Footage NASA never wanted you to see (video link)

moontruth.com ^ | July 20, 1969 | Moontruth

[mikegi]

If you're at this page because you've just seen an amazing piece of footage showing the Apollo 11 moonlanding to have been shot in a studio, then read on. If you haven't seen the clip, click the link below, and prepare to be amazed.

At 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong was seen on television by millions of people around the world apparently walking on the surface of the moon, and making one giant leap into the pages of history. BUT DID HE? Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet.

The piece of footage you just saw answers the question - but raises a lot of others. We don't know the answers to all these questions - but here is what we do know:

1) Is it real? Yes. This footage was clearly shot in a studio, and is clearly meant to represent the Apollo 11 moon landing. The attention to detail is staggering. The intention is clearly to fool viewers into believing that it is genuine.

2) Is it conclusive? No. There is no proof that because this was shot in a studio, the moon landing was necessarily faked. But we do know that the original non-digital footage was destroyed and that certain (dangerous) people are very angry that this clip has leaked.

3) How did we get it? We did not get it directly from a NASA source. Our source is well placed to vouch for the authenticity of the footage and had links with the makers of 2 recent documentaries, one for the BBC and one for CNN about the moonlanding conspiracies. We cannot possibly reveal his identity, and probably never will be able to. His position is more dangerous than you might imagine.

4) Why haven't I seen it before? The footage has been buried for over 30 years. All the original stock, except this cut, was destroyed. We have had it for over 2 years and in that time have (anonymously) approached almost every large TV network owner to sell the rights. Without exception they were interested and offered to buy it. At one point they were also Then, also without exception they changed their minds and started to try to find out who we were. At that point we stopped dealing with them. It was scary as hell.

5) How, when and where was it made? It was made in 1965, judging by the camera it was shot on - an Ikegami Tube Camera. We have evidence that the footage was shot outside the US - possibly in Europe, by a foreign crew.

6) Who is inside the suit? Not one of the original astronauts. In fact, they are totally unaware that this footage was ever shot. The guy in the suit is an actor called Symond Lewis.

7) Why is it on the Internet and not on TV? See point 4

8) What is NASA's reaction to this footage? They have refused to comment. But we have recently heard that they are stepping up efforts on a huge PR campaign to convince us all that the Apollo moonlandings all took place.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

However, when you view the "actual" films of the attack on >>>Pearl Harbor that were shown to the American public during WWII, they were in most parts fake. Much of the released film were re-enactments. Sad but true. The main difference between them is that the Pearl Harbor films were shown during a democratic administration and the moon landing was during a Republican administration.<<<

And BOTH were driven by special interest money. We've had 2 rounds of major campaign finance reform since the Apollo Era.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

>>>I mean, who disbelieved the landing back in '69?<<<

Plenty of folks did.

[SquirrelKing]

Tin Foil Hat Alert!

Hehehe. Always makes me laugh!

[Truth666]

This is not a joke - the software source code to get there ...

[TalBlack]

>>>I mean, who disbelieved the landing back in '69?<<<

Plenty of folks did.


In America?

[rs79bm]

If zero gravity's obtainable here on Earth, you can imagine how certain vested interests would be substantially threatened.

I think a class in engineering or theoretical physics would do you some good. Look, earth has an atmosphere. You cannot approach zero-gravity within the earth's atmosphere. Only when you leave the atmosphere do you experience zero gravity. The moon has a smaller gravitational field than the earth, but it has an atmosphere nonetheless. That is why when the astronauts were walking on the moon, it seemed like they were in slow motion. Other planets have atmospheres, but mars is nearly identical to that of the earths. As far as zero gravity on earth, the only thing close to replicating that is by sinking astronauts in an olympic size swimming pool with their suits on. This is part of their training. If there were others ways, you could bet we would be doing it.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

A pretty good friend of mine whose brother worked at NASA was one of the staunchest AMERICAN disbelievers, in fact...

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

A pretty good friend of mine whose brother worked at NASA at the time was one of the staunchest AMERICAN disbelievers, in fact...

[U S Army EOD]

There were quite a few people I talked to within weeks of the "landing" who felt that the entire thing was faked. These same people used the justification of their beliefs from other NASA films and photos. They all agreed that NASA was trying to claim not only did they land on the moon but that the world was round. These brillant individuals were sure not only was the moon landing faked, but also the Earth was flat. Which is basically the same mentality we deal with today with the nay-sayers.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

>>>Other planets have atmospheres, but mars is nearly identical to that of the earths. <<<

Which class did you learn THAT "fact" from?

Having said that, I don't mean for that to sound condescending :-) I appreciate the noncondescending nature of your explanation to me just now.

[U S Army EOD]

Even NASA has to hire people to clean out the latrines.

I think your main problem is you have a hard time coping with the fact America won the space race or anything else America does well.

[NRA2BFree]

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

>>>I think your main problem is you have a hard time coping with the fact America won the space race or anything else America does well.<<<

I have a problem with my tax dollars being wasted, and with private industry's being excluded from space by parasitic, predatory, contractor-favoring bureaucrats. Are you aware of these documented stories?

http://www.spaceprojects.com/Mir

and

http://www.Spaceprojects.com/Beal

?

[rs79bm]

I should have made it more clear. Mars atmosphere, in one point of it's history, was very similiar to that of earth. Identical was to strong a word, I suppose. Having said that, Mars lost a lot of its atmosphere and you would certainly need a spacesuit on the surface of mars to survive any longer than a few seconds.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

>>>If there were others ways [to generate microgravity without having to go to space], you could bet we would be doing it.<<<

Why, because NASA bureaucrats and their contractor allies seek to save taxpayers money? Presumably you're aware that the Russians launch humans into space at 1/25th of what NASA charges us, even as the Russians haven't lost anyone in space in over 3 decades?

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Mars has lost most of its atmosphere...I think it has at most 1% of our own, but I've not read the facts for a couple of years. Even so, Mars has almost 20% of our gravity.

[U S Army EOD]

How do you know this is not faked. I think I pretty much hit the nail on the head with what I said. You have only been around since 2 November 2003.

My advice to you since you appear to be so concerned about your tax dollars, is to start your own "launch into space" company. Since you will start off not making any profit you will be able to write off most of expenditures therefore not paying any taxes that would got to NASA.

Once your company is develped well enough to where it can compete with some of the French companies who are making money putting payloads into orbit you can show a profit. Many of these payloads are American who feel the French can do it cheaper than NASA.

Once you are able to land a man on the moon then you can contact some congressman and show him that you can do it cheaper and better than NASA. Then you will be the hero that got rid of the tax dollar spending NASA.

What I am saying is actually possible in this country, but only if you "Have the right stuff".

Go out and invest in fireworks to get started so you can learn something. Don't buy from the Chinese or Mexicans please.

Come back and let us know how you are doing, and if you are doing well, and not faking your success, I will buy stock.

[rs79bm]

NASA Budget (FY 1999): $14 Billion

Federal Budget (FY 1999): $1.7 Trillion

NASA's budget of $14B, thus, represented only about 0.8% of total federal expenditures during FY '99.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Reforms are needed, first:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/reforms

[U S Army EOD]

Don't use such complicated math, you are going to confuse the guy.

If you are trying to impress this guy, you can't use facts, you have got to use raw emotion only.

If you must use facts, don't say you made it up, say you heard it from some guy who had a brother, who cleaned latrines for NASA. Only in this way will you have any credibility to appeal to the mindset you are dealing with.