i agree with you i think the original footage is the fogged footage and the
new is the crystal clear fake footage also the lit up areas in full dark
shadow is totaly bogus
for further analysis
Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
UFORCE International Director(UK)
Why not subscribe to our Egroup and Newsletter at:
From: Frits Westra <fwestra@...
Subject: [UFOnet] Fwd = [B-T] Off Topic: Moon - NASA vs. Photographers!
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:39:50 +0100
Forwarded by: fwestra@...
Originally from: firstname.lastname@example.org
Original Subject: [B-T] Digest Number 857
Original Date: 1 Dec 2002 14:56:31 -0000
========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
Please excuse any Yahoo 'adverts' with this message.
The Black-Triangle E-Group...
PROBING those dark & secret places for news, reports & information!
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 07:00:05 EST
Subject: Off Topic: Moon - NASA vs. Photographers!
For what it's worth, here's my spin on things:
My interest in the Moon 'hoax' theory was sparked
a few years ago - at the Fortean 'UnConvention' in
A lecture by former 'UK Press Photographer of the Year'
David Percy featured his stunned reaction to close study
of the official NASA videos & still pictures of the Apollo
His view (& I'm not saying it's accurate) is that the photos
released by NASA just don't 'add up', and 'Whistleblowers'
gave 'clues' to the cover-up.
Some examples included: 'Wrong' shadows (angles);
wrong lighting (pools of light, fill-in lighting);
wrong effects (the flag blowing in a breeze!);
wrong science (heat/cold/radiation/film stock);
wrong photometry (cross-hairs on pictures);
wrong 'framing' (such great pictures? Impossible!)
wrong effects (thick soft dust UNDER the lander?!)
and several other 'problems' (like Hassleblad never
allowing close examination of their 'Moon cameras'!)
Now - He was looking at this from a photographers
viewpoint... He admits he was brought up watching
- & strongly believing in - the Moon landings!
He was shocked that later, with his new photo-skills,
he could see deeper problems within the images.
I'm not here to defend his views, but I do agree that
many of the 'Official NASA' pictures are NOT 'true'!
However - that might not mean they never went to the
It just might mean that NASA couldn't provide decent
pictures to the Press/Media, it simply wasn't possible.
So they faked pictures, film & videos to satisfy the
requirements of National Geographic & Co.!
I like this, because it means that you can still 'hold
onto the dream' - & KNOW that NASA really DID get
there; While we 'conspiracy theorists' can enjoy NASA
squirming - because they DID fake photos in the desert
out by Groom Lake AFB - & at the soundstage created
at Norton AFB utilising Hollywood special FX experts!!!
(Hence the visual clues from 'whistleblowers').
The funny thing is that NASA is continuing to deny
anything/everything! The Jim O'Berg book farce; the
statements that all (ALL?!) the relevant people are now
moved-on, or deceased, or lost track-of, means that
NASA CANNOT now disprove the deception!
It'd be much simpler if someone (Oberg?) just said:
"Well... OK... Actually, it's true - we DID take a few
films out in the desert to replace those that got fogged
by the radiation up on the Moon..."
I love it!!!
Hope that clarifies the view held by a few of us?!
(I expect there are a few 'Moon-Hoax' Yahoo groups!)
Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'.
Black-Triangle E-Group HQ.
Near London Heathrow, UK.
========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.
To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@...
Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list require
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*