Yeah he could easily, I think. Diamonds and Pearls was a good example. However Rave Unto showed that maybe he couldn't!

He just doesn't want to release stuff that could easily be hits.

So basically I've just repeated what you have said but a lot more succintly.

Does anybody around here have any original theories?

ConsciousContact said:

AN ORIGINAL THEORY:

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?

(And why haven't we been back to the moon in 39 years?)


Did man really set foot on the moon?

Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)



Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.



For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.






The Moon or a Studio in the Nevada Desert!

From: Patrick Kilcullen - pkilcull@roanoke.edu
17 April 2001

I was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they
were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts
replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and
all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles
per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped
here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts
transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First
off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations
for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it
happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts
for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the
video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time
delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard
their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control
was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted
back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages
from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this
easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmitts a message to
Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM
and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a
second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finaly!" This
message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and
broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission
Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused?
Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by
believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly
well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this
shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you
would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this
lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
http://disc.server.com/di...rticle=748

===

Watcher's Opinion RE:
Orion/Giza Correlation and Mars/Moon/Masonic Connection
Hoagland, West, Hancock and Bauval are on to something. What they collectively have implied is nothing less than a PERFECT set up for the advent of the Antichrist. With the idea that Isis was the Egyptian god of "returning" and resurrection, it is uncanny that NASA has been engaged in a type of worship of this god from the beginning of the space program. Even the name Apollo is the Greek derivitive of Isis. The landing sites, the dates for landing and the incredible connection with Giza concerning the moon missions all fit together. There is even evidence that the US astronauts were closely watched by the aliens while on luna firma.

We agree completely with Bauval that the Giza pyramids are an earthly analogue for Orion and Sirius. I do not however agree with His conclusion that this analogue addresses the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris. The Egyptians recorded a degraded form of the true meaning of the Giza complex. The Cydonia region IS in complete correlation to Giza, but again, its original meaning was not intended for reverence to "aliens" or the so called proginators of the human race. This conclusion will be the driving force behind the uniting of all nations under the Antichrist. Antichrist will appear as a bringer of peace in Israel along with a worldwide manifestation of aliens claiming a Mars\Earth connection (the fake saviour will appear with his fake holy ones).

The reason that the King's chamber ventilation shaft is open to the star "Al Naith" in Orion's belt is because that star, whose meaning is "The Wounded One", describes the God who has come. This God manifested in human flesh, died and rose again. The ventilation shaft in the Queen's chamber which points to Sirius is CLOSED. This is symbolically accurate because Sirus represents the same God who died and lives, but has not as of yet returned. Sirius is not the consort of Isis (the degraded meaning), but the symbol of the God who remains to come as the King of Kings. Sirius means, "THE EXALTED KING"--the ruler of the whole earth. When He returns He will set up a kingdom that will never end.

If a man were to "force" this shaft open, he would in effect usher in the sequence of events that surround the working of the counterfeit-messiah, the antichrist.

A close look at Orion reveals a warrior, holding the skin of a lion, treading his enemy. His upheld club is poised to smash his enemy. The river of fire, Eridanus, which issues from before him, flows out to consume Leviathan, or Cetus, the sea monster to whom the cords of Pisces are fastened.

Sirius is properly the embellishment of Pullox, second of the twins, or correctly, the sign of second advent of the Messiah. Procyon embellishes Castor, the first advent of the Messiah as the redeemer, which is the actual translation of Procyon.

The Giza complex, as well as the Cydonia region, were designed to reveal Jesus Christ.

However, the Antichrist will of course try very hard to usurp the meaning for himself. The forces behind antichrist's coming were builders of the monuments (pre-rebellion). They are not presently alligned with the God which these structures describe.

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

===

THIS SUBJECT WON'T GO AWAY...

I STILL WONDER WHY WE HAVE NEVER GONE BACK AND WHY WE DO NOT
HAVE A BASE ON THE MOON NOW?

Subject: Why NASA DID land on the moon.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:47:17 -0400
From: "Kyle Connolly"
Reply-To:
Organization: Point Of View Productions
To:


I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here
are my 9 responses to your nine "space oddities".

1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front
of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the
ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air."
The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said,
merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the
Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want
to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
happened, and it all worked out.

3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have
been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the
Moon, then who took the shot?"
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that
was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but
were seen freely bending their joints."
Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight
jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from
the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The
space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just
learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic,
among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of
space.

5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would
have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium
flares."
That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with
millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What
you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon.
they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on
the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in
the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts
didn't hold cameras like you do whn you're taking a picture of your
grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most
small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they
would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark
line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to
the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"


Do you honsetly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't
been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo
really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case
against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.
And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly
lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit
of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not
moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for
several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look
at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to
prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close
the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here
than the brightest day on earth. Whith the iris down far enough to
prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING
in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made
a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of
the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it
has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have
created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been
fired."
A few things you're forgetting.. It's mas was 17 tonnes, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's
gravity, the WEIGHTof the lunar lander was only 17/6 tonnes (2.833
tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred
up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper landes here on earth.

Some of your points (which I'm sure you didn't come up with on your own)
were ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when you read this. I'd love
to read your defending points.

Look at the lyrics on songs like 'Kazaa' or the music on 'The Rainbow Children'.

Re: 'Could Prince still write hits, if he really wanted to?'

gainsbourg said:

Tell us all about this great song, 'Kazaa' - it sounds fantastic - Prince waxes lyrical about a P2P software application!!!

langebleu said:

Are you causing trouble, as usual??
http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=46080

I think 95% of the general public would say 'No'.
But, I think he definitely could.
I mean he could have left 'Nothing compares 2 u' or 'The Most Beautiful Girl in the World' in the vault at the time of writing it, release it now and it would be a hit. So, why didn't he? He could have done the same with any number of songs like 'Manic Monday, 'Kiss', 'Purple Rain', 'The Belle of St.Mark' etc..
It wouldn't have made much difference to his career at the time, if he didn't release them.
How many artist, can you think of that could do that. George Michael could not have afforded to 'keep' anything aside, without damaging the progress of his career.
Besides, no-one can really categorically state, that the music Prince is making now, is not better than what's in the charts or what he's done before: Look at the lyrics on songs like 'Kazaa' or the music on 'The Rainbow Children'.
So, basically what I'm saying is Prince has continously written hits, not because of his name, but because of the quality of the songs. From 'I Wanna be your Lover' to '1999' to 'Diamonds and Pearls', he has proven that he can write hits whenever he wants to. The music he is making now is simply ahead of the public.

This was an actual promotional poster?

gainsbourg said:

That is quite possibly the gayest picture I've ever seen

Read the damn thread

Don't let yourself be fooled. Hits are more about marketing than the hypothetical quality of the record/song. There are many wack ass songs that become hits, and many great songs that don't. The great songs that become hits are blessed to have a good marketing push behind them. Just be thankful Prince had both going for him at one time. Now he doesn't.

America didn't know what the hell to do with "River Deep Mountain High" and it was never a hit in the USA. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great record. It sure as hell was

I don't agree with these comments about marketing. I think a great song will always find it's way thorugh.

Remember 'TMBGITW'

There are not many case like 'River Deep'.

A true artist like P always can.. and there is the question - Does he want to b in the spotlite again?