg and will continue to do so until their fall. Plain and simple.

If you walk into a drug store that is has been robbed, two men are standing with guns, the store owner has been shot, the man on the left holding a gun has smoke pouring out of his barrel, the man on them right has no smoke coming out of his barrel. Now you know you just heard one gun shot before you walked in. Who do you think shot the store owner?

Its simple Who-what-where-when-why. Any evidence that can stand up to this is evidence..

Again I’m not trying to say that these videos I posted are any better in quality than yours images, but they will hold up themselves. Can you say that for your images?

When I posted these here I did not say these are the best evidence ever.
I simply said there is lots of smoke coming from a real source.

I feel it was very inappropriate to mention John Lear or Richard Hoagland in a degrading way. Your smoothness is bringing them to this thread only tells me you have no credibility here as you have already been warned.

If I was in your shoes and was serous about finding the truth and posted what you did about these two men. I would be begging the Moderator to remove my inappropriate remarks.

It was just simply unjustified to smear their research and knowledge.
If I have said anything inappropriate here I ask the moderator to remove my remarks and inform me of my mistake so I can become a better informer rather than the misinformed.

Sorry if I seem a little bitter but that is the way I feel at this point and time when all I am here to do as many are, is to find the answers to many unsolved questions.

Being aboard a boat and seeing that it is taking on water, It Is my obligation to myself as well as those around me to search for the leak. If I signal falsely the place of the leak I waste the important time needed to fix the leak. Therefore I have made myself a victim of my own lie.

Folks the truth is out there and you will find that it don’t need to be propped up with uncertainty.

[Dantheman62]

OK, I understand what you're saying now. Again my comment about Hoagland is an inside joke like I said and I retracted it. He is very intelligent and a leader of this type of investigation.

The thing is, is that I've known about NASA (Never A Straight Answer) for years.
I've known about the NASA fraud that you speak of for years now.

I'll post some pictures to prove I know what I'm talking about, since I must prove my credibility, LOL


Enhanced pics:






http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P1585L0M1.HTML


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCzsu6sj988


Anything from this guy... Martyn Stubbs (secretnasaman)
http://www.youtube.com/user/secretnasaman



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW78l1tOj14




I'll dig up some more when I get time, as there's a ton of stuff out there.

[Dantheman62]

You've probably seen these...









Obvious air brushing!...




There is one object in this image that did not get covered up






Photo Credit 1954 NACA

The triangle craft in his hand is the Mars Glider

This was BEFORE NASA, when von Braun worked for the Army

[Dantheman62]

The Airport Terminal

also known as Mariner 9 #4209-75

There was only ONE image of that area from Mariner 9. They were not very good back then... here is that picture




You will notice that the 'Terminal' is a depression in the ground. To make it look like a 'Terminal' you have to invert it, or emboss it..

Like this...

[Majorion]

Should we turn this half and half? Moon AND Mars?

Who cares, its not too off topic

One of my favorites is the Mars Metronome:



http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/al...P2432R1M1.HTML

[Dantheman62]

Originally Posted by Majorion

Should we turn this half and half? Moon AND Mars?

Who cares, its not too off topic

One of my favorites is the Mars Metronome:



http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/al...P2432R1M1.HTML

HaHa oops! You're right, sorry, those first few pictures are from Mars, my mistake, I'm in kind of a hurry here, LOL