The Black Vault

You wouldn't need to orbit to take pictures of the backside.

Ranger 4 crashed into the backside. Pictures could have been taken before impact The government said it returned no data, but classified data (like an alien moon base) would not be made public knowledge.

Ranger's 1, 2, 3 and 5 missed the Moon. 3 and 5 went into heliocentric ordit. (Still maintained today). Some of them could have taken pictures of the back side during its pass or perhaps again while orbiting the sun and on another pass.

There are many ways that photos of the back side of the moon could have made it to Langley prior to 65.

Ranger 3 and 5 could have transmitted back while in heliocentric orbit.

One of the Rangers could have actually fallen into orbit while Nasa claimed it crashed. (Not so far fetched seeing as our government has lied to us on several occasions in the name of classified information).

Wolf also claimed that there were scientists from all over the world. Some could have been Russian dissidents who brought in photos from the Luna 3 program.

So no Greeney, what he says is not impossible... Unlikey? maybe, but certainly not impossible.

However, you can't deny (or i guess you can because you believe what you want to believe) but Wolf is one of many credible individuals who have claimed there are bases on the backside of the moon. You keep saying "believe what you want to believe". More accurately you should be saying "question what you would like to question". Yes, I'll keep questioning, thank you.

greeney2 wrote: You finally made me say this is a waste of time!

You shouldn't waste your time opening topics and responding to them then... that is, if it is such a waste of your time. You were the one who opened this topic (and open more; and keep responding to more; while you belittle proponents of any conspiracy) so I doubt you entirely think this is a waste of your time.

What I believe your problem is, is you are so much of a staunch skeptic that you make no time to look past anything other than what you can make sense of in your brain. You can go on and on about the 500 reasons why something is false and doesn't compute, but your calculations are based on lack off data.

You say it is impossible that photos could have been in Langley. But I say, since pictures of the back side of the moon did exist prior to 65, it becomes no longer impossible. Improbable, maybe. However; what I can compute, is that there is a person, actually, several people... making a claim that there is an moon colony (possibly inhabited by alien beings).

Russian Pictures Now! You are just making it up as you go

Suuuuure! why not? Or here's another crazy concept. Maybe the luna 3 pictures where stolen via espionage. Hmmm, maybe we intercepted the image transmissions as they were sent back from Luna 3. Far Fetched?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence

Wolf had a whooping 2 minutes to explain a profound event. Every person at the conference did not have the luxury to give specifics and explanations for every portion of their story. Nor did they most likely even understand it completely themselves. But... we do have the testimony of several decorated individuals. If one or two people from rural Arkansas were making this claim, I'd probably agree with you Greeney, I really would. However,again, we have...

Capricorn wrote:..the testimony of officials from the US Army, US Marines, US Navy, US Airforce, Nasa, Whitehouse, FAA, The British Ministry of Defense, British Police, French Military, French Aerospace industry, Boeing, Northrup, Honeywell, McDonald Douglas....

For me that is enough to... well... at least enough to question the notion that the reality of this event may be true.

And does that not bring us back to the reason why the 'Government and Political Conspiracies' and the 'Aliens Abductions' or the 'UFO' sections of this forum exists? So we can bring up these subjects and hypothesize about them? If we relied on an explanation of every single aspect of the issue, we would not have much to talk about here; because it would all be explained!

greeney2 wrote:You want to beleive it, thats your privilage. I'm satified with my conclusions.

No Greeney, I've questioned, you've proven to be the staunch skeptic believer.

Questioning something doesn't proove something.

Eventually it does. Like when a attorney questions the defendant. He may need to ask a lot of questions before the truth comes out.

When the dates and events can not be supported by written history of these programs, its not my fault.

Well, if you are being lied to your face, written history really doesn't mean much does it? Because some of that history would be a lie, right?. Like, say for instance.. an alien moon base. I'd imagine there would be a lot of lying going on. And if there is no system of checks and balances because people don't care to question, then I would blame the people... so, yes.. it would be your fault, well at least partially.