I might be more interested in your work if the first You Tube link did not lead to a video asking for money.

I am more and more convinced that Bilderburg is exactly what the participants have claimed it is for years. A gathering of powerful people who seek world stability to increase profits.

Your organisation is simply a way to make money in much the same way much of the 911 movement is.

How dare anyone try and raise funding to fight for social justice.

Anyone who uses money to campaign must be a fascist right?

Phew, cleared that one up. Thank god no one actually focused on the issues surrounding the Bilderbergs though ...

"Thank god no one actually focused on the issues surrounding the Bilderbergs though ..."

Which I covered in my second paragraph.

Do keep up.

"It's just that WeAreChange are the ONLY real source of journalism out there."

and go watch mainstream news.... zzzzz

Dear Probably some sort of Zionist, Bilderburg paid er er er, whatever.

If you think that the following sentence has any substance ...

... I am more and more convinced that Bilderburg is exactly what the participants have claimed it is for years. A gathering of powerful people who seek world stability to increase profits.

... then perhaps you have not understood what the hell is going on here!

Stability!?! Pull the other one.

######

As for the assertion that one can draw the following conclusion :

"and a very secretive one at that so its anyones guess what is actually discussed there"

Well, there is a very good understanding of what is discussed there. Do the research (I'm not your intern) and you will find that such meetings are not as secret as they would like.

"......and you will find that such meetings are not as secret as they would like."

Proving my point exactly.

"and go watch mainstream news.... zzzzz"


Is that what you think is the only alternative, Ah bless.

Your 'point', such as it was, was weak, inaccurate and biased in favour of the 'nothing to see here' brigade who have consistently tried to play down the significance of these meetings.

They are not as secret as the press briefings would have us believe because there have been successful infiltrations that have brought back the true nature of these meetings and the attitude of the attendees.

Cast your short term memory back to the original meeting and its attendees (at the Bilderberg hotel with a host of newly 'defeated'[sic] Nazi power brokers and their banker supporters who saw out the 'war' safely hidden in the various allied nations).

All subsequent reports from the inside indicate a concerted attempt to engage in repeated eugenic provocations and there associated political pathologies - rather more social engineering than simple profit motive.

The very fact that now, in 2012, the timorous left leaning liberal gate keepers here and else where are forced to respond to the issue of Bilderbergers only highlights the excruciating truth of their utter contempt for the issues at hand when, before, any who raised the issue were swamped with the cowardly brand of 'loon'.

The real questions here are: WHO are those who use this platform to regurgitate the notion that these meetings are essentially no more than friendly housekeeping chats between legitimate technocrats and their political counterparts, and WHY do they want to downplay the role of these New World Order thugs to those who would come here seeking answers to their longings for social justice?

Your 'point', such as it was, was weak, inaccurate and biased in favour of the 'nothing to see here' brigade who have consistently tried to play down the significance of these meetings.

>>>> Because you did not understand it does not make it "weak".

They are not as secret as the press briefings would have us believe because there have been successful infiltrations that have brought back the true nature of these meetings and the attitude of the attendees.

>>>>> So on the one hand you claim these meetings are secret with nobody knowing what they discuss and on the other that they have been infiltrated with their discussions known. Make you mind up.

Cast your short term memory back to the original meeting and its attendees (at the Bilderberg hotel with a host of newly 'defeated'[sic] Nazi power brokers and their banker supporters who saw out the 'war' safely hidden in the various allied nations).

>>> Nice little nod to our old friends ' bankers' I see what you did there.

All subsequent reports from the inside indicate a concerted attempt to engage in repeated eugenic provocations and there associated political pathologies - rather more social engineering than simple profit motive.

>>> You seem very well informed, I thought these meetings were secret in fact the EU is the bigger problem as well as the German parliament. The first hearing in the plenum of the Bundestag, on March 13, with less than one-tenth of the parliamentarians present, resembled the theatre of the absurd more than a serious debate on the EU Treaty, which threatens to totally change the legal order of Europe. The Sophists of ancient Athens would go green with envy if they could have heard the representatives of the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and the Greens talking about "global challenges," "European credibility," and "preventive conflict solution." There was no word on the panic in the financial markets because of the dramatic dollar-collapse, the collapse of several hedge funds on the same day, or a reflection of how the EU Treaty would have an impact on dealing with the possibility of systemic crisis.



The very fact that now, in 2012, the timorous left leaning liberal gate keepers here and else where are forced to respond to the issue of Bilderbergers only highlights the excruciating truth of their utter contempt for the issues at hand when, before, any who raised the issue were swamped with the cowardly brand of 'loon'.

>>>> "timorous" or self informed, I would suggest the latter.

The real questions here are: WHO are those who use this platform to regurgitate the notion that these meetings are essentially no more than friendly housekeeping chats between legitimate technocrats and their political counterparts, and WHY do they want to downplay the role of these New World Order thugs to those who would come here seeking answers to their longings for social justice?

>>>> Individuals with a DVD to sell mostly.

By the way why do you no longer post as Knot Eyed Jaguar ?

You start your diversion off with a falsehood:

"So on the one hand you claim these meetings are secret with nobody knowing what they discuss ..."

Show me where I claimed it friend, and perhaps the rest of your post might become coherent.

is spot on. It's as if the people bitiching about the article don't wish to see

Does the fight for freedom and transpanency really benefit from not questioning things? meeting of billionaires, psychopaths, movie stars.... naaaa, that's just a nice tea party. They probably all sit round and smoke cigars, talk about golf, huh?

It really pains me to see such servility. Are you happy with what they're doing?

Just look into the bilderberg group, stop being purposefully lazy. It's serious.

And conspiracy IS conspiracy? is saying that planes were hijacked by terrorists and then flown into TWO high rise buildings, subsequentially resulting in the complete collapse of THREE buildings, not conspiracy? gotta work out who's bullshit you wanna believe.

Just look at who benefited from all that has happened in the past 100 years.

" many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it ."

When you were pretending to be somebody else (again) and posted as 'anonymous' you said,

"Its a forum...and a very secretive one at that so its anyones guess what is actually discussed there."




Next

cause if so, you're talking bull.

You seem very keen for people to focus on this minor meeting of business people that most seem to understand is little more than an international Round Table type group.


Why is that, what do you not want people to look at ?

I see you have added 'openhead' to the various names you are calling yourself

Most amusing.

It's in the manual so why not use it hmm?

Do you imagine that those reading this will be put off by your attempts to confuse and deflect the issues?

Do you think they care who I am? Or what I call myself?

only what they are told by the mainstream. The mainstream have ran bilderberg through the seive and it's evidently worked to a large extent. But most people I know, understand it to be one of the places the people really in control of world events meet annually.

I can't see how one can be so naive to believe that there's nothing of any particular interest going on there.

and to the idiot who is actually making out to be what his name suggests, is a troll of the highest order.

I can confirm that you are lying through you're flouridated teeth. Grow up.

((((((( Do you think they care who I am? Or what I call myself? ))))))))




I don't think people care about you at all.

Now back at the discussion concerning Bilderburg.

"Most people understand...only what they are told by the mainstream.



While you of course have the secret inside information that will change the world once you get it out to the gullible masses (cough) sorry I mean wider people by way of a 9.99 DVD available from your website.


I think David Ike has been milking that cow for some years.

"Do you think they care who I am? Or what I call myself?"



I know I don't. In fact I care so little about any of you I am going out for a walk.

Now, as stated, we can get back to the discussion at hand.

Begin by actually answering a real simple question friend:

"So on the one hand you claim these meetings are secret with nobody knowing what they discuss ..."

Show me where I claimed it friend ...

... and no tricks of claiming that I said it posing as someone else ...

[note: discourse can be interrogative and interpretative ... this post is the forner]

Lot of Jews at these meetings.

Begin by actually answering a real simple question friend:

"So on the one hand you claim these meetings are secret with nobody knowing what they discuss ..."

Show me where I claimed it friend ...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



When you were pretending to be somebody else (again) and posted as 'anonymous' you said,

"Its a forum...and a very secretive one at that so its anyones guess what is actually discussed there."



Are you going to tell us why you no longer post as "Knot Eyed Jaguar" ?

You refuse to answer a simple question about words you wrote, instead construct a distraction based on the, lame, notion that I post under different names and therefore you can attribute any words you like to me with not a shred of proof.

Can you not see how intellectually bankrupt that is? [another question]

that last post by 'openhead' was not me. I think we have an actual paid troll right here ahahaha

I agree posting as numerous people is dishonest.

Are you going to tell us why you no longer post as "Knot Eyed Jaguar" ?

Individuals with your wish to obfuscate in my experience are paid by Jerusalem.

Jerusalem ?????

You are way off the mark mate !

Or via the Rothschilds which is of course all but the same.

Again, you very well know that it is your tactic here that is dishonest

Bilderbergs attempt to meet in secrecy. They are somewhat successful in this not only because of the presence of media barons as guests themselves - thus ensuring a healthy percentage of media compliance - but also because of the tendency of those working in the alternative media to shun issues that suggest they are chasing shadows.

However, a simple search - using even the most conventional means, such as Google - produces a mountain of evidence. How to sift through this mountain?

Begin by identifying the source.

Any connection to or reference to 'official' announcements can be discarded as being less than useful.

Then there are those 'alternative' pronouncements that evoke the 'nothing to see here folks, move along' - these progress to dire warnings of 'unpleasant leanings' of those that persist and usually end with the distractionists setting to.

What you are left with falls into 2 categories; the descriptive and the interpretive.

The descriptive can be sifted and cross referenced according to your own knowledge, the interpretive can be assigned meaning according to your beliefs.

My knowledge informs me that the participants and their agendas are not friendly, my beliefs instruct me to take great care and attention to understand how those who would seek temporal power here on earth would justify their right to do so. Possessing great wealth does not justify their desire to enslave people to their will.

The mods here deal with difficult issues by denying there existence ... what monstrous arrogance it is to blank out debate, what a cave-in to those who sought to confuse and deceive here ... by now I should have known this was the only outcome possible with this collective[sic]

my last comment has been up for nearly 5 minutes now, pull your finger out.

Once you started your little Israel related smears I realised the sort of 'man' I was dealing with.

Multiple names to infer support for your viewpoint

Refusal to admit when you wrote when caught out lying

Anti-Semitism




The legacy of your 'Knot eyed jaguar' alter ego is still very much with us I conclude.


I don't talk with Fascists.

They're behind everything.

My milkman is with the Mossad

My sisters new boyfriend is with Shin Beth

My doctor is an IDF agent


Them pesky Jews be everywhere man.

It is down to you now.

Do you let the smears of the above poster stand, or do you relent for once and reinstate everything that was posted in this thread.

You can even publish the data on IP address - at least for me - to put to bed the ridiculous distraction that has all but destroyed rational communication on this issue here.

The hotel Bilderberg was the site of the first meeting of this particular grouping, designed to be both an informal meeting for heads of industry & commerce, states & military and the usual smattering of bankers and media barons, and a continuation of the pre-war architects of a 'single' Europe - most typified by J Monet, one of hitlers leading economic advisers - ability to organize.

Invitation by invite only, no formal minutes to be taken.

As the guests met, how many knew the significance of their location? The hotel had recently undergone a name change, having been known as the hotel Wolfheze in the days when it lay at the centre of operations for the Allied attempt to push through a bridgehead into Germany - the Market Garden operation that ended so badly, it also lay within the area nicknamed by the Germans as "Der Hexenkessel" which means "Witches Cauldron" due to ease with which they poured artillery and tank fire into it.

Nazi's brushed shoulders with retired British officers - including those who had taken part in that failed operation, which had it succeeded would have ended the war much sooner, perhaps even preventing the soviet occupation of large parts of Germany. No division of Germany, a distinctly reduced cold war tension.

Not sure what's worse 911 loonies or Bilderburg loonies.

Either way Indymedia is better off without them.

It is rumoured (perhaps a tenuous opening) that H Clinton and Obama were invited to attend during their battle to secure the nomination for president and that Clinton was made an offer that would encourage her to stand down her candidacy - which she actually did shortly after.

This year they are supposed discussing the options available for bailing out and shoring up their financial operations and ensuring their dominance of currency exchange and international commercial payment systems - such as the almighty $$$ and the SWIFT mechanism, already undermined, perhaps fatally so, by the Iranian/Indian/Brazilian/Chinese desire and ability to avoid and circumvent this restrictive barrier.

Some other examples of his opinions, views and beliefs.

You are being lied to
20.02.2012 11:45

"ultra-hierarchical, ultra-homophobic and violently authoritarian politics of Fascist theocratic regimes"

Iran is none of these things. Iran has a religious leadership in the same way the UK does with clerics involved with parliament, nothing more than that. Reports of homophobia are simply representative of a society that is less tolerant than our own in the same way that much of the USA is. As for authoritarian that is simply wrong, they have a vibrant free democracy with rights and votes for all.

Don't believe what the UK media tells you.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar






Balance or Disinformation ?
21.02.2012 14:39

Iraq - Homicidal family oppressing their people and funding terrorism on a world wide basis.
>>>> No evidence of Saddam's so called oppression of the Iraqi people has ever been found.

Afghanistan - Country run by religious nutters who oppressed women, gays and minorities.
>>>> Popular inclusive government which reflected the religious views of the population. No actual evidence of oppressed women or gays ever came to light.

Libya - Popular uprising supported by Western powers.
NATO led invasion and overthrow of a well liked leader who had the support of the vast majority of the people.

Iran - Prevent religious nutters getting hold of a nuclear weapon they are very likely to use.
Elected government in a free democracy seeking the same access to nuclear power that other countries have. No evidence that Iran is building or developing nuclear weapons.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar






In response to 'animal'
22.02.2012 08:41

You clearly are an individual happy to swallow the lies of the mainstream media.

I assume you believe what you see on the BBC, Sky, CNN etc and fail to understand the role of Israeli troops invading the country and killing civilians to create a situation ready for a UN "humanitarian" invasion. The city of Homs was not and is not being shelled by Syrian troops, the attacks are from Israel aircraft and cruise missiles fired from Israeli submarines.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar.






Gaddafi death, the lie is beginning to unravel
Knot-Eyed Jaguar | 24.10.2011 11:53 | Terror War

Now that we are all supposed to swallow the ludicrous idea that Gaddafi was shot evidenced by some of the worst photoshop imagery seen since the lies about the London 11/7 bombings one or two of use have taken the time to view an analyse the footage to help others spot the fakery

Here is the infamous 'mobile phone' film.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXMo8FKFqV4&skipcontrinter=1

Editing -

0.05 film shows different sandals as film is edited between two shots
0.07 claim is that Gaddafi is dead and yet now his eyes are moving and he is looking at camera
0.14 - shows bullet hole, low down on side of temple, later in film hole is high up near top of head
0.23 - soldier is wearing Israeli army Type 21 combat boots. Issued to Special Forces units.

Resolution - the film is clearly recorded on two different resolutions and knitted together.
The colour of the sand varies between shots exposing the different locations.
The Arabic spoken by the soldiers is not representative of Northern African Arabic as spoken by Libyans instead is accented Jordanian Arabic as taught to Israeli soldiers.
The blood on Gaddafi's face is supposed to be fresh and yet it is already dried.

Knot-Eyed Jaguar







Overnight update
25.10.2011 11:29


Last night I spoke with a friend in Milan who has information concerning the transfer of gold between Chad and Zimbabwe. Some Gadaffi mercenaries with links to the Democratic Revolutionary Council (CDR) militia arranged the transfer as payment for his escape. The gold was moved via an Ilyushin Il-76 that flew directly to Zimbabwe after collecting the gold at Zougra Airport.

My information is that Hannibal Muammar Gaddafi was also on the flight together with Abdullah Senussi the former Internal Security chief.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar





Syria violence reports fabricated by UK?
Knot-Eyed Jaguar | 27.02.2012 10:41

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is a major source of western reports about Syria, has turned out to be linked to the British government and its allies through a misleading network of NGOs.

The London-based Observatory seems to be operating through the Damascus Center for Human Rights as they have been making joint statements on the situation in Syria all through 2011. The latter is a Damascus-based NGO boasting membership with the National Endowment for Democracy, which is directly funded by the US Congress.

Amid questions about the nature of the alleged NGO’s links to the British and Israeli governments, the organization admits its reports are entirely based on phone calls and YouTube videos from Syria while there are no independent sources to confirm the accounts. That raises serious doubt about the truth behind its stories as they are weirdly in line with and helpful to London’s Syria policy, which supports the ouster of Syrian president Bashar al-Asad.
It is also interesting that London claims Asad’s government is violating human rights principles in dealing with ‘protestors’ while revelations earlier this month showed the British government is training and providing arms and other support to terror squads in Syria to wage violence under the guise of demonstrators. Britain and its allies also made the case for an attack on Libya based on human rights reports, arguing they have a “responsibility to protect” civilians.

Later, however, a documentary by Jlien Teil named “Humanitarian War in Libya: There Is No Evidence”, uncovered the fact that all the bulk of evidence used by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to allow Britain and its allies to go after regime change in Libya were fabricated and baseless. The documentation included recorded statements by the key official who created and spread the story of Gaddafi atrocities.
The main source of the human rights reports on Libya at the time was the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). According to the analytical non-aligned press network Voltaire, the LLHR members later appeared in the transitional council’s government in Libya, which was backed by the British government.

Indeed, the Libyan scenario and the links between the British government and ‘human rights activists’ who provided the false evidence used to justify the Libyan incursion, bear a close resemblance to the situation in Syria. It appears the same story: hyped reports of human rights interest, calls for end to a violence widely believed to be triggered by foreign agents and call for regime change. All that came with the special assistance of the LLHR in Libya and now the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights seems to be shouldering the same responsibility.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar

Why this persistent attempt to put words into my mouth?

Without prejudicing any analysis of the information/opinions of this Knot fellow - it seems peculiar that you are so intent on associating me with him.

You have successfully muddied the waters here to the extent that you have avoided responsibility for your disreputable smears and tricks and greatly diverted both attention and energy away from the issue of the Bilderbergs and as such, do you not think it a little heavy handed and obvious of you - thus negating the original intention?

If you had anything original to say on the issue of Bilderberg meetings, the time has long passed when you could have and should have shared it.

I am loath to state the obvious conclusion so readily drawn from your tactic, but state it I must:

... You have a mission - self directed or otherwise - to disrupt this forum and the possibility of information exchange.

This makes you a troll. I only hope that at least you are a professional troll and not an amateur one - which somehow seems more pathetic.

More info on the Bilderbergs when I have finished re-reading and compiling it.

Because they are your words you nasty little anti-Semite.

Do you allow the above poster to smear and distort, or do you use your power to restore the hidden text to prove that such smears are unfounded?

I seems that the 'trolls' are out in force lately, not only with the deluded nastiness of the above but also on other threads - where they insult women as 'mingers' for daring to resist the onslaught of nuclear energy.

Act or don't ... no half measures please.

... and that is entirely why you will persist no matter how ridiculous you look.

All you have achieved here is a redoubling of my efforts to both research and report information on the Bilderbergs ... a classic case of mission blow back.

Your handlers will be displeased.

Hi Tony, Did you ever manage to pull that vibrator out your arse? You know, the one you were photographed sticking up your arse and which was then posted in t'internet and which I saved on my computer and I'm not Roy Bard and you don't know who I am.

Just about the same time you started trolling IMC and disrupting any activism against the criminal human rights abusing apartheid regime of Israel.

Oh, one more thing. I am Knot-Eyed Jaguar and I now know who you are.

Use my name will you?

Mistake.

stop asking the mods to protect you, dirty little anti-Semite

fuck off back to the Stromfront boards where scum like you are welcome

What to typically expect from indymedia. Maybe when we're under full blown world government with a microchipped population you'll be more understanding? All the 9/11 and bilderberg 'loonies' ( people who ask questions due to distrust of the nature of governments) won't be here anymore. We'll be in re-education camps, with the staff probably being people like 'Mike' who has 'No interest' in the bilderberg group.

AND before the servile stuarts start saying re'education camps don't exist, I'd reffer you to look at some U.S military documents which talk of re-education camps.

ahahaha! I'm sorry for laughing. But there seems to be an indy elite who seem to think that unless the government has admitted something, it's completely out of the question of them ever doing anything that 'conspiracy theorists' imply they do. If you do 12 hours of hard, solid research of any of the following 'conspiracy' topics, You'll think differently. (even though I know you're probably too arrogant to everrrr do something which could be deemed conspiracy. You're a coward really to just take NO interest at all in the worlds financial and social elite getting together behind closed doors. No wonder we're in the state we're in.)

. The collapse of WTC7
.The traces of Nanothermite found in the rubble of 9/11 (nanothermite can only be made in a high tech lab)
. World government being formed
. Halliburton and child trafficking

I know you probably won't, but whatever.

And to the guy throwing insults at irritant, why have you been glued to my article all day long throwing unsubstanciated claims artound and even posting as ME?

Is trying to keep people away from discussing bilderberg so important to you? I can't help wondering why.

You failed with rational debate, you failed with diversion but you make one last effort with desperate provocation ... wow!

I am actually flattered.

... thank you openhead for starting this thread and making me remember how important it is to pay attention and to do something to resist the trend EVERYDAY.

Hahahahah. Bunch of bell to the izendsss

Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.

I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.

I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!!

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask? Please read on and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going?

David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers' (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?', a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all.





The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from the 1972 Apollo 16 Mission. There is a major discrepancy between the still photograph taken with a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera and the TV coverage film which was shot from a stationary movie camera placed behind the astronauts. The movie sequence (that is viewable by clicking the picture to the left) shows one of the astronauts making a jump salute whilst another astronaut takes a still photo with the Hasselblad camera. On the still photo (that is pictured left) we see a flap of triangular fabric that has come loose and flapped up behind the astronauts head. However the TV film which was shot from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap? Why not?





Another example that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence? But no, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was.




Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth.


But the biggest shock is yet to come! The camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards the left hand side of the Apollo 11, and what do we see out of the left window??? We see what appears to be another Earth... Go on, watch the video by clicking the picture above and you'll see it with your own eyes!

It must also be noted that the Apollo 11 at this point of the mission was supposedly half way to the Moon. The time elapsed was 34 hours and 16 minutes, but from the view of Earth in the right hand window, we can say that in fact they were not in deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit! look at the blue sky outside. That would also explain why they would be filming an exposure of the Earth that was far away, to give the impression that they were in deep space. The exposure would be clipped to the window and the Sun's luminance would light it up, a technique that was used to read star charts to help with navigation and star reference.

Anomalies with the film footage!



Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine.




An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?



On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!





Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.


One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground? Now who's trying to cover things up?


One of the biggest anomalies that appear on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart? A classic example can be viewed by clicking the picture to the right. If the guy on the left was near a vertical rise of ground (as has been suggested) his shadow would show a definite 'crease' where the land begins to rise. It doesn't!

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes taking into consideration two natural light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.





The video on the left contains film footage from the Apollo 11, 12 and 14 missions that would suggest that there are many light sources lighting the so-called Moon's surface. In the Apollo 11 film the shadow cast by Armstrong is strange, the sun angle is estimated at 10 degrees above the horizon. Now compare it with the Apollo 12 footage that shows a longer shadow. The sun is at a 15 degree angle and so therefore the Apollo 12 shadow should have been shorter. In the Apollo 14 footage look at the shadow as it does some truly amazing manoeuvres! this is consistent with moving away from a source of light that is close to the astronauts.







Some of the lighting on 'official NASA film' are very suspect. The NASA picture to the left should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light? The shot should appear like the one on the right which was simulated by David Percy.
I have had quite a few debates on the web about the picture above and the others on this page. I'm told by sceptics that the picture appears as it does because you have to remember that two light sources are present on the Moon's surface (the Sun and Earth glow). I do not doubt that there could be reflective light from the Earth, but, in my opinion, if a light is bright enough to light up this astronauts suit, it is sure capable of also producing another shadow behind him... Sceptics believe that he is illuminated by light reflecting off the Moon's surface. As I've stated elsewhere on this page, the reflectivity is only 7% so the theory of the light bouncing from the surface is highly suspect. If this were the case, the rock on the left of the picture would have hardly a shadow because it is closer to the source where the light is reckoned to be reflecting from!



Shadows do not appear to be correct on several of the Moon shots. Take the picture to the left for example. The shadow on the LEM is due East and yet the shadows on the rocks in the foreground are South East?

A simulation by David Percy of how the shadows should normally appear is illustrated in the picture to the right. If two light sources are at work on the Moon's surface, they would combine together and the shadows would fall accordingly, not at random points. Unless the sceptics are saying that Sunlight is falling in the middle of the picture and there is Earth light at the forefront of the picture? And that would go against known physics.





During the Apollo missions, the movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt). So, taking this into consideration, how did the Hasselblad stills camera manage to pick up more detail than the movie cameras? NASA have confirmed that no artificial lighting was used on the Moon's surface, so how can the stills camera take pictures that were brighter and sharper than the movie cameras that were fitted with special lenses to compensate for the dark conditions? The picture to the right shows you just how dark a place the Moon is. Look how dark the shadows are on the side of the rocks.




Watch the film sequence to the left that has both movie and still pictures to compare the difference. It's interesting to note that the still photos seem to have Aldrin brightly lit, in comparison to the gloomy motion picture images that had the special night lens on it? It appears that artificial lighting was used or has been added to the still photos to show better features on Aldrin's suit and the Lunar Lander. Because of the lack of atmosphere on the surface of the Moon, the shadows would be intensely black.

As illustrated in the above motion picture, why is there such a vast difference in the light from the two cameras, unless the still shots were lit by artificial lighting? NASA have said that no lighting was taken to the Moon, but this cannot be true when you view the evidence. The still pictures seem to show that Aldrin is being artificially lit as he descends the ladder.



The reflectivity of the Lunar surface is so low, that light does not even reflect onto the rocks that are on the ground, yet the light in these pictures are so intense, even Aldrin's heel protector on his boot is lit up! Dr. David Groves who works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Knowing the focal length of the camera's lens and being able to get hold of an actual boot, he has calculated that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera. If the TV footage is actually real, then I could understand this, as the movie images are very dark and grainy, but I believe that the still photographs are definitely faked.




Lets move onto the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM, Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrin's right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest??? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor.

Many people have speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images. Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. The only way the reticule could appear in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed!!!





The horizon is about 89 degrees from the true vertical. Dr Groves has worked out that after analysing the shadows cast by both the astronaut in the picture and the supposed cameraman in the visor, that Armstrong who is taking the picture is standing on ground that is a mere few inches higher than where Aldrin is stood, If this is the case, then it means that whoever took the shot was in fact at least 2 feet higher than Aldrin and therefore means that Armstrong, although visible with the camera in the visor, is not the actual person who took the shot.





During Apollo 12, one of the cameras suffered a malfunction after the lens had been pointed towards the Sun. As you can see from the sequence here, although the viewing public were told at the time that the camera had burnt out, the lens is still working? the camera didn't actually burn out at all. The very same thing happened on Apollo 15 where the camera's lens didn't burn out. It is interesting to note that during the Apollo 16 mission, one of the astronauts who was being told by Houston to adjust the camera asked if he should point the camera towards the Sun?? even though the manual from the camera specifically points out not to do this? You may be interested to see what the astronauts say on this film while this camera fiasco was taking place.





We have to remember that the camera used didn't actually have any viewfinder, and the astronauts could not see the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests due to the restrictions posed by their spacesuits. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject. The astronauts even had to change the lens whilst stood outside on the lunar surface, wearing their heavy gloves. A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing. The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to and could have ended in disaster if the film had actually been dropped into the dust on the ground. And what about the exposure to the heat?

It would have been virtually impossible to change the film and adjust the lenses in such apparatus. However in certain films, they do seem to be wearing different gloves that do not seem to be pressurized?