Apollo Astronauts saw huge motherships on moon and an alien base

That supposed transmission is completely made up, and obviously by someone who had no idea of how the astronauts and ground crew actually talked to each other.

Nobody used the phrase "mission control", they said "Houston". This is universally the case in all transmissions from every mission, a fact the author of the "transmission" obviously didn't care about or was unaware of. The supposed transcript goes on to utter further inanities such as "Let's get that orbit scanned", which is pure meaningless gobbledegook, perhaps cadged from an episode of Battlestar Galactica. My favourite howler is when "mission control" asks the astronauts "are you underway, repeat, are you underway?", which in real life they would never have to do given the constant telemetry stream being sent from the LM. Houston would know, they would never have to ask.

A forgery, and a very poor one at that.

APOLLO 11 = APO 11011 = APO 11:11
APO means A-lpha P-hi O-mega

October 7, 2008 is the P-hi point...the CENTER BEING SWITCHED-ON...

11011 = 8 1 8

8 1 8 - L E = BIB-LE

You cannot debunk these claims without providing evidence of your own detailing what was actually said by space program people in those days.
I provided my link. Now let us see yours.

I agree, and you can't lay claims to events which you have no proof, Doof!

Try the complete transcripts of all transmissions from the lunar surface at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:

[link to history.nasa.gov]

Not just transcripts, but audio as well.

Perhaps you can try to explain what nonsensical statements like "Let's get that orbit scanned" mean in light of the complete absence of the phrase anywhere else in the transcript of any mission. Anybody who has ever done any research on spacecraft operations, particularly Apollo, can tell that transcript of yours is just made up, presumably by an attention seeker who didn't bother to devote any effort to making it consistent with any other transmissions from the entire history of the program.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Very good but that does not explain the secret transmission frequency that was not available for public consumption. My guess is that they used different coded language on the other frequency/ies that will never be posted on their website. Having worked for a secret branch of military intelligence, I can testify that secret broadcasting channels do indeed exist.
In terms of the language used, it is also possible that a poor translation was used or garbled over time. The key message is the same though.
However, the final answer lies with the astronauts themselves as the witnesses.

The moon base is called "Moon Base Challenge" and I arrived there before walking into my human host.

Google for "Apollo 20" and see what you find. (The official Apollo missions ended at Apollo 18)

Oh, please. In other words, it doesn't mater what evidence I can provide, you'll just say "well, maybe it was secret stuff that nobody has heard of".

Or alternatively it's made up nonsense created by someone with no knowledge of the program. Why do you automatically reject that as a possibility? On the one hand, we have an enormous corpus of knowledge, all internally consistent and externally verifiable, and on the other, we have a written transcript that contains nonsensical terms and has nothing in support. Why do you automatically reject anything that refutes the unsubstantiated claim?

Why would they use different language than that publicly used ad nauseam in all broadcasts, the terminology that they had intensively trained in day after day for years until it was an ingrained reflex? Surely if things were critical they would stick with the terminology they knew. Also, why would they need to use nonsensical "code" words rather than the clear technical terms if it was a "secret" transmission that nobody else was listening to? That's like suggesting that surgeons, when nurses aren't around, refer to kidneys as "beanie blobs" or similar. It makes no sense, and just shows that you are determined to remain credulous in the face of clear refutation.



In other words, you'll try to come up with whatever justification you can to continue to believe in something that has nothing to show it is anything other than something made up by someone who has never been near a rocket in their life.

It's not just the fact that the language is all wrong, but that it shows complete ignorance of how spacecraft operate. I keep coming back to the "orbit scanning" bit, because that's one of the most obviously wrong. The LM had no capacity to "scan" orbits, whatever that means - they received data from the ground that contained all the information the LM computer needed to launch safely and rendezvous with the CM in orbit. The fact that the supposed transcript has the LM launching at a time of its own choosing is clearly wrong - the launch had to be timed down to the second in order to end up in the correct rendezvous orbit. And as I said, the people in Houston would never have to ask "are you underway", they would know.



No. If there was any doubt that the transcript wasn't made up then that might be a defendable statement, but in the face of all that is wrong with it that is just an abdication of responsibility to defend your belief. It's like if a "transcript" is found of JFK snorting cocaine with Castro in 1967 - you can't just wave off the fact that it is clearly false given external evidence such as JFK's death several years earlier by saying "only the tow of them can verify it". That's just fallacious. External clues are all we need to reject the transcript.

That' and the fact that other amateurs who listened in on the Apollo 11 footage heard nothing like what is claimed in your transcript. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

Just to add - the proof that you will reject anything I say in refutation is when you asked me for transcripts showing what was said, and when I did so you rejected it within minutes, clearly without having bothered to even look at the stuff I linked. Why ask me if you are just going to ignore it anyway?

Why can't you even entertain the possibility that this transcript is a clear forgery? That does not at all mean that any other bit of UFO evidence is false - each claim needs to be examined on its own merits. But if this is the standard of proof that you claim is sufficient, then it's clear that you are just being driven by a desire to believe, no matter what the standard of the claim is.

i guess i shouldnt mention that aldrin was in the command module in orbit...... armstrong and cooper were in the lem....

I certainly can entertain the possibility that the transcript is, at least in part, embelished. Yet even if the cited transcript is flawed, it is only a remnant of much more cogent findings: the "tip of the iceberg" you might say. The point you make is valid and I acknowledge, in all fairness, that you have provided a substantial body of evidence. However, this is a conspiracy website. I raised a conspiracy theory. You can't disprove the conspiracy simply by citing evidence that anyone can find on the web; evidence presented by the estalishment for public consumption. What I am suggesting is that NASA switched to a secure channel when things got "heavy". Can you refute that argument? No.
I make the claim that when the astronauts arrived on the moon they saw huge craft of alien origin: "motherships", if you will. Can you disprove that? No. In private, witnesses back up that claim but have, to date, refused to go pubic, for a variety of reasons (with the notable exception of Ed Mitchell). Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. It only re-inforces the lengths the establishment has gone to to cover up reality and ridicule alternative views, views that do not have the funding or resources to be heard above the media fog. While your information is very "informative", there is nothing you have said or provided that changes the fact: aliens were seen on the moon by the Apollo astronauts.

Dumb ass.

Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon in the LEM. Collins stayed in the Command Module.

just re-checked.....dumb-assing accepted...lol

[/youtube]TRB7113

Hey I cannot get my Pics to Post, go to YouTube and look it up under mother ship, triangle ships the picture is off of the USGS Moon site with the new Low Res pictures, NASA will not release the High Res. Pics to anyone? First go to the satellite pictures part of the site, punch in the coordinates on the youTube picture I have up then look at it in the multispectral, (True Color) I sat and kept pushing the Multispectral button over and over and it keeps getting clearer and clearer, this answers the question I had anyway.