Apollo 12 Faked Photographs

[Dave Greer]

When the camera pans past the A13 crew (first Lovell and then Swiggert ) the camera operator would have had to be FACING them, not only to get them in the frame correctly but also to see that the contrast was too dark and to lighten up the picture, which was what the photographer did in this particular clip.

I completely disagree. Why would he have to be facing them? They're in a small, cramped cabin. He could see Lovell just by turning his head, and see Swigert by twisting his body to the right slightly and glancing over his shoulder. The camera had a wide-angle lens. All he had to do was point it in the right direction, at someone who was a foot or two away from him. He could see the camera, he could see the crew. Why do you think this is some kind of impossible feat? To adjust the f-stop, all he had to do was turn the control with his left hand. There wasn't a screen on the camera, or even a viewfinder - he used his training and knowledge to adjut the f-stop for the conditions. IMO it could have been adjusted a little better as the scene is still quite dark, but I'm willing to cut him a little slack here.

As the camera pans the first two astronauts, the middle astronaut, Swiggert, is STILL IN THE FRAME AS THE CAMERA PANS ON HAISE, WHO NOT ONLY HAS HIS BACK TO SWIGGERT BUT HAS HIS ARM DOWN BY HIS SIDE AND IS IN NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING OR OPERATING THE CAMERA.

How do you know he has his arm down by his side? You cannot possibly tell, since you can only see part of his upper arm. His forearm isn't in the frame. It could very easily be holding onto the camera. Or perhaps you could explain to me how you can tell that it is impossible for him to be holding the camera at any time during the clip? At the very end of the clip it's possible that he's let go of it and it is drifting in zero g - it's impossible to tell.

I don't know how to state it any clearer than that ... and this is exactly why I have accused all of you of playing games with the hoax evidence, no matter what it is.... I can't understand why you either can't see the obvious or refuse to see it .. Well, actually I do understand it, but that's another story.

Do you agree that most people can twist their necks through approx. -90/+90 degrees, enabling them to see people without their body facing them directly?

Do you agree that most people can twist their body slightly so they can glance over their right shoulder at someone slightly behind them and to the right?

Do you agree that most people have elbows that bend, so that if you can only see their upper arm, their forearm could be either be straight down, or bent at an angle but still out of the frame of view of the camera?

If you agree with those three statements, then you should realise why your argument is flawed. If you don't agree with them, 'nuff said.

Here's how I visualise what may be happening based on the available evidence in the clip, from a top-down perspective. It's only very rough and ready and isn't drawn to scale, it's just to give an approximate idea. The timestamps are from this video.

At the start of the clip we see Lovell (green) , with Swigert (blue) sitting on the engine bell. The approximate direction of the camera is shown by the red arrow, and I've highlighted the apporximate field of view (this wasn't calculated, but judged from stills taken from the video). I know Lovell turns sideways-on partway through the clip, and he might not be sat down, but the rough sketch is just to show the approx position of the astronauts, along with the possible angle of Haise's body.

00:20

00:25

Haise adjusts the fstop at around 28 seconds.

00:36

It's not that I don't respect your opinion or believe that you're outright lying .. It's more like I can't fathom why you refuse to recognize a stage light reflection in a visor when it's staring you right in the face, or refuse to see that something shaped like a horn or possibly something even stranger, could NOT possibly be the shadow of an astronaut.

Simple - I refuse to recognise something that quite plainly isn't there - or more specifically, is quite plainly something else.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...0386-shadow.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...0385-shadow.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...0387-shadow.jpg

[Evan Burton]

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

Using semantics again I see ..." Blew up" means the same thing as "explosion"... Your "rebuttals" are getting weaker all the time.

You still seem unable to understand the simplest correction, always throwing it away. It was the SM - Service Module that suffered an explosion - blew up, not the CM - Command Module. You also ignore the ground tests - that were conducted in full view of a BOI - matched the damage experienced.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

And exactly where would this "verifiable data" come from ? ... Another self serving NASA site ? ....Thanks, but no thanks.

Once again, you avoid the question: HOW is it wrong? Exactly how is the NASA report in error? It's a simple question: why could it not have happened that way?

Also - verifiable data. That means anyone with the proper equipment can reproduce it. That's what makes it the truth - other people can do the same thing and get the same results.

That is the difference between your position and others - we can most always give people the opportunity to reproduce the experiment for themselves, and let them gather their own data, and confirm for themselves that what has been said is correct.

You simply say "trust me" because you do not offer any verifiable evidence; your option has been proven hazardous many times before.

Come on Duane - show us all up: exactly why could the explosion not have happened the way described?

[Duane Daman]

Simple - I refuse to recognise something that quite plainly isn't there - or more specifically, is quite plainly something else.

Well, if that weird looking object that Jack highlighted, is really an astronot's shadow, then that moonset sure was one strange place !

Your charts are meaningless ... The A13 video clip shows very clearly that Haise can not be holding the camera , much less be filming his crew mates while facing away from them ... You can draw all the pictures you want but it won't change what is seen in that film clip.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Duane.

Again - why could the explosion in the SM of Apollo 13 not have happened as in the NASA report?

[Duane Daman]

Come on Duane - show us all up: exactly why could the explosion not have happened the way described?

Because it was staged ... Just like the rest of the number 13 "mission" was staged.

"As pointed out by Percy and Bennett in 'What happened on the Moon?', the picture on the left shows the Odyssey after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.

Do they look similar to you? "

I would say the two look almost identical.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

[Evan Burton]

You didn't answer the question: why could it have not happened as in the NASA report? What portion of the NASA report is incorrect? details, please, so anyone reading the thread can investigate the matter for themselves.

[Dave Greer]

Your charts are meaningless ... The A13 video clip shows very clearly that Haise can not be holding the camera , much less be filming his crew mates while facing away from them ... You can draw all the pictures you want but it won't change what is seen in that film clip.

Care to demonstrate why they are meaningless? They look to me as if they match up quite well with what is seen in the video. You keep on claiming that Haise cannot be holding the camera, but where is your evidence? What part of the film proves that he can't be holding it, and why? He's in the right position. He's in easy reach of the location where the camera is. When the camera pans round to him, we can only see the upper part of his arm, not the lower part, which suggests it's possible his lower arm is extended out underneath the camera. At the end of the clip the camera is quite close to the centre console and is tilted upwards, so it would be impossible for someone to be directly behind the camera.

All I'm asking for is some evidence to back up your claims, some kind of explanation of your opinion. I've explained where I'm coming from and you haven't even attempted to address it and show why it can't be right.

Time to put up or shut up old boy.

[Evan Burton]

When you have answered Dave, I'd like an answer to my question, too, please.

[Duane Daman]

All I'm asking for is some evidence to back up your claims, some kind of explanation of your opinion. I've explained where I'm coming from and you haven't even attempted to address it and show why it can't be right.

I have already posted my opinion about what is seen in the A13 video clip, several times now ... If you refuse to see it or accept it, then that would be nothing new .

Time to put up or shut up old boy.

Well, you finally posted something I do agree with ... Yes, it is time for me to shut up about this subject ... In fact, it's way past time ... I have been discussing Apollo on various discussion forums for several years now and it's time to focus on different subjects, which are much more important than attemptiing to prove that NASA faked the Moon landings almost 40 years ago, or staged the Apollo photography during their Apollo Simulation project.

I'm really tired of all the games and the insults anyway... and being put in the position of having to defend my opinions to those too blind to even see the truth of what is reflected in an astronaut's visor.... This has become a complete waste of my time and I no longer give a damn what any of you believe.

The future should hopefully prove if man really walked on the Moon or not, during the Apollo Program ... Or if the Apollo photography was really taken there, as NASA claims it was ... and believe it or not, as an American, I hope that you're right ... I don't think you are, but I hope you are, because that would be one less lie and one less fraud perpetrated by the US government, the US military-industrial complex and NASA.

[Evan Burton]

So you will not be providing any evidence to support your claims?

You will not be explaining exactly why the explosion in the Apollo 13 SM could not have happened under the circumstances detailed in the review board?

[Evan Burton]

Ah! I thought so. Being asked to provide evidence to support your claims, you simply ignore it.

"You have been taught well, my young Jedi!"

[Duane Daman]

Ah! I thought so. Being asked to provide evidence to support your claims, you simply ignore it.

Apparently you have no respect for anyone's wishes on this forum ... I stated that I had no more interest in discussing Apollo with any of you but you just keep tossing out the bait , hoping that I will bite, so you and your pals can continue your game of ridiculing an Apollo Hoax CT.

You are asking for evidence of something which can't be found, if I play by your rules.... NASA most likely got away with the scam of the century with their Apollo Program, but proving that with empirical evidence is a bit difficult when they have stacked the deck in their favor every step of the way.

The official story is that the Apollo 13 service module exploded while the craft was in deep space near the Moon ... And the review board concurred that the "accident" happened exactly as was reported .... and that's the end of the story ... Or maybe I should say, the end of NASA's story.

So can I prove that their "explosion" story didn't happen as they claimed it did ? ... Of course not ... but I can offer my opinion as to what happened and why .. but of course my opinion is not good enough because all you want to deal with are NASA's alleged facts, whether they be true or not... NASA can and does make any claim they please and who's to say their version of the story is not true ? ... God forbid if anyone has the audacity to question NASA's version of the story !

Well, guess what Evan ? ... Millions of people not only question NASA's Apollo stories but flat out don't believe them .

I made the claim that I believed the Apollo 13 mission was staged .... I thought I had found evidence that some of the DAC footage had been staged , but then all of you played such a good game with that, both here and on YouTube, that the CT who uploaded that video clip there, decided to remove it ... So it looks as if the Apollo defenders "won" another one ... Which I'm sure makes you all very happy.... Cuz as Evan likes to say .. Any day I can give a good pasting to some stupid, ignorant, dumb , hoax believer is a good day !

I can't provide empirical proof that the Apollo 13 "explosion" was staged but I can give you the reasons why millions of people like me believe it was ... and to do that I will quote another CT, Richard Hoagland, who has no doubt that Apollo 13 was staged, even if he can't provide the empirical evidence to prove it .

I have no doubt that after I post the reasons why I and other CT's think the Apollo 13 mission was as phony as a three dollar bill and as transparent as glass, that you will say that I didn't answer your question and then make fun of my beliefs and pick apart every aspect of this "theory", in your typical fashion ... but I will post it anyway .

"At the close of the war, the Allies took over what remained of Hitler.s Gestapo and intelligence network. Project Paperclip was so-named because the photos of the former Nazis, who were being admitted to the U.S., were paper-clipped to their files. James Bamford.s The Puzzle Palace traces how, beginning with German scientists such as Werner von Braun, these former Nazi .assets. were amalgamated into what became the CIA and NSA. Few Americans would question just how much credit is due to German scientists, working in secrecy in post-war America, for the progress of U.S. advances in rocketry and space research. The lingering question that many find upsetting is the extent to which .Nazi intelligence. was incorporated into U.S. intelligence agencies in post-War America - and whether what was incorporated was more than information, but something so fundamental it secretly changed the .character. of America in some inimical way.

If, in fact, the officially arranged incorporation of former Nazis into the U.S. intelligence network ended up reshaping intelligence strategy in a manner that ultimately undermines American ideals, some feel that NASA did not escape a similar influence.

Hoagland, for one, laments that NASA, which Eisenhower founded (and JFK vastly expanded) as an "open and public" space program - a program dedicated to sharing its discoveries with all humankind - may have turned into another kind of organization along the way. Extreme secrecy in space research was supposed to occur only in military space programs. In its pure conception, NASA was to be neither military nor enshrouded in secrecy. It was never intended to be a "captive" of America's intelligence network, including the CIA and NSA. It was dedicated to the principal that space exploration, as exemplified by NASA, was primarily to be for the benefit of all humankind and for the advancement of knowledge, wherever the research and discoveries might lead.

Hoagland has a very controversial theory that all of that may have changed thirty years ago, at the time of the disaster aboard lunar mission Apollo 13. That was the moment Hoagland cites as the time of a possible "coup" within NASA, in which the secret intelligence network (which he implies operated under metaphysical Nazi inspiration) finally "took control" in an attempt to end the rest of the Apollo Program. Hoagland argues that, contrary to the popularly believed "failure" en route to the moon, Apollo 13 actually may have been sabotaged in a "metaphysical power play".. He postulates that .dark forces. in the intelligence community deliberately staged the "accident" at exactly 55 hours, 54 minutes and 53 seconds into the key numbered lunar flight. He notes that the purported "explosion" of an oxygen tank aboard the spacecraft took place on April 13th, which he finds quite bizarre, because the mission itself was deliberately launched just days before at precisely 13:13 GMT. Hoagland interprets this as an "inside code" for an extremely crucial event in the "metaphysical history" of both the Freemasons and the Nazis - the arrest of the Knights Templar, on October 13th, 1307.

Though some of Hoagland's critics have accused him of flights of fancy and extreme paranoia, reasonable people have an obligation to consider the lineage of NASA's power elite. That would include the lineage of NASA's cohort, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which has been the engineering headquarters behind so many unmanned space flights. Both NASA and JPL have strong links to the National Security Agency, which in turn (as you'll recall) was founded from the MAGIC team of William Friedman who cracked the Nazi Enigma code. Lou Allen, who headed JPL for many years (and was a strong colleague of the late Dr. Carl Sagan in the Planetary Society), had been head of the National Security Agency. Daniel Goldin, who currently heads NASA, has a background from TRW, where he worked on many "Black Budget" projects of secret military origin. Recently, Goldin made a startling revelation - that JPL falls under the jurisdiction of the JPL Oversight Committee based at Caltech, and that Admiral Bobby Ray Inman is the head of that oversight Committee. This is utterly new and startling information. Like Lou Allen, Admiral Inman also served for awhile as head of the National Security Agency. Most interestingly, about a decade ago, there were a series of bizarre reports from one Robert Oeschler, describing his interviews with Admiral Inman in which very strong hints were dropped by Inman about UFO reality, and the reality of a group that controls UFO-related information, much like MJ-12. Those reports warrant rereading today in light of the recently revealed connection between Admiral Inman and JPL, in the aftermath of several apparent JPL failures in Mars missions.

In a theory that could topple the history of the space program as we think we know it, Hoagland proposes that at least some of those supposedly .failed. missions, going back to the Mars Observer, were actually successful. Unfortunately, the public was told otherwise, specifically so that critical data involving extraterrestrial artifacts would not have to be publicly revealed. He states that America's master spies are now the ones "pulling the strings." The tragedy, as he puts it, is that NASA has lost the freedom and independence and openness of its original grand vision and mission. In the eyes of those who are concerned about a possible conspiratorial course of events in the space program, "truth" and "honesty" in NASA became yet another casualty of the bullets that ended the JFK Presidency."

http://archive.alienzoo.com/filmandtv/nazienigmacode.html

Edited February 22, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

Apparently you have no respect for anyone's wishes on this forum ... I stated that I no more interest in discussing Apollo with any of you but you just keep tossing out the bait , hoping that I will bite, so you and your pals can continue your game of ridiculing an Apollo Hoax CT.

If your claims are sound, they'll stand up to - and defeat - any ridicule.

You are asking for evidence of something which can't be found, if I play by your rules.... NASA most likely got away with the scam of the century with their Apollo Program, but proving that with empirical evidence is a bit difficult when they have stacked the deck in their favor every step of the way.

Bull. Science is science. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. This is the excuse you often use when asked to prove your claims; you cry foul. Don't make claims as if they were fact when you cannot support them with at least the most basic standard of evidence.

The official story is that the Apollo 13 service module exploded while the craft was in deep space near the Moon ... And the review board concurred that the "accident" happened exactly as was reported .... and that's the end of the story ... Or maybe I should say, the end of NASA's story.

So can I prove that their "explosion" story didn't happen as they claimed it did ? ... Of course not ... but I can offer my opinion as to what happened and why .. but of course my opinion is not good enough because all you want to deal with are NASA's alleged facts, whether they be true or not... NASA can and does make any claim they please and who's to say their version of the story is not true ? ... God forbid if anyone has the audacity to question NASA's version of the story !

You seem to have a basic problem with understanding basic questions. if you say it is wrong, then WHY is it wrong? Say something like "the combustion would have been contained within the O2 tanks" or "there would have not have been sufficient force to damage the section odf spacecraft as described"; you know - details.

Well, guess what Evan ? ... Millions of people not only question NASA's Apollo stories but flat out don't believe them .

I made the claim that I believed the Apollo 13 mission was staged .... I thought I had found evidence that some of the DAC footage had been staged , but then all of you played such a good game with that, both here and on YouTube, that the CT who uploaded that video clip there, decided to remove it ... So it looks as if the Apollo defenders "won" another one ... Which I'm sure makes you all very happy.... Cuz as Evan likes to say .. Any day I can give a good pasting to some stupid, ignorant, dumb , hoax believer is a good day !

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Deal with it. A person removed a clip? Ask them WHY they removed it.

Also, would you like to show where I said "Any day I can give a good pasting to some stupid, ignorant, dumb , hoax believer is a good day ! " because I have no memory of ever saying such a thing. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I can't provide empirical proof that the Apollo 13 "explosion" was staged...

Because such evidence does not exist because you are wrong.

... but I can give you the reasons why millions of people like me believe it was ... and to do that I will quote another CT, Richard Hoagland, who has no doubt that Apollo 13 was staged, even if he can't provide the empirical evidence to prove it .

I can post reasons why people think Bush is great, or that all gays should be shot, or that we should revert to a anarchist rural existence. It doesn't make it right.

[Duane Daman]

I can post reasons why people think Bush is great, or that all gays should be shot, or that we should revert to a anarchist rural existence. It doesn't make it right

Congrats on your bait accomplishing exactly what you intended ... Ridicule of the conspiracy evidence, by comparing it to subjects that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion is also something you do so well .

Because such evidence does not exist because you are wrong.

Just because there is no empirical evidence that the Apollo 13 explosion was staged, doesn't mean I'm wrong.... I noticed you only addressed what I wrote and not the evidence that's contained in the article I posted, which was the only reason I replied to your bait .

I know that those who defend Apollo always have to have the final say, as that is part of your game as well .. So let's get your opinion on the numbers ... Coincidence, or one huge slap in the face to anyone with any form of open minded intelligence ?

"Hoagland argues that, contrary to the popularly believed "failure" en route to the moon, Apollo 13 actually may have been sabotaged in a "metaphysical power play".. He postulates that .dark forces. in the intelligence community deliberately staged the "accident" at exactly 55 hours, 54 minutes and 53 seconds into the key numbered lunar flight. He notes that the purported "explosion" of an oxygen tank aboard the spacecraft took place on April 13th, which he finds quite bizarre, because the mission itself was deliberately launched just days before at precisely 13:13 GMT. Hoagland interprets this as an "inside code" for an extremely crucial event in the "metaphysical history" of both the Freemasons and the Nazis - the arrest of the Knights Templar, on October 13th, 1307."

55 hours 54 minutes 53 seconds ... April 13th ... 13:13 GMT..... The numbers 13 and 33 sure did crop up a lot during the Apollo missions ...

"All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed."

"C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong (* I believe this is actually referring the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin ) on the moons surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.

The recent revelations of the fraudulent nature of NASA and the Apollo space program by the Intelligence Service and others has resulted in a flood of propaganda, television programs, and films designed to keep the sheople trapped in a deep ignorant sleep. The most ambitious are "Apollo 13" and "From the Earth to the Moon", both involving the actor/producer Tom Hanks. The latter opens with a monologue by Mr. Hanks who walks forward revealing a huge representation of the "God" Apollo (Sun, Osiris, lost word, etc.) guiding his chariot pulled by 4 horses through the heavens."

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html

Apollo 13 patch

http://imageevent.com/firesat/symbolsandlo...amp;s=0&z=2

Edited February 22, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

I can post reasons why people think Bush is great, or that all gays should be shot, or that we should revert to a anarchist rural existence. It doesn't make it right

Congrats on your bait accomplishing exactly what you intended ... Ridicule of the conspiracy evidence, by comparing it to subjects that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion is also something you do so well .

You just don't understand, do you? Just because you believe something, it does not mean that that belief is accurate or correct. Just because a group of people believe something, it does not make that belief accurate or correct.

A belief can be substantiated when it is supported by evidence. That evidence should be verifiable / repeatable wherever possible.

Because such evidence does not exist because you are wrong.

Just because there is no empirical evidence that the Apollo 13 explosion was staged, doesn't mean I'm wrong.... I noticed you only addressed what I wrote and not the evidence that's contained in the article I posted, which was the only reason I replied to your bait .

I know that those who defend Apollo always have to have the final say, as that is part of your game as well .. So let's get your opinion on the numbers ... Coincidence, or one huge slap in the face to anyone with any form of open minded intelligence ?

"Hoagland argues that, contrary to the popularly believed "failure" en route to the moon, Apollo 13 actually may have been sabotaged in a "metaphysical power play".. He postulates that .dark forces. in the intelligence community deliberately staged the "accident" at exactly 55 hours, 54 minutes and 53 seconds into the key numbered lunar flight. He notes that the purported "explosion" of an oxygen tank aboard the spacecraft took place on April 13th, which he finds quite bizarre, because the mission itself was deliberately launched just days before at precisely 13:13 GMT. Hoagland interprets this as an "inside code" for an extremely crucial event in the "metaphysical history" of both the Freemasons and the Nazis - the arrest of the Knights Templar, on October 13th, 1307."

Key word - POSTULATES. I can also postulate that it is clear cut evidence that the number 13 has bad luck attached to it, and certain combinations of the number 13 will bring misfortune to those associated with it.

It doesn't mean I'm right, though.

"All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed."

"C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong (* I believe this is actually referring the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin ) on the moons surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.

See http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-hoax-site.html

Pay particular attention to post number 15.

You'll believe just about any old trash, won't you?

When will you learn to verify your facts?