…do you think Apollo 11 did discover such evidence of alien life on the moon (perhaps the real reason for getting there first to confirm suspicions of unusual structures) that they were ‘warned away’ from ever returning by whatever they discovered?

A Wookie handling furry, hot potatoes!

A: I don’t know, but the last couple of days I’ve been noodling about on the net looking at the moon landings. Some people believe the landings never happened, that we were just not capable of doing it technology wise at the time and to avoid a huge, worldwide broadcast anti-climax that they were stage managed. Others are of the opinion that we got there and found much more than we bargained for. Of course there is a middle ground opinion that we barely managed to get there, landed, took photos of certain pinpointed areas of interest, gathered rocks and soil samples and left. My initial feeling was that either the first scenario or the middle logical ground event happened. Both of those seemed plausible to me especially after seeing films such as Capricorn One, which is the movie were they fake a moon landing in a studio and the astronauts decide to not to ‘play tag’  and go along with the scenario, mistrusting the motives. And who ever entirely trusts a government, right? Yet even though I had that particular film in the back of my mind, still I felt it did happen and mainly wanted to find enough evidence to support this in my own mind. The idea of aliens at this stage was to me more a fanciful sci-fi joke than anything based in any reality to take any further.

Anyway I went to do a little research to see what the current opinion on the ‘fake landings’ were. There certainly is quite a large group of people who believe that to be the case. And this is based upon the usual lack of stars evident in the lunar horizon background, the way the flag appeared to flutter in an impossible lunar breeze and a unshown NASA video where the astronauts seem to be practicing framing the earth in one of the small, round portal windows by means of blacking out the ship interior so that it looks like the spacecraft is further away from the earth than just being in earth orbit. Here’s a link for seeing that which is worth a view http://www.youtube.com/wa…;feature=player_embedded

The film is supposed to show Apollo being further than half way to the Moon, but the part the public didn’t see and hear from the transmission tells possibly something else. Are these evidences of a cover up that shows Apollo didn’t land on the moon? I don’t know, I do know that the picture quality of the landing was pretty awful. Was this done on purpose to hide a theatrical staging? Difficult to say. The moon transmissions were so very grainy because of the format they were relayed back to earth to the tv stations. The format was incompatible with televisions at the time and had to be recorded off a relay screen, and then resent for a normal transmission. This of course lead to the image quality suffering in the same way a film video taped from a tv screen might show.

However, despite all this I do tend to believe they landed on the moon back then. Why do I believe this? Well, there’s a wealth of data and images taken by NASA that at the very least show that we got close enough to do more than examine from afar. The next logical thought that we could have landed seems entirely quite plausible and doable. For one, take a look at this panoramic photo taken by Apollo 17, it has extraordinary detail (click on it to magnify). Yes, it could be a desert on earth, but it seems more to be real than a simulated ground.
http://www.keithlaney.net…sio/a17pan1230624HR.jpg

This area (Nansen) was the main reason, and study area for the Apollo 17 landings. It looks pretty much innocuous, but was in fact a very risky and dangerous area to land being so rocky. I bet you’re thinking from the photo that the terrain looks anything but rocky, yet all is not as it seems. Here is a second photograph of the general area (the panoramic photo above is the space slightly left of centre) http://www.keithlaney.net…ission/as17-m-1218HR.jpg
As you can see, the area is surrounded by very unfriendly terrain, not the sort of place you’d generally want to risk a landing in. So, why did NASA make for this place directly on the Apollo 17 landing? This i’ll explain later as it brings us neatly to anomalies found on the moon.

What made me reconsider the validity of the landings was the angle of looking at the hoax element from a different standpoint. That is that the efforts to show very little in detail was because of what was actually suspected to be and found there, not because of a poor staging of an impossible feat. What made me feel more inclined to think this way? Well, the photographs taken of the Moon are very interesting, odd even. We’ve always been lead to believe that the moon’s surface is basically a barren, pot marked landscape, one that is totally devoid of any other unexpected features. Not only that, we’re told that it’s such an inhospitable place that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of any life being there. We accept that it’s just a grey, battered rock in essence. No one would ever go to the moon thinking that there’s anything other than rocks, craters and moon dust. Nobody in the public when the Apollo launch occurred seriously had any thoughts of anything other than it being a fantastic feat to get there. The space flight was the feat in itself, and rightly so a very impressive life altering one at that. Yet something doesn’t add up. Below are some links to anomalies found in NASA photos of the moon. The first one leads us back to Nansen and Apollo 17 which is most interesting. It may just be wild imgination, but I’d like to leave it as food for thought the speculation on the hexagonal structure discussed at the following link. http://www.keithlaney.net…ddenmission/A17HMp1.html

Also, the Blair Cuspids, which appear to be tower like structures on the moon’s surface. At the very least, they cast very odd shadows for a natural lunar landscape (I’ve tried to add the very best links here to scientific analysis rather than sci-fi sensationalism) http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/lan/cuspids/cuspids.htm

I’m unsure as to if it proves anything or not, but it is very interesting. What else is strange is the amount of air brushing NASA has done to certain lunar photos. These photos show what appear to be blurred shapes of towers. What was there that had to be removed? You can find these images on the net with a little searching, along with other strange things that feasibly could be the ruins of alien cities, some of which seem to have a glass like structure, others which appear to be domes. Others still whch take a great deal of imagination to see, even for me with a creative mind! One thing I feel instinctively is that there’s significantly more to the lunar missions than NASA has ever let on. Do aliens exist? It think there’s more than a reasonable doubt there.

One further thing, I’m sure you’ve all heard of Area 51, the secret military base for experimental aircraft and some say that they are even back-researced alien based (although there are no actual alien spacecraft at Area 51 apparently). Another place was built for that (if you believe all this). I’m not going to go into flying saucers as it makes me seem like a sci-fi loon, but I do feel that 50 years of odd, unexplained sightings must signify at the very least some secrets withheld from us. The sightings continue, yet the explanations remain in the same era as the 1950’s. Surely, science knows better these days as to what they might be if they are just natural. You’re no doubt reading this thinking that I believe in aliens, flying saucers and the like, but to be honest, I am still very skeptical. I am just less skeptical than I was a few days ago and that was after stumbling over an interview with Bob Lazar who used to work not at Area 51, but at S4. What is S4 you ask? S4 is a series of hangars that researchers attempt to back-research alien technology or recovered alien spacecraft. S4 is within the region of Area 51 and even more classified. Below is the interview where Bob talks about his brief time working there. He seems a genuine sort of person and if what he is saying is true, then moon anomalies are just  the tip of a rather large iceberg or should I say spaceberg.
http://www.youtube.com/wa…4bmg&feature=related

Sorry for the long reply, but I find all this fascinating. Although to be honest, it’s actually a quite brief reply as I did find out lots of other information, some rather disconcerting as to why such a cover up (if there is one) was needed, enforced and maintained.  Also, I’ve deliberately left out certain explanations as they are better found out by yourself (i.e the explanation for there being no stars in the transmission background) Anyway, I hope it’s made for a curious read.

Where The Wild Things grow.

Please tell, where is that?
Oh, I don’t exactly know,
perhaps it’s where Amelia’s at
after her engine spat
- rat-a @%$- tat.

Is that where her plane went down?

Possibly that’s the place, yes.
Yet she was not lost, but found
many, many degrees no less
to be the wildest chick around.

“Wild? I was livid!“
–

Amelia Earhart

First, there was no birth
and I thought to myself,
I’m sure that can’t be so.
For how will future, youthful bees
come to become the buzz
going round the bonnet?

Then, there was no death,
and I heard the same swarms
of life gathering without
cessasation, except sounding
like a species entirely, wrongly
trapped within a honey jar.

If heaven be the end
of a taught line,
I’m not ready
for that schooling.

I intend to still feel
the sand surge my fins,
ride bellyflop
with a glint in the eye
under the wily rods
of the confounded,
and watch the anglers
grow tired of my
escapes

before I ever do.

If you spot above
a saucer of milk,
don’t be fooled
into taking a sip.

It’s only the lure
of a dogged fisherman
keeping company
by the silvery bob
of the moon.

Regards,

The  Old Pike.