http://www.revver.com/video/797542/apollo-...d-transmission/

http://www.revver.com/video/797241/apollo-...isa-16-mm-film/

http://revver.com/u/retiredafb/

http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRIT...iamRutledge.htm

http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRITI-ENG/home-ENG.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_36e.htm

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/walkaboutmoon.htm

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625

If the Japanese moon probe proves this then there can be no more denial. Expect some disclosure by sept 2009.
This could be the one to prove it all. A truth too big to hide.

INCREADABLE I just don't know what to say about this. Left me speechless.

Hey Bart,
This one was done to death in another thread, i think the general opinion was that the whole thing was fake. It did have its supporter though
There is plenty of heated reading about it if you want to look in another thread
Cheers

This retiredafb kook has been debunked over and over again

Thats a nice chocolate easter bunny he's got there btw
I bet it tasted good

This is the only one that I have ever seen that I believe without major doubts. Obviously you don't know a whole lot about the Apollo program. My uncle Jimmy was an engineer in the Apollo program responsible for installing cameras on spacecraft. His wife Faye was my mothers baby sister. I watched many launches while visiting them.

There are details all through this that I know to be authentic. Many of the details are ones that debunkers point to as being the reason for debunking when I know the opposite to be true. Like the numbers and lines on the lander window. Those were visual aids when everyone was too busy with the landing to read charts. The computers of that era were weak and overloaded quickly with too much data input. Or details like the bar over the window for mounting cameras. Have you ever seen the inside of an Apollo moon lander? Well I have. I was only 14 but my memory is pretty good, especially about something that fascinating for me.

Just thought I would share with you. There are too many different views with too many details that are authentic. Nobody could put this many fake vids together without getting some of the details wrong. I know this from personal knowledge. The terminology and abbreviations are correct. Like the DSY.

Further the only official Apollo photo showing the area has the ship in the same location with acitecture, location and proportions all correct. When the truth finally does emerge then you will know. The government has done a thorough job of convincing everyone of them being hoaxed when I have enough personal knowledge to know better. They also diseminate real BS stories that everyone buys to alienate believers from mainstream science. Nobody wants to listen to a kook as they have succesfuly portrayed believers to be. Dont be a sucker buying the BS and overlooking the truth.

If the Japenese hold true to their word of making their data public in Sept. 2009 then expect them to make an anouncement before then. They are not going to be scooped by someone else finding something in their data that they overlooked. The US could pressure them into conceiling the truth but I hope not.

Look at the Clementina photos of this area and you will see that they are deliberatly blurred. Look at the Worldwind view of this region and you will find it blanked out.

What impacted me the most emotionally about this vid was the pilot had a hair doo. She had a life, she cared about her looks. She was someone with emotion. We might even find that they were from earth and not aliens at all. It is obvious that the history we are tought is wrong and full of anomalies. Perhaps the stone age was something we went back to when technology was lost due to a fall from grace. A natural or unatural disaster that set us back.

Anyway I don't care to debate this much because I see too many details that I know are acurate from personal knowledge.

I know too much about the details to be easily fooled. Believe as you will. Believe me or not, time will tell.

My father was a security guard at The Mound in Miamisburg Ohio. Google it. It is now a superfund cleanup site because the ground water is contaminated with radioactive heavy metals. But no where will you find any real details about the underground weapons research fascility that used to be there. Or the fact that the 1,000 foot conical indian mound on the site used to butt up against a 3,000 foot long pyramidal mound. The 3,000 foot one is now gone and erased as if it never existed. I know from personal knowledge how good the government is at erasing and rewriting history when it suits their purpose.

Judge for youself, I already know.

Ultima, is that you????

Those videos are all a hoax.

Bart5050, did you notice how in the very first link you posted, the astronaut in the video had a hand held camera and lowered it from his chest...it dropped as it would had he been on earth, under influence of gravity.
Parts of them ARE well done, but then there are those other parts like I mentioned that makes the whole kit-n-kabootle a certain hoax.

No. It moved the way it would if it was motion from the force of his hand. Did he hold it out and let it free fall. No he did not. Your observation is unfounded. This would only be valid if he dropped it and applied no force with his hand.

It has been my observation that most people color their beliefs by their pre-conceptions. There is insufficient information in the video to say under what gravity it was filmed in. We tend to judge things within the context of our experience.

If you seek to debunk then you will choose what supports. If you seek to prove then you will choose those details. Why two eyewitnesses often report different accounts of the same event is colored by what they payed attention to. I am not an exception to this. My observations are colored by prior knowledge of Apollo.

Any video made can be picked apart to find evidence of fraud or validity. They have to be taken in the context in which they are made. Consider the people who claim the entire Apollo project was hoaxed and we never went to the moon at all. They find lots of evidence in NASA films to support those beliefs.

The difficulty here is that we have little context to judge this with. Having some personal knowledge of the Apollo project gives me some context, but not enough to say for certain either way. Except that I see details that are consistant with Apollo. Someone would have to possess intimite knowledge with Apollo to get this many details correct, and to avoid any details that would give it away.

Again I say that time will tell. The NASA photo shows an anomalous object that is consistant with the vids. NASA silence on this and their not showing anything to prove the anomaly is anything different lends further credence.

They have not responded to my e-mail to the outreach "ask NASA" website. I asked them what the anomaly was. I see more to support than to debunk. Until something difinative surfaces that is as much as can be said. It would be easy for NASA to debunk this. Show proof of what the anomaly actually is. They remain silent.

I have watched a lot of official NASA Apollo footage.
Ruthledge and his videos are a crock-of-shit.
Read through the thread 'Ancient Craft Left On Moon'. We went over it quite well including checking out Rutledge too.
If there is a ancient craft there on the moon somewhere, it certainly isn't on those ridicules videos.

The NASA photo I am not convinced it is ancient ship either.
Perhaps Japan will get some better and higher resolution photos of it soon.

It has been my observation that what we believe has more to do with our pre conceptions than anything else. Somebody tells a story with absolutly no evidence and it gets a following because it fits into what the beholder wants to believe.

Present evidence and it is debunked because it does not fit into what the beholder wants to believe.

This is why scientist say eyewitness testimony is the worst of evidence.

I have also found that it takes overwhelming evidence for those who have already made up their minds, and often that is insufficient. Little point in debate. We await further evidence.

Good points.

Agreed.

No offense, but one has to be extremely easy to fool and very gullible to seriously believe that any of that is real.

As much as we would all love for something like that to be real, you can clearly see that the 'static' are special effects, along with the other million things that are wrong with it.

Obviously someone put a reasonable budget and effort into it, but come on...

It never ceases to amaze how what authenticates is made to be what debunks. Perception. The lines and color breakup are commen artifacts of the Westinghouse video camera from that era. I woud be suspect if this camera did not exhibit artifacts. It used a videocom tube and a color wheel. Accelerations to the camera body produced artifacts. If mounted and motionless it did fairly well.

Note how the sixteen millimeter camera used film and seems to go in and out of focus. A commen artifact of this camera. In the seventies it took large expensive production cameras to produce studio quality photos. Hand held cameras had their issues.

Note how Leonov at one point on the Westinghouse video cam seems to be cut off below the waist. Evidence of a cut and paste? No, this camera tube could not pick up extremes between shadow and light. When the contrast range got too extreme then the shadows turned black. His lower body is in the shadow of the work surface where he is bagging samples.

Perhaps the pilot was a human tool use by the grays or whatever to pilot their craft. Telepathic control of the pilot gave the aliens flight control without constant attention. Pure speculation here but this satisfies the conspiracy theory of grays needing our brains for software. That should help for those who need it to fit their perceptions.

I would say that there is insufficient evedence to speculate on the pilots background or functionality.

Not going to address your one million things wrong. Research the era and technology before offering your so called proof. Placed within context what I see seems totally authentic. Modern tech that you are familiar with didn't start developting till the late eighties and early nineties. Didn't evolve to anything comparable with what we use today till the late nineties.

Again I say that these vids are consistant with the era and the area. And wipe the egg off your face.

Pardon? Egg? Was that some personal insult? That's not cool. At all.

And are you saying you believe this video is authentic?

P.S. The artifacts are transparently digital, made to look like analogue. But I am not sticking to the camera artifacts alone, and it would be a waste of time to go into more detail, as you seem set in stone about this.

This post has been edited by senhuan: Apr 12 2008, 04:44 AM

Hey Bart, here is what I was going to say...
Bart before you accuse us of suffering from preconceptions, before you decide that we don't know what were talking about, you should go and have a look at the 1045 replies in the thread that is titles, "Ancient craft left on the moon"
I was going to post a link....like this http://www.alien-ufos.com/Ancient-Craft-Le...oon-t17868.html to save you the time to look.
But as I could not remember exactly where it was I went looking and lo and behold who should I find has posted on the last page...Bart5050

So...I gotta ask the same question, Ultima...is that you??? Naa just kidding. But seriously though, by all means believe what you will, but dude, after reading those 1045 replies, you should come to the conclusion we have all thought long and hard about our so called...."Preconceptions"

OK, The egg remark was uncalled for. Knee jerk reaction to your come on

As if to scold and denigrate.

Also my typo, it is a videocon tube not videocom.

I have personal experiance and knowledge of this era and Apollo tech. What I see is consistant. I have also used video editing and CGI software. I have built computers and programmed applications in C++. Also developed video games.

To place a recognizable Leonov in the westinghouse cam and match the lighting focus etc is nearly impossible. CGI lends itself well to applications in modern vids. It does not do well in attempting to blend into old tech video.

Unless Leonov was in on the hoax, and when he was a lot younger than he is now, I can't place him in the vid unless he was there when it was filmed.

I'm not set in stone on this, I just see more to support its authenticity and know enough about the processes involved to see that arguments so far presented aginst it fail. I have installed these video cameras in security applications and have seen these identical artifacts. And that wasn't back engineered cgi.

I have studied physics all my life and find the more I learn is just a discovery of how much more there is to know. Would love to see a lab report on the original film stock and tape. It may be hoaxed but so far all speculation of this present arguments that fail. At this point I believe it to be authentic and if proven wrong then I will accept that as well.

The reason I first converted from sceptic to a believer is in analysis of vids produced prior to 1970 when there was no cgi and special effects were clumsy and expensive. For this reason I tend to be more sceptical of newer vids. I only believe the newer ones when supported by the context and credability of witnesses like police officers and pilots. Older hoaxes are usually obvious, the newer ones are tougher to discern.

bart.....while I agree with you that we need more evidence, I do not think any new pics or videos will change my analytcal opinion of the 9625-9630 pics as a landform....this is based on my experience not a preconception

A good summary of some of the errors in the videos comes up in this discussion

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.c....2817&page=1

I looked at the links. All of them compare issues with previous Apollo missions. Each mission was unique so comparisons are not difinitive proof of anything. Pro or con.

However I did downlad the videos and looked at them in a video editor. I found one artifact that is either a reflection off a dark surface or evidence of a video cut and paste job. I could not determine which from the uploaded file due to the compression scheme used. The original tape would answer that question but we do not have that.

It was suspicious enough that I reserve judgement until further proof is found. If hoaxed somebody is going to an awful lot of effert for little gain. If its not a reflection then it is evidence of hoax. Other features in the same area are consistant. Wish I could determine for sure, but it is enough to place the validity in doubt. Will not say its a hoax yet, but concede that this artifact prevents me from declaring it valid.

Alexie Leonov lives in Russia and now has health issues. Would be nice if someone in Russia had access to ask him about it. Anyone on this panel live in Russia or have means to ask him? I do not.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/v45index...amp;thread=1000

sorry. i put in the wrong link it looks like. Its not a discussion of comparisons..its a discussion of the errors in the videos.. i.e. signals from the far side of the moon cant reach Earth.. the documents associated use "LEM" instead of the post-1965 LM, the problems with launching from California, etc

At this point I am unwilling to say this is real due to an anomaly in the video that could be a cut and paste artifact or a reflection on a dark surface. I am also unwilling to declare it absolutly fake either.

However I do think they doth proteset to much.

I e-mailed NASA and asked them to identify the anomaly at -17s 117e.
They have not responded, but some odd things happened after that.

For two weeks my pc was attacked and I was unable to access my hotmail account. This pc uses a 64 bit op sys. No problem, I accessed it from my backup PC which uses a 32 bit op sys. Also use duel boot with multiple op systems. Everything on all my PC's are backed up and reguarly scanned for viruses. There are always a few that creep in some kind of way. So no matter what kind of attack, no damage can be done merly an inconvenience.

Then my passwords were attacked and I could not access this site. Three times I asked for a password recovery for forgotten passwords but did not work. Then I discovered that my hotmail account had been modified to send emails from Alien Ufos to junk. When I corrected that and pulled the e-mails out of junk folder I found all three of the password e-mails from this forum and was able to reset my password.

Then my password to Revver video sharing service was trashed. I never did recover that one so I had to open a new account to get access.

I also found that a reporter had interviewed William Rutledge via youtube chat almost a year ago. Here is the link.

http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRIT...iamRutledge.htm

Then Angelis Marriti came under some kind of harrasment and issued a public statement that he would no longer report on matters of a contriversial nature. Here is the link to his statement, its the article titled "Letter to the Public" I gather from his letter he was told to relent or he would never work again, among other harrasment inferences to family and friends.

http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRITI-ENG/home-ENG.htm

On another ufo forum I came under a heavy attack for citing the Rutledge videos. Called me a dick, retarded, and was threatened. One statement was that if it was a classified mission I was commiiting treason to even mention it. This is a meeting forum and not an on line thing.

I wanted to get more public reaction so I posted one of the vids to liveleak video sharing network. The vids posted by Rutledge are declared to be public property and not copyrighted. To my surprise Liveleak deleated it as a violation of their terms of service. They allow nudity as long as it is not pornografic, and many UFO's fake and real are posted there. Violence is posted there also. You must affirm that you are adult and agree to a disclaimer to view some mature vids. There is even one of the very first Rutledge vids there. Find it by searching Apollo 20

Here is a link to where they removed the vid with a term of service violation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c31_1208070925

I posted one of the other Rutlidge vids and this one was allowed. But they refused to allow it to be accessed via their search engine or their recent media links.

The vid had an advertising link at the end. I cut the advertising link out of the version on my pc and asked Liveleak if i could edit and repost the vid without the advertising. They said yes, but instead of allowing me to