Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

Yes, you did, and I'm commenting on them now.

We have a lot of evidence to show that these are some sort of photo defects, not real objects. Would you agree with this conclusion? If not, what evidence do you have to show that they're something else?

I have dug up a bunch of posts that more or less agree with your point about film roll 66 being damaged. I do admit that's a possibility, but now I will have to find out what this Ken Johnston had to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this interview, Mitchell said that he first asked about Roswell in the 1980s and was told it was a true ET craft by various military and intelligence officers.

But he also states in later interviews that was in the company of Stephen Greer, whom he now distances himself from. I imagine it to be a bit of an embarrassing situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to the point that it was the Roswell cover up he was referencing when saying NASA had no involvement.

and I have been pondeering for a while the wording used 'no personal awareness of'.....

How long did he hang out with Greer? He has offered that he has spoken to, and puts faith in Bob Lazar?

Does that not qualify his statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not know how this line can be taken any other way than how it reads:

And he did not approach the old timers, he specifically states that they sought him out because of his standing as an American Hero and being a local boy.

I grant you that NASA probably had nothing at all to due with Roswell. It couldn't have because NASA did not even exist in 1947.

I can tell you for certain that when it's on the ground it becomes an Army matter, as Edward Ruppelt once said, not an Air Force or NASA concern.

That means many people have been barking up the wrong tree for a long time, but we won't go into that now. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have dug up a bunch of posts that more or less agree with your point about film roll 66 being damaged. I do admit that's a possibility, but now I will have to find out what this Ken Johnston had to say.

Fair enough. We can discuss this some more when you post your findings.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EM: Well, Richard, I am never loathe to investigate anomalous phenomenon. Sometimes I don't have enough time to investigate all the ones I want to look at, and if you have indeed really turned up a very strange and bizarre set of events that are not explainable, sure I'm intrigued. I'm always intrigued by that. What I am turned off by is jumping to conclusions that, when there's a more obvious way to go.

AB: All right. Gentlemen, I want to jump in and ask a question. Richard, in the facts that you sent to me earlier today, you said Dr. Mitchell, on his previous appearance emphatically claimed that he was not precluded by NASA from discussing anything, that he either saw or experienced during his Apollo 14 flight. You, in fact, did say that, Dr. Mitchell, correct? All right, Richard says the NASA Space Act itself, in light Brookings strong recommendation, says otherwise, that you were, in fact, barred from discussing many things that you would have seen and done. Is that correct, Richard?

RH: Well, let's not be unclear on this. I have in my hands a copy of Public Law 85-568 from the 85th Congress HR 12575 published July 29, 1958 called An Act, which is the enabling legislation which created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is the document which basically brought into being the agency which employed Ed Mitchell to go to the moon back in 1971. And there are several interesting sections to this. This entire document is up on the Enterprise Mission Web Site, which can be reached through the Art Bell Web Site on the Net. On page 4, there is a section titled "Functions of the Administration," meaning NASA. And it says that section 203, "The administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this act, shall 1. plan, direct and conduct aeronautical and space activities, 2. arrange for participation by ? committee, etc., 3. provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the result thereof." Now, that's the part that we always quote because it's the part that the American people have as their guarantee that everything that NASA found, it got to see. All right? Unfortunately, as we look through the act, we have found that there are other interesting sections that are not as generally well-known. For instance, there is a section on page 8. Well, let me start with page 7. This is section 206, subsection A, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall submit to the President for transmittal to the Congress, semiannually and at other times as is deemed desirable, report to its activities and accomplishments." It then says, section D, "No information which has been classified for reason of national security shall be included in any report made under this section unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given, by the President." So there's a caveat there. Now..

EM: Let me jump in there, Richard, because we're spending a lot of time on details here. Let me just cut across that. There are some valid areas of technical development that I'm sure military and security people which they came out of the NASA program. By and large, those are very, very limited, but I can think of some. For example, the development of computer technologies was certainly not released to all nations of the world, and it was classified in some way. But, we're talking about discovery here. What is really the issue of going to the moon and the data that we recovered. Scientific data in this sense was not classified. We were not under any restriction on what we reported. Yes, there was a time delay between the live voice circuit and what went out on the air. I think most of that was designed to keep four letter words, because sometimes we spoke a lightly gruffly, four letter from getting out without censorship, but the content of what we were reporting, the content of what we were doing was not, in any way, classified. We were not briefed on anything concerning scientific research. It was not even discussed about extraterrestrials. Good Lord, we would have loved to have been able to discuss something about that, or to have had something to discuss. It simply wasn't there. Technical information having to do with national security, military operations, the sophistication of our equipment, yes, there might have been some classified stuff, but, by and large, at NASA there was very little.

RH: Let me make another couple of points here from the Act. Further down on this page 8 relating to security, section 304, and this again is on the web site for those who want to read it. "The administrators shall establish such security requirements, restrictions and safeguards, as he deems necessary (Notice the assumption that it's always going to be a "he," 1958, all right) in the interest of the national security." Ed, we have a study from Brookings that was commissioned in '59 and was delivered to the Congress in '61, which we call the Brookings Report, which is a several hundred page document with a section related to specifically to the implications of NASA's confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence, either by means of radio or artifacts, and they claim that you might find them, NASA might find them someday, from the perspective of '59 on the moon, Mars or Venus. There, then, is another sections of Brookings related to the recommendation that consideration be given to withholding such a discovery from the American people for reason of fear of social dislocation or social disturbance. The Act itself...

EM: Well, that may be true, Richard. I don't have any problem with the fact that it's written in the record.

RH: What I'm saying is that the act itself provides in law the mechanism for the administrator, for whom you work, for whom you sign documents, to restrict dissemination of this information if it ever came to pass. Now, the problem that I'm having is that we're all lawful individuals. We all presume we operate under the law. If this, in fact, was a reality, then sitting on the radio this morning you could not, in conscience with what you have signed, admit to the presence of remarkable anomalies there in consonance with the administrator's classification, if that ever came to pass.

EM: Well, you're stretching it way out of context. Let's say that at the time that was done it was undoubtedly considered a prudent policy to write such a thing into effect. In practice, what has happened, however, is that I know of no administrators since that time who have really considered extraterrestrial intelligence, or anyone at NASA at that level of operation that gave it practical consideration of something that needed to be done. As far as operation as crews, people on the job doing it, it had utterly no effect on us whatsoever. And I have signed nothing suggests that I am aware of that, or that I am required to be circumspect in what I say. It simply doesn't exist. That is ..

RH: Ed, I am quoting..

EM: ?...theoretical structures, and that quote of yours has virtually no practical bearing on what we're talking about.

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...

EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

RH: Isn't it? Now, what that implies is that, in consonance with Brookings, if, not you guys, let's take the astronauts out of the equations for a minute, because as I said at the top of the show, there are absolutely physical models in which you could have landed in the middle of this stuff and not seen it. I really firmly believe that. So let's take you out of the equation. If there were people in NASA who knew there were interesting things there, and they were specifically looking for further information, and the landing sites were chosen so they could get it, maybe, without your knowledge from the films, from the seismic data, whatever, the administrator with this language can classify all of that and Golden, to this day, does not have to tell us unless Bill Clinton says, "Dan, we want to finally now go public."

EM: In principle I think you may be right, if that language that you've just read ...

RH: It's on the record.

EM: ? ...however, in practice, that simply is not the way it happened. That isn't the way sites were selected. That isn't the way mission were chosen. That sort of knowledge that you're talking about might have existed, simply didn't exist. How would it have existed in the first place. Simply didn't exist. It didn't operate so what we're getting awfully close to in this discussion is some more of the great conspiracy theories which we hear a lot of floating around the country at this point, which simply don't hold water. They should be looked at. I don't want to dismiss them totally out of hand. Yes, there are people within government who might hold that point of view, but frankly in this particular area in going to the moon during the Apollo program, during the entire NASA program, that sort of conspiracy and that sort of cover-up simply did not happen. However, it is quite clear that many within the military and within the intelligence establishment would very much like to have operated under those rules. We didn't, however.

RH: All right.

AB: Gentlemen, I've got to break in. We've got one more hour if you can both give us one more hour?

RH: Oh, why not, Art.

EM: Ha, ha. We've ruined the night already...

RH: It is dawn here on the east coast for both of us.

EM: Might as well stick with it.

AB: Yes. All right. Very good. Gentlemen, stand by.

OI - Wheres my link???

;)

So no, there is no NDA in place according to Dr Mitchell, and no Apollo cover ups.

I am glad you posted this. It's good to see Dr Mitchell in a better light for a change. I feel awful about what the media have done to him.

EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

:lol: That's some diplomacy! I really quite like that short sharp response. I would like to he seen Edgar handle the Bill Nye interview in this fashion. It would have been much more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you, on occasion, one of those photos (if survived I don't need this, and this, and...? Just for comparison.

Unfortunately I have no examples of my own pictures to provide.

My days of home darkroom work were over thirty years ago. Time has claimed them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did NASA decide to comment on the back of the Kerrang interview......

could this be why

Kerrang! Radio reported at its website:

“Producer Alex contacted NASA to confirm Dr. Mitchell's story, this was their reply:

‘Dear Alex,

NASA does not track UFOs.

NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinion on this issue.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.’

although I have seen this phrase banded about also:

A rep for NASA told CNN: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else - period."

is it the same NASA message by spokeperson Michael Cabbage? or is this another?

Because that interview blew Dr Mitchell's words out of proportion, hence the Lise Bonnice interview I keep referring back to, as Dr Mitchell says this is "To Clear The Record Up"

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Sets Record Straight About E.T. Beliefs

Former man on the moon Dr. Edgar Mitchell found himself in the news today regarding remarks he made on the British radio program Kerrang!about believing in alien beings – and the long-rumored UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico.

In the wake of that flap, the American astronaut set the record straight in an interview with Lisa Bonnice, host of BlogTalkRadio’sShapeShifting, saying that though there was indeed a cover-up at Rosewell, NASA knew nothing about it – at least not to his knowledge.

Here’s the full transcript of Mitchell’s discussion:

LINK

The words "Sets the record straight" I find very meaningful.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he also states in later interviews that was in the company of Stephen Greer, whom he now distances himself from. I imagine it to be a bit of an embarrassing situation.

Old J. Edgar Hoover had it right back in 1947, although few people ever picked up on it. Whatever else Hoover was, he was nobody's fool when it came to bureaucracy and politics.

He said that when there was something on the ground, the Army would grab it and then not "share" it with anybody else. They don't have to.

And what does the Army ever say about UFOs? Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey McG, could it be that one of these members of the group went on to assist in setting up NASA?

also what do you make of Hoaglands discussion with Edgar on NASA being there for National security as a main

The CIA also formed in 1947, and by gum I would have to agree with Edgar on that one. They did get too much power in my personal opinion. I am not sure how the CIA maintains funding. They must have some very good friends in very high places.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair points Boon, although when it was set up wasnt it for space exploration....

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...

EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

I guess this is what Hoagland thought it was for at least....and maybe Edgar too judging by his response....

I took Edgars response to be a polite way of saying "your out of your gourd reading it like that"

EM: In principle I think you may be right, if that language that you've just read ...

RH: It's on the record.

EM: ? ...however, in practice, that simply is not the way it happened. That isn't the way sites were selected. That isn't the way mission were chosen. That sort of knowledge that you're talking about might have existed, simply didn't exist. How would it have existed in the first place. Simply didn't exist. It didn't operate so what we're getting awfully close to in this discussion is some more of the great conspiracy theories which we hear a lot of floating around the country at this point, which simply don't hold water. They should be looked at. I don't want to dismiss them totally out of hand. Yes, there are people within government who might hold that point of view, but frankly in this particular area in going to the moon during the Apollo program, during the entire NASA program, that sort of conspiracy and that sort of cover-up simply did not happen. However, it is quite clear that many within the military and within the intelligence establishment would very much like to have operated under those rules. We didn't, however.

RH: All right.

And Richard cuts him off.

Mate, you give Hoagland an ounce of credence??????

@bmk...

IF Edgar Mitchell had got his info from a couple of girls you might have a point..... :P

.

Umm, Hoagland, Greer, Lazar........... pfft, girls are probably tougher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone been able to access the web link ... www.access.gp etc etc as posted in Jims post #1284???

Nope, I think this is the doc though - LINK

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you agree that NASA do not track UFO's? and /or never have done?

ps: I am off home now so will catch up tomorrow.....I have a feeling this debate could turn rather interesting tonight :)

Would they go out of their way to perhaps visit a UFO report in a remote area, or would someone else do it?

The scope is opening up horribly. NASA,The Government, the military, and that is even that is down to Navy Army and Air Force all having their own cover ups, then we have the FBI, the CIA ProjectTwinkle, Moon-dust you name it, dozens of projects. Is there anyone who is not "in" on this "secret"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they go out of their way to perhaps visit a UFO report in a remote area, or would someone else do it?

The scope is opening up horribly. NASA,The Government, the military, and that is even that is down to Navy Army and Air Force all having their own cover ups, then we have the FBI, the CIA ProjectTwinkle, Moon-dust you name it, dozens of projects. Is there anyone who is not "in" on this "secret"?

Everybody had their own UFO investigations going on, but President Truman thought that there should be more "sharing". Of course, the FBI and CIA hated each other, while the first Defense Secretary James Forrestal was driven to distraction by inter-service rivalries, so presidential intervention was always in the direction of trying to encourage more cooperation among the different bureaucracies.

Every president has expressed frustration on this issue, and by no means only on UFOs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old J. Edgar Hoover had it right back in 1947, although few people ever picked up on it. Whatever else Hoover was, he was nobody's fool when it came to bureaucracy and politics.

He said that when there was something on the ground, the Army would grab it and then not "share" it with anybody else. They don't have to.

And what does the Army ever say about UFOs? Nothing.

Would you say that any hypothetical group who would be involved in anything on the ground, would have a division specifically for recoveries, or would they have a "higher up" for want of a better word whom they would step aside for? For arguments sakes, would some sort of "Torchwood" override the regular army or woud the army/nayv/UASF itself have such a division each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thats solid guess.

One make sense.

Although I'm not sure about film winding direction...

Anyway, once again, Peri, excellent info :tu:

Thanks, bmk. What I was trying to say about the film direction is that the blue glow around the spots always seems to have a strong part of it that is vertical relative to the film frame, not the real world. No matter how the astronaut has tilted the camera, the glow shows a vertical line relative to the film. Here's a sampling of full-size crops from the high-resolution images taken from the ALSJ:

AS14BlueSpots.jpg

Frame 9330 was taken with the camera tilted up to look out of the overhead rendezvous window of the LM. Frame 9345 was taken in lunar orbit. For these two frames especially, the camera wasn't held perfectly level relative to the ground, etc., but the streaks are still vertical. I think this is a pretty good indication that the blue glow around the dots is somehow tied to the camera or film processing equipment.

P.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I think this is the doc though - LINK

Stu Harris suggests this:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/35C17.txt

The point is -- all this fuss about what the partial phrase is supposed to say, is bogus, because Hoagwash dropped the conditional clause but provided the remaining sentence with quotation marks and a full stop.

In other words, he faked it.

And apparently some people still are falling for the scam.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you say that any hypothetical group who would be involved in anything on the ground, would have a division specifically for recoveries, or would they have a "higher up" for want of a better word whom they would step aside for? For arguments sakes, would some sort of "Torchwood" override the regular army or woud the army/nayv/UASF itself have such a division each?

It's an interesting question, given a situation where rivalry between the services and agencies is constant, and we know that the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, AEC, FBI and God knows who else are all running their own UFO investigations.

Leave aside for the moment what they found out or that we don't have all their records, we know these investigations existed. I think the Army had the original one in fact, the IPU, and it probably did have the capability of recovering whatever it wanted on the ground, even if it couldn't do much of anything about the air or the ocean without cooperation from the other services.

The Army has its own security, intelligence and investigatory agencies, just like all the other services, and of course its own overseas intelligence network.

I think the president would have intervened in this hodgepodge to try to bring some semblance of order into the chaos and set up some kind of inter-agency group. I don't know how well that would have functioned, given the ongoing rivalries.

After all, the CIA was supposed to be THE intelligence agency that coordinated the efforts of all the others, especially in analysis and distribution of intelligence, but things didn't work out that way. In practice, about 80% of the intelligence budget was controlled by the military agencies and they were never going to let the CIA tell them their business. The military also kept its thumb on the NSA, the communications intelligence agency, because that had always been a special area of importance to the armed services--breaking the enemy codes. No way would they ever give that up.

So in practice, attempts at coordinating the rival bureaucracies have often had limited success, even after the big reorganization the occurred because of September 11, 2001.

It's a chronic issue that has generated a vast amount of literature, and it happens in just about every area, not only UFOs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one reason my attention often goes back to that Joint Research and Development Board, as it was originally called, in the Department of Defense. We know they were involved in the UFO investigation too, even if we don't have all the details. They were involved very early on.

But the point is that the JRDB was supposed to be an inter-service agency that worked on behalf of all branches of the military, although naturally they all had their own research and development branches.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu Harris suggests this:

http://uscode.house....d/pls/35C17.txt

The point is -- all this fuss about what the partial phrase is supposed to say, is bogus, because Hoagwash dropped the conditional clause but provided the remaining sentence with quotation marks and a full stop.

In other words, he faked it.

And apparently some people still are falling for the scam.

Ahh, that is a better link, it is chapter 17 only, as opposed to the entire 37 chapters.

Hoaxland is consistant, if anything :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question, given a situation where rivalry between the services and agencies is constant, and we know that the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, AEC, FBI and God knows who else are all running their own UFO investigations.

Leave aside for the moment what they found out or that we don't have all their records, we know these investigations existed. I think the Army had the original one in fact, the IPU, and it probably did have the capability of recovering whatever it wanted on the ground, even if it couldn't do much of anything about the air or the ocean without cooperation from the other services.

The Army has its own security, intelligence and investigatory agencies, just like all the other services, and of course its own overseas intelligence network.

I think the president would have intervened in this hodgepodge to try to bring some semblance of order into the chaos and set up some kind of inter-agency group. I don't know how well that would have functioned, given the ongoing rivalries.

After all, the CIA was supposed to be THE intelligence agency that coordinated the efforts of all the others, especially in analysis and distribution of intelligence, but things didn't work out that way. In practice, about 80% of the intelligence budget was controlled by the military agencies and they were never going to let the CIA tell them their business. The military also kept its thumb on the NSA, the communications intelligence agency, because that had always been a special area of importance to the armed services--breaking the enemy codes. No way would they ever give that up.

So in practice, attempts at coordinating the rival bureaucracies have often had limited success, even after the big reorganization the occurred because of September 11, 2001.

It's a chronic issue that has generated a vast amount of literature, and it happens in just about every area, not only UFOs.

Thanks, I appreciate your take on the overall picture, It's the one I think we need to get to line up before any claims can move further than they have for the last 60 years or so. Knowing both sides of the story helps stability I feel.

OBerth and Goddard predate the IPU by quite a bit, and get quite some mention in the UFO circles, yet the claims is they have been covered up, be that true or not, would not some of the earlier V2 programs and the like have something covert of this order that predates the IPU? I would think some tantalising (genuinely tantalising LOL) titbits might be floating around out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I appreciate your take on the overall picture, It's the one I think we need to get to line up before any claims can move further than they have for the last 60 years or so. Knowing both sides of the story helps stability I feel.

OBerth and Goddard predate the IPU by quite a bit, and get quite some mention in the UFO circles, yet the claims is they have been covered up, be that true or not, would not some of the earlier V2 programs and the like have something covert of this order that predates the IPU? I would think some tantalising (genuinely tantalising LOL) titbits might be floating around out there?

I always say that the best way to deal with the UFO subject is to go back to the beginning, back to World War II and then all the early activities at White Sands.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Kern Johnston, he has quite a lot to say about UFOs and "artifacts" on the moon. I will have to look into this further, but there was a thread about him here at UM back in 2007.

If I ever heard of him before, I've forgotten about it.

http://www.google.co...pP0Wz866omAZptg

It was an very short thread. Oberg jumped all over him, so in my book that means he can't be all bad.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blue lights do not seem to appear in every picture from film roll 66 on Apollo 14. I don't see any in this one, for example.

ufo_apollo_14_debunked_420.jpg

This is not a UFO picture, of course, but just sunrise on the moon.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Farticle%2Fufo-on-the-moon-apollo-days-debunked&ei=gySsUJqXGIOQ9QTNm4CgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFEKzebbKUfLLriu4XTUuW8k2dSrw&sig2=4YFp11b_ZW9WDsIntVE8XA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the deal on Ken Johnston's famous photo collection. These were 10x8 prints, not reversals or digitals, and they were 30 years old when they got into Richard Hoagland's hands.

So now, what happens? Hoagland scans them, using consumer-grade equipment in a non-clean environment (his office). Any smearing, scratching, fibers or dirt on his scanner glass will show up preferentially wherever the print is black, especially when he boosts both brightness and contrast to the point of absurdity. And where are the Apollo Hasselblad images black? Why, in the lunar sky of course.

So here we have Richard Hoagland & Mike Bara proclaiming that Ken's photos "reveal what NASA is hiding." What nonsense. The NASA digitals were, of course, scanned in by professionals using professional equipment in a clean room, and working from the original reversals or maybe internegs. It's not exactly surprising that they are cleaner than Hoagland's smeared skies.

Exhibit A: This picture that Bara used in his recent book Ancient Aliens on the Moon, claiming that it shows glass structures miles high over the Moon. The comment is not mine, but it might as well have been.

https://picasaweb.go...528751243881490

Ladies and gentlemen, this is fraud, plain and simple.

Edited by validator
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.