To be fair I've kind of concatenated the experimental and operational phases. The story of this propulsion system stretches way back to the Nazi "Glocke" (Bell) Project. According to those who have dug deep into its history the scientists who participated managed to get very close. Unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on which side of the fence you are on) they lacked a sufficiently compact power source which meant it could only operate within the laboratory tied to an external feed.

At the end of WWII it seems the whole operation was shipped lock, stock and barrel to Peron's Argentina where they made some kind of a breakthrough.

There is at least some evidence which suggests it was this device and not a crashed alien UFO which resulted in the whole Roswell cover story. The official report makes no mention of extra-terrestrials but the interesting thing is that immediately after whatever took place the Americans suddenly kickstarted a worldwide manhunt for all those who had worked on the project in Germany during the war.

Whatever solutions the Germans had come up with I'm sure the Americans with their expertise in developing powerful, compact and efficient nuclear generators would have gone one step further.

I don't see any issue with such a device loitering over farmers' fields. A by-product of a supercharged rotating plasma would be tremendous electrical potentials which would doubtlessly need to be discharged to earth before returning to base. Given that US military bases contain enough ordnance to blast a county off the map I very much doubt the base commander would take kindly to such a craft returning home with a few million volts in tow.

On the topic of the moon landings I've defended the official story for over forty years. Apollo played a huge part in defining many of the interests I've retained throughout my life. Consequently I've always been willing to cut the program more slack than it deserved given that NASA was always an appendage of the DoD.

From the beginning I knew there were some very serious problems with the official story (such as the deadly bands of radiation which shield the earth from solar wind) and I found myself constructing elaborate get-out-of-jail passes for each and every one of them.

But what I hadn't done was look into the mountain of evidence which had been uncovered since I first began to hear about these concerns way back in the early nineties. When I did the whole Apollo story just collapsed.

I realise that like me people have a lot invested in this project but they really do need to abandon the sinking ship before it takes them down too. Any scientist who supports the official story no longer deserves to be labelled such IMO.

I mean, I'm fairly certain all of the astronauts went into earth orbit. But no further.

For those who might be on the fence I encourage you to take a look at some of the first press conferences given by the Apollo XI astronauts immediately after they returned to earth. I'd never seen any of these broadcasts until recently and it didn't take long before I could guess at WHY they are rarely shown.

I don't claim to be some kind of an expert on body language - but even so I know enough about human behavior to spot three people exhibiting all the classic signs of extreme discomfort, embarrassment and anger. Indeed, I genuinely felt sorry for them.

It's interesting to note than when confronted by some problematic fact the most passionate defenders of the Moon landing story invariably resort to statements such as, "You conspiracy theorists are forever coming up with new ways of attacking the Apollo missions" - without ever stopping to THINK about the significance of what they are saying.

In most walks of life the more evidence you have AGAINST something the less certain we can be of it. Yet whenever we talk about the moon landing the more contradictory evidence we accumulate the GREATER people's faith becomes.

I agree 100%. They NASA have been raping the American public with regards to money and truth in their existence. I also agree these NASA employee's have zero credibility especially their So Called Scientists and Scientists who back up the obvious claptrap.[/i

[iThis was proven on that fantastic secret documentary A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Low orbit was their location when they were caught red handed and filmed faking the Earths curvature through the window. Awesome viewing.[/i

[iYeah i've also watched this interview, where they mentioned or failed to mention the Star constellations. They were obviously Rabbits caught in the headlights with their body language and demeanour. So that's why NASA's credibility is Nil. But the question must be raised Why did they fake it. Forget the Cold War nonsense because Russia, Canada, China, Japan and Europe all new this was hoaxed, they're all faking their own programmes.IMHO[/i

I should have added that there's a ton of evidence that Kubrick indeed worked on the faking of the moon landings. The documentary [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFmNS7wdHKAhVBoRQKHbPyAg4QFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.room237movie.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNHbQteD8MEaEMh6jf-Qp8CyrLtx1w&sig2=xk8LfQ-EDtcWn4kzn5ysEgRoom 237[/url made a pretty good case but it didn't go far enough for me to buy it completely.

However, after immersing myself in the follow-up research to that documentary I had to admit that it was becoming harder and harder to deny what seemed like an obvious truth.

The clincher for me was reading Dave McGowan's book, [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon[/url which revealed that all through the Apollo program the US military actually ran the most advanced and fully self-contained movie studio on the planet. This classified installation, labelled "Lookout Mountain Airforce Station" was based in California. We know that Kubrick was in California around this time and wrote extensively about his complete disenchantment with his "work".

I suspect that he was initially drafted into the project as a contingency measure. I think NASA genuinely wanted to put men on the moon but as their knowledge of the brutal conditions astronauts were going to face increased it soon became impossible to countenance a suicide mission. At that point the contingency plan was activated and Kubrick was summoned.

Gee whizz what a great example you set to future generations. Classy.

Two possibilities. Either as I said above - they couldn't deliver with the technology they had available at the time or they could (and had already done so) but prefer not to talk about it for reasons they won't share.

I've never really looked into the moon landing from a conspiracy aspect, mainly because I suppose I've always wanted it so much to be true. The act of turning a weapon of war (the rocket) into a wonderful act of discovery and exploration is something I was desperate to be true.
But both the press conference and the video of the astronauts faking the shots of earth are compelling.
Maybe there's some reason for them faking those shots (pretending the earth is further away than it is) but even then, if the dates ascribed to that video are true then they didnt have time to get from near earth to the moon to be walking on it on the day that it's told they did. The bit with someone saying "talk", again, maybe can be explained away but is still suspicious.

But the thing that really made me sit up was the press conference. You've just been to the Moon. The single greatest achievement in the history of mankind, possibly the single greatest achievement in the history of the universe. You'd be elated surely? Excited, relieved, possibly tried or drained and maybe nervous in front of tv cameras. But you wouldn't be withdrawn, sullen, objectionable or not forthcoming with answers to questions. You'd be wanting to tell everyone every little detail you saw and what it was like surely?

Look at the first photograph of the astronauts back on earth in the decontamination pod with Richard Nixon stood talking to them. They look like three guys who've just heard their wives have been cheating on them.

The interesting thing about McGowan's book is that it fills in a lot of the blanks which are present in Room 237.

The presence of Lookout Mountain is the most obvious point but what really fascinated me were the countless references Kubrick made in The Shining to the goings on in Laurel Canyon.

Chief among them would be none other than "The Overlook Hotel" which was used as part of the ultra-secret MKULTRA mind-control program. As anyone who has watched The Shining will know, the hotel that Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) occupies is also called "The Overlook Hotel". It's worth mentioning that soon after the end of the Apollo program the entire facility burned to the ground in mysterious circumstances. Try comparing the hotel from the movie with those pictures that exist of the Laurel Canyon facility.

I don't think it's an accident that very soon after Kubrick chose to make a film about mind control and he almost certainly drew from his experiences working out of Laurel Canyon.

For years the story was that the author of [iA Clockwork Orange[/i, Anthony Burgess, fell out with Kubrick over the director's changes to the screenplay. What I didn't know was that Burgess himself admitted that it was Kubrick who had given him the idea for the book as far back as 1965.

I think it's clear that Kubrick's experiences in California left a very deep impression on him. So much so that he packed up and left America for good.

The weird thing about the whole Kubrick angle is somebody is going to great lengths to try and create an entirely bogus Kubrick narrative.

One documentary - or perhaps mockumentary - in particular whose name escapes me is made up entirely of interviews of key people such as Henry Kissinger, Kubrick's wife, Donald Rumsfeld etc. etc. with their words taken completely out of context and then woven together creating what is on the surface a plausible explanation for Kubrick's involvement.

Now, I can see someone doing this kind of a thing as a prank. But the film is just that bit TOO PROFESSIONAL for me to believe it was created by a bunch of bored high-school students.

An old interview with [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9J9Bt6kjT0Bob Lazar[/url on the feasibility of the electro-gravitic drive. Whether you want to buy into the extra-terrestrial aspect is up to you but the technical information is pretty interesting.

It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAUlunar rover[/url. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g.

The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach.

This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time).

I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat.

Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures.

And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer?

Er, there IS no air. Kinda the point of being on the moon.

As the video is of course genuine, you can see what the regolith of the Moon actually does when a buggy drives over it, because it is on this film. There is no basis for your claim other than rank amateur half-baked claims of what the regolith "should have done". How do you possibly know what the rgolith on the moon "should have done"? You don't know what its mass or composition is, you don't know the strength of the forces were applied to it, and the vid is of nowhere near enough resolution or frame rate to be able to see particles, all you see is the shape of the plumes which it makes.


It was very easy to shoot. The difficult part was getting to and landing on the Moon. The shooting part is set up the camera, point and shoot.



I get a sense that you have already predetermined your own answer ("all fake"icon_wink.gif and so your question is rhetorical. But, physics works on the Moon same as anywhere else. There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon, (a) radiation and (b) conduction.

The radiation on the Moon is (i) directly from the Sun and (ii) from the Sun’s reflection off the ground. The trick with the spacesuits is that the design ensured that almost 90% of the Sun's heat radiation was reflected back by the suit, and so very little heat was transferred from outside in to the suit. The suit then was comprised of many layers, and these provided a very efficient insulating effect to damp the rate of transmission of heat either way. So on the astronaut's "cold" side, he would be emitting very little heat, on his "hot" side, he would be receiving very little heat, and the basics are as simple as that. A very reflective suit! Not rocket science, is it?

And of course the performance of such a suit in a vacuum was easy to experiment with and test until the design was right, in preparations for the missions.

The second way to transfer heat on the Moon is by conduction, i.e. boots on the ground. This wasn't an issue, first because the regolith doesn’t conduct heat well; secondly the astronauts’ boots were insulated, so very non-conductive.

Finally, extra-vehicular activities were typically planned to commence around lunar dawn, so that the regolith didn't get the chance to heat up to its max anyway.



As you now know, the interior of the spacesuit did not experience violent temperatures due to the above. The cooling system therefore had to do much less than the extreme gymnastics you seem to imagine. However, your point about batteriesin extreme cold is completely bogus. For a start, the battery was not "outside"in space, it was in the astronauts backpack so insulated from space. For another, you for some reason assume that the battery if it was exposed to space would somehow always be in the cold. Surely, unless the astronaut stayed perfectly still for hours (which would rather defeat the point of an EVA), such an external battery would be heated pretty much as much as it would lose heat as it varied from light to shade?



There's absolutely stacks of very detailed information about the suits, you can even go and see one for yourself, so i don't know why you would need to resort to such totally misinformed pseudo-science conclusions.

I KNOW enough about the effects of low or zero gravity to understand that moondust (regardless of its composition) should not be pulled toward the lunar surface as though it were experiencing earth gravity. Which is PRECISELY what we see in all of NASA's lunar rover films.

Next you'll be telling me the astronauts somehow managed to control their bouncing across the surface to such an extent that they never managed to bound higher than one might have expected to see on the earth. Or did they load themselves down with six-hundred pounds of lead before they popped the hatch?

As for the suits - you are deluding yourself. For a start whatever reflective properties they possessed would have been shot to hell as the thin electrostatically charged dust began to adhere to the material. In many photographs they are literally caked in the stuff up to the midriff. The temperature would have continued to rise from the first minute. And with the lack of any air currents there would have been nowhere for that heat to go.

It's an even tougher sell for the lunar lander. Whilst parts of the ship were coated in reflective mylar - many other regions were little more than bare metal. Even if they cranked the air-conditioning up to maximum they had no way of dumping nearly twice the heat of a boiling kettle bearing down of them every second of every minute of every hour in direct sunlight.

You are far too invested in this myth to remain objective. The truth is no amount of evidence will ever convince you that NASA is dishonest. Quite why you should be so willing to believe the statements of a military division set up by people who openly lied about their involvement in the cold-blooded slaughter of millions of innocents during WWII escapes me. This is the very same organisation which Gus Grissom's son openly accused of MURDER after his father complained that the entire Apollo program was a shambles and even went so far as to call a press conference to record his disgust.

I guess it just goes to prove the old adage - fooling people is easy. Convincing people they've been fooled is not.

“In 1995 or 1996 FOX did a special titled, [i“We Never Went To The Moon”[/i. It was one of the highest rated shows in FOX history. Some of the material presented was not correct and it was very sensationalistic but it covered many of the main objections to the official story. James Oberg who is one of the top science writers in the world saw the ratings of the show and became incensed. He went to NASA and said, [i“I want you to open up your archives and I will write a book proving that we went to the moon without a shadow of a doubt”[/i. The people at NASA rubbed their hands and said, [i“Great. Come on in”[/i. They gave him a $20,000 advance and he began the project. I know James well and was following this story with interest. For five months I heard nothing and I was wondering what was happening when I read in the newspaper that James Oberg had quietly given back the $20,000 advance. Well, we never heard any more about it but later I discovered exactly what happened because it happened to me. In the early nineties I was working with Richard Hoagland and started asking NASA questions about the moon landings. Could I see the designs for the suits? Could I look at the type of air-conditioning they had? I was interested in what kind of battery could possibly power a heater/cooler which had to cope with over three-hundred degree fluctuations in temperature. At the time I really did believe that we went to the moon but I simply couldn’t get any traction out of NASA. They would never respond to my questions. They would never help me. I was planning to write a book and NASA was fully aware of this. Oberg asked the same questions and received exactly the same runaround until he became fed up with the whole affair and gave them their money back. "

"In 1996 Hoagland and I pitched several major Wall Street investors with the proposal to make a whole load of money out of filming an IMAX movie titled, [i“Return To The Moon”[/i. Our plan was to privately launch a 3D camera which would orbit above the moon and take high-resolution stills and video of the lunar landing sites. It would be an IMAX feature which everyone felt we’d make billions out of. We’d budgeted a cost of $20million which we felt would be more than sufficient. In our last meeting we waited two hours to get the go-ahead for funding. We’d hired a very famous movie producer to run the project and everything was going forward. As part of the due-diligence they hired a guy who had worked extensively with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and his job was to make sure we could do what we said we could do i.e. build a reliable rocket which could launch without killing everyone etc. etc. Ironically this guy was a friend of mine who lived just a few miles down the road. When I called him to find out why the project had suddenly been delayed he said, [i“I’m sorry, Jay. I called up the head of NASA and when I told him about your proposal his words were, “You are not going to the moon, Frank. No one is going to the moon. If you launch your rocket and I don’t care if it’s launched out of India or China or the middle of the ocean we will BLOW IT OUT OF THE SKY and DO NOT EVER CALL ME AGAIN”.[/i

In debates such as these defenders of the official narrative at some point triumphantly declare victory with nauseating arguments such as this:

Bear in mind that the person who wrote this claims to have a science-based Ph.D.

[i"Though I fear few conspiracists have a level of intelligence high enough to actually carry out this experiment, there is a way to empirically prove that man has been on the moon. Why?

Because the astronauts put a bunch of mother*&$^ing reflectors on the moon, that's why!

Here's how to shut up your conspiracist friend in five convenient steps:

1 - Grab a high-power laser and a light sensor

2 - Point the high-power laser at any of the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflectors:
coordinates degrees N degrees E
(on the moon -duh) (latitude ) (longitude)
Apollo 11 LRRR 0.67337 23.47293
Apollo 14 LRRR -3.64421 -17.47880
Apollo 15 LRRR 26.13333 3.62837

3 - Fire a densely-packed lightbeam at one of these coordinates (with a pulse frequency unique to it so your conspiracist friend cannot pretend it's just space noise).

4 - ????? a couple seconds (you know, because light travels at ~c=~300.000km/sec and the moon is at ~300.000km)

5 - measure light that has been mirrored back to your sensor.

6 - Profit by making your conspiracy theorist friend shut the hell up.

Science 1 - Fruitcakes 0"[/i

Without using the Internet can anyone hazard a guess at the fatal flaw in the above reasoning? If not you are in good company because no less an intellect than Dr. Brian "D:REAM" Cox publicly swallowed this argument in a fifty minute episode on BBC2 without question.

[iDave McGowan was an excellent researcher. His passing was a real shame for the truth movement and a real slam dunk for the NWO. Considering Laurel Canyon is in Hollywood, the more information we have about what come out of there the better.[/i

[i[uRoseanne Barr: “MK Ultra Rules In Hollywood”[/u[/i

It’s funny that ancient Druid ‘wizards’ and ‘magicians’ used to make their wands specific for casting spells from the Holly Wood tree. Maybe “Hollywood” is used to cast spells on the masses, because at the very least it can sure seem that way. Everything we do is so systematic, so robotic in nature. We go to school, get a job, have a family and chase materialistic gains only to find out that it is not what our soul truly desires. We are told what to wear, what’s popular, what to buy, what truth is and how life is through television. It keeps us occupied, ignorant and blind to what is really happening on our plane.

Roseanne’s public remark that the CIA’s MK Ultra program rules in Hollywood is an educated statement, and not just an opinion. It comes from her own experiences within the industry as well as an awareness of known facts about the CIA and their involvement in Hollywood -all of which also happen to be available to the public. It’s not hard to see how television and mass advertising can be used as mind control, basically shaping the perception of the individual, as well as displaying what each individual should “be” like, what type of life to chase and what it means to be successful. Given Roseanne’s statement, as well as the information we already have in the public domain, it’s safe to say that something fishy is going on in Hollywood. Ask yourself, are your wants really yours? Or have they been programmed into you since birth?

Not many people know this, but the CIA has an entire department dedicated to the entertainment industry. It’s run through the CIA’s Entertainment Industry Liaison Office which collaborates in a strictly advisory capacity with filmmakers. The CIA doesn’t just offer guidance to filmmakers, it even offers money. In 1950, the agency bought the rights to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and then funded the 1954 British animated version of the film. Its involvement had long been rumoured, but only in the past decade have those rumours been substantiated. The link between Hollywood and the CIA isn’t something new, and Roseanne isn’t just blurting out information that has no backing behind it.
[i
This list is weird, quite a creepy mixture actually. Jimi Hendrix lived there, Alice Cooper, David Carradine,Jerry Brown (linked to Jonestown), Boris Karloff (horror movie actor lived at both Laurel Canyon and The Dakota), Marilyn Manson, Kd Lang, Steve Martin (and all his King Tut Rosicrucian insider humor), Mia Farrow (me a pharoah), Keith Moon, Slash, Frances Farmer....plus a whole bunch more other celebrities who died young...[/i

[iHere is a list of Laurel Canyon Residents: Past and Present[/i

[i* Jensen Ackles, Supernatural, present * Elvis Cole, Fictional Detective, Present * Jennifer Aniston, early-mid 1990s.
* Christina Applegate, present * Mary Astor, Appian Way * Lex Barker (Alexander Crichlow Barker, Jr.), international Actor (Tarzan, German Karl May movies), Mulholland Drive, neighbour to Errol Flynn, end of 1940s. * Saul Bass, graphic designer
* Harry Bosch, present (fictional) * Clara Bow, 1920s, on Horseshoe Canyon and Lookout Mountain.
* David Blue 1980s,rented on Lookout Mountain Ave. * Victory (Vicki) Tischler Blue, 1980s - 2003,and 2006 [rented on Lookout Mountain producer/director, bass player for the The Runaways. * Zach Braff, present on Lookout Mountain Ave.
* Peter Brocco 1940s to 1992 (died at 89 years old) stage, film and tv character actor, blacklisted in the 1950s. His home was on Laurel Canyon Blvd., just north of the Country Store. * Louise Brooks, 1927-28 * Jerry Brown, 1970s * Eric Burdon, 1970s
* David Byrne * Neve Campbell, 1996-2000 * Canned Heat, their house and rehearsal studio on Lookout Mountain Ave. Next to Joni Mitchell's burned to the ground in 1969. A photo of their charred amplifiers was used for Steppenwolf's album At Your Birthday Party'. * Leslie Caron, 1950s, lived on Laurel Canyon Boulevard, near the Country Store * Danny Carey, drummer for Tool, present * Adam Carolla, 1980s * David Carradine 1970s * Stephen Christian, present * George Clooney, present * Chuck Connors, 1950s, lived on Ridpath * Alice Cooper, 1971-1976 * David Crosby, 1960's* Richard Day, art director, lived on Oakstone Way, 1920-1940 * Pamela Des Barres * Henry Diltz, photographer, 1960s * Denny Doherty, 1960s, also lived in the Mary Astor house on Appian Way * Shannen Doherty 1980s, rented (her first time away from home) on Lookout Mountain Avenue * Micky Dolenz, 1960s * D.C. Douglas, actor, present* Marty Teboe, 1967, and once again early 1989 thru 1994
* Troy Donahue, early 1960s, lived on Ridpath* Rob Dyrdek, Pro Skateboarder, MTV2 star, present* Eliza Dushku, present
* Cass Elliot, 1960s off Woodrow Wilson* Geoff Emerick, present* Will Ferrell, present * Fabian, 1960s, lived on Ridpath
* Kim Fowley, 1970's* Errol Flynn, early to mid 1950s * Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski, 1968-1969
* John Frusciante, guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, present * Glenn Frey, 1970's
* James Frey, presumably mid-90's, however, his account of his time there, in My Friend Leonard had a compressed timeline
* Roman Gabriel, former quarterback of the Los Angeles Rams, lived on Skyline Drive, 1970s * Esther Galil, present
* Balthazar Getty rented a house on the corner of Laurel Canyon Blvd. and Laurelmont Dr., 1990s* Jackson Browne, 1960s-70s
* [[Erin Hamilton recording artist, daughter of Carol Burnett, 1990s on Lookout Mountain Ave.* Robert A. Heinlein, 1940s
* Katherine Helmond, present* Jimi Hendrix, summer 1968* Maya Asztinx, Present* Chris Hillman, 1960s
* Harry Houdini, 1919-1921* Jim Hutton, 1970s* Boris Karloff, 1930s* Anthony Kiedis, 1990s-present* Ed Kienholz, artist
* Carole King, 1970's-90's* C. M. Kornbluth, 1940s* Robby Krieger, 1960's-70's* K.D. Lang, musician, present
* Leadbelly (Huddie William Ledbetter), blues singer and musician lived as subtenant on Merrywood Drive, in a house which was damaged by fire 1944, then remodeled by R.M. Schindler when he was trying to get work as a studio musician in Hollywood.
* Timothy Leary, 1990's * Arthur Lee, and his band Love, in the Béla Lugosi house on Blue Heights Rd, 1960s
* Sharmagne Leland-St. John, poet, concert performer, film-maker, author, lived on Prospect Drive 1965, Fareholm Drive '68-'70, Ridpath '71 and on 34 acres known as Lookout Mountain Park with Paul A. Rothchild, record producer until '74, has lived in her present home on Merrywood Drive off Lookout Mountain since 1986 * Daisy-Alexandra Sylbert-Torres, Film costumer 1986-2002 * Martyn LeNoble, bassist for Porno For Pyros, Jane's Addiction, and The Cult* Jenny Lewis, Present * Tom Leykis, syndicated radio talk show host, 1989-93* Bessie Love, silent film actress, lived at 8227 Lookout Mountain Ave, reportedly haunted, 1920's* Josh Lucas, actor, present* Béla Lugosi, Blue Heights Road* Sue Lyon, 1960s (during first marriage, on Kirkwood)* Joel Madden, present * Marilyn Manson, 1997-2004, residence is on Appian Way at the famed 'Mary Astor House', built in the 1920s as a 'Hills hideaway for actress Mary Astor, who used the home secretly for her romantic trysts with studio execs and other notables; Marilyn Manson wrote the entire Mechanical Animals album at this house, and much of it was recorded at 'The White Room' -- Manson's home recording studio in his pool house * Ray Manzarek, 1970's * Alicia Silverstone, present * Gardner McKay, actor, author* Steve Martin, late 1960s* Bob Masse, late 1960s* John Mayall, 1969-1979 House burned down, see the 1968 blues album Blues from Laurel Canyon* Monet Mazur 2000s, rented on Merrywood Drive.
* Mark McGrath, singer, Sugar Ray, host of Extra, present* Roger McGuinn, 1960's* Jillian Michaels
* Joni Mitchell, 1960's- 1970s on Lookout Mountain Ave. Still owns the house.* Robert Mitchum, 1940s-'60s
* Tom Mix, cowboy film star, 1920's * Keith Moon, mid-1970s, Studio City side of Laurel Canyon* Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage Against The Machine and Audioslave, present* Jim Morrison, lived behind the Canyon Country Store, late 1960s
* Mark Mothersbaugh, musician, composer, artist, founder of Devo, present
* Douglas Anne Munson, novelist, attorney, on Kirkwood Dr., late 1950s, attended Wonderland Ave. Elementary School
* Graham Nash, 1960's- 70's* Harry Falk, T.V. director former husband of child actress Patty Duke. 1968-1970. 8046 Fareholm Drive. * Patty Duke, Child actress. Bought house on Fareholm from former husband Harry Falk.
* Buzz Osborne, singer, guitarist for The Melvins present* Mackie Osborne, artist, present* Gram Parsons, early-1970s
* Adam Pascal, present* Iggy Pop, 1970s* Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank, Jr. 1960s - present
* Trent Reznor, 1995-1997* Jonathan Rice, Present* Keith Richards, 1970s* Nicole Richie, present
* The Rolling Stones, 1970s, interestingly, The Rolling Stones occupied the same house mentioned above, the 'Mary Astor House' in which Marilyn Manson lives today; their film, Cocksucker Blues was filmed here* Paul Rothchild, producer, The Doors, Crosby Stills & Nash 1960's-90's * Rick Rubin, and his studio The Mansion where the Red Hot Chili Peppers recorded Blood Sugar Sex Magic, Stadium Arcadium and shot the film Funky Monks. Others who have recorded here include Johnny Cash, Slayer, Audioslave, Slipknot, Jay-Z, Linkin Park, System of a Down, Maroon 5, The Mars Volta.* Meg Ryan, present* Betye Saar, 1950s-70s* Alison Saar, 1950s-70s* John Saxon, 1960s-70s (lived on Jewett Dr.)* Kesha (singer) (Ke$ha), present
* Slash, guitarist for Guns N' Roses, Velvet Revolver, 1976-mid-'80s* Matt Sorum drummer for The Cult, Guns N' Roses, Velvet Revolver 2006- present* Dusty Springfield, 1970s* Danny Sugerman, Author, No One Here Gets Out Alive and Wonderland Avenue, manager of The Doors & Iggy Pop 1970s* John Taylor bassist for Duran Duran, 1995-1998* Lloyd Thaxton, 1960's
* Justin Timberlake, present* Ian Thorpe, present* Peter Tork, mid 1960s* Mark Volman, late 1960s
* Victoria Vetri, actress, ex-Playmate of the Year* Orson Welles, lived on Greenvalley Road, late 1970'* Pete Wentz, present
* Brian Wilson, 1960s* Chuck Wright, bassist for Quiet Riot, present* Neil Young, late 1960s* Frank Zappa, 1968-1993
* Travis Keller, present* Frances Farmer, American actress and husband Leif Erickson American actor. Hollywood Hills Road. Late 1930s early 1940s.* Claudia Jennings, American actress, Playboy Playmate of the Year, Playboy fold. On Woodrow Wilson, then on Ridpath, until her death in a car accident in Malibu in 1979* Tommy Boyce, Boyce and Hart, Studio City side of Laurel Canyon at "Sunshine Park"* Bobby Hart, Boyce and Hart on Woodrow Wilson in two separate locations form the 1960s to present* Hedge Capers & Donna Carson, A & M recording artists Hedge and Donna 1960s to 1970s off Ridpath then after divorce Hedge moved to Stanley Hills Road* Peter Walker, Vanguard recording artist concert performer. Rainy Day Raga Second Poem to Karmela Father of American Folk Raga. Played music behind Timothy Leary's "Celebrations" slide shows. Rented a room in a house owned by Fred Tackett Little Feat 1966.* Fred Tackett, Guitarist. [Little Feat 1960s.[/i
[i
It certainly make me wonder about these people, they must know the history of their neighbourhood. I suppose they also do not fit in with those that are not of their own kind. I think that most people in the entertainment industry, know about the Illuminati and are too scared to speak out, for fear of loosing everything. Perhaps they keep their heads down and look for a spiritual way out, though that is also a part of the matrix as well. After having lived a life of wanton debauchery i suppose its good news to be told God will forgive if you repent. Johnny Cash comes to mind.[/i

=#800000Signing at contract with the devil for the price of fame and success obviously is too much to resist for most people.

[iBut Russia, China, Japan etc all know this was hoaxed so they'd of known about whatever classified information that was not for public knowledge.=#BF0040[u I doubt The US would share their Super Duper technical aeronautics with other nations IMHO [/u[/i. [iI have my own beliefs as to why this was hoaxed and by all nations knowing this fraudulent mission only strengthens my favoured thoughts of reasoning[/i

You know NOTHING about the effects of low or aero gravity. You COULD know a helluva lot about the effects of zero gravity if you read the tonnage of materials available freely due to the fact that so many nations and so many astronauts have in so many decades experienced it and done an array of endless tests and experiment in such conditions. Which continue even as we type. That is where our knowledge of zero gravity comes from. But if you don't believe humans have been, then all you can do is guess. As you have nothing but your own imagination to go on.


Your ignorance of mass and gravity is embarrassing. The buggies were designed to operate on the Moon not Earth. The astronauts naturally went very steadily at first, and soon learned the handling characteristics and were able to travel faster and manoeuvre more. How much they would "bounc" would have been easily predictable and their suspension was obviously not ever going to be the same as if they'd stripped it off a '65 Chevy truck, now was it? I find your tendency to simply watch a video and draw final conclusions based on just what you somehow "think" a buggy "should" bounce like pretty odd. And 100% unscientific.

But you can SEE for yourself what the buggy did, and what the regolith did. You could usefully spend time doing the maths and science to work out why, instead of obsessing with your knee-jerk irrational position that (a) it never happened and that if so (b) NASA, despite having billions at their disposal, couldn't even come up with fakes that could fool even some guy calling himself "Mugwump" stuck in a loft in Wigan.


One of us is, but it's not me. The suits exist still, for anyone who wnats to go and see.


But this "shooting to hell" didn' happen, though. (If it had, and their systems had been unable to cope, they could of course have rapidly terminated the EVA). Also, as explained, the regolith is a poor conductor of heat so would not have the effect you are claiming. I don't know about "electrostatically charged" and can't be bothered to look it up as I don't see the relevance. Again, you are positing some effect which you then promote to fact. What tests in 1/6th g and vacuum in matching conditions have you carried out which support your knee-jerk top-of-your head thoughts?


Once again, the conditions the lander would face on the surface were something that were almost 100% predictable due to earlier reseacrh and unmanned craft. So, the lander had been at great cost and very carefully specially designed and built to withstand the known conditions that it would face. And they all did. They all worked exactly as they had been built to work. '"

The reflectors are on the Moon and non-NASA laser technology confirms this. What's your point?

Also, in the very recent past, China's Chang'e-2 and Chang'e-3 missions produced what they claimed was the most detailed lunar mapping ever. This included, according to the Chinese scientists, clear evidence of all the Apollo landing sites. My question to you is this: do you believe that these Chinese scientists are now just participating in the alleged hoax and cover-up? Really? If they are not, what does Occam tell us?

[iYou NASA freaks are claiming that something very historically important happened. All you have to rely on is what you have been told, heard, and pictures you have seen.Which has been expertly disembowelled.

You really have nothing solid to go on other than relying on the premise that the media has been honest and that our government has also been honest. Not much of a basis for believing when you have to rely on just your faith. Occam's tells us they're ALL pi55ing in the same hoaxing pot. Simples.[/i

I'm not a NASA freak. I have zero connection with NASA. They do provide a wealth of info / data / images but then as the largest such organisation in the world, they would. However, there have been and are almost countless other scientific sources, none of which except 1 are NASA.

I have no claims. I know my scientific facts. You are the one who presumably claims nothing happened - but then you're the one who claims Sky satellites don't exist, and that the ISS is a holograph, and that the Earth is flat, amongst your myriad delusions. You are the one therefore behaving like a delusional, and if you persist in such claims then it's up you you to prove them. Which of course you have no desire to try.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" All you have to rely on is what you have been told, heard, and pictures you have seen.'"

Well, all any human can go on is information which reaches their brain from extraneous sources. The trouble is, I analyse the input from a scientific viewpoint, and weigh and categorize accordingly, whereas you are both gullible and weak-minded, and prone to "beliefs" instead of scientific proofs. This has many results, one of which is "belief" trumps "proof" and in turn means that any scientific evidence that conflicts with your mad beliefs you will always dismiss as "fake" or "CGI" or some such, without a shred of evidence for that, because if in conflict with your unscientific worldviews, then ... it just is.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Which has been expertly disembowelled.'"

that's ironically the funniest of all. When the hoax theories came out in fact I did look at them with interest, because unlike you I have an open mind, and the scientific method works simply because any proposition is constantly challenged, and if the challenge supports it then the proposition is strengthened.

But it became very quickly every apparent atht the hoax theories were largely by raving nutters, supported by grossly unscientific numbskulls, aided and abetted by people who thought they knew a bit about this, or that, and had promoted themselves to experts. People who (for example) had not the slightest clue about how a camera works, or albedo, or luminosity, or reflectivity, or perspective, yet risibly claimed photos were "fake" because "the shadows are wrong" or some such instantly recognisable drivel.

So it is not that I ignore the "evidence " of such theorists, it is that it is drivel.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"You really have nothing solid to go on other than relying on the premise that the media has been honest '"

The media? Honest? Which media do you mean? Which media have I taken my science from that is dishonest, then?

For example, I subscribe to Astronomy magazine. That is media. Do you claim they are dishonest? Give me examples as to lies they have published with your evidence that they are lies, so i can further consider your claim.

In fact, you have NO IDEA what media I have read over the past few decades and so you can't possibly make such a risibly outrageous sweeping statement.

Finally, YOU in contrast seem to get ALL your beliefs from the media, but in your case that media is restricted to
(a) some version of a collection of writings called the Bible ; and
(b) endless puerile pseduobabble contained in cringeworthy YouTube media.

How ironic that you swallow the contents of your highly restricted media diet wholesale, and ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific media that is available, if you would only look.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Not much of a basis for believing when you have to rely on just your faith.'"

You are the one who tells us we are all doomed to hellfire because unlike you we aren't ruled by "faith". You're the one who says your faith is the be-all and end-all for you. So how can you then make such a ludicrous statement?


Only if you have absolutely not the slightest clue what Occam's razor does, or how it works.

Occam would tell you that if there are thousands of Sky dish installers (150 advertised just in Bradford yellow pages) and if any one of them will come to your house and fit you a dish and tune it to the satellite, and if it will then all work; and if you then slightly move the dish, or obstruct the line of sight of the satellite, or cut the cable, then it won;t work, Occam would tell you that yes, there is a satellite and yes your images are being beamed in from the satellite.

Your alternative presumably involves the thousands of installers and engineers being NASA spies and agents, who are all in on the secret that in fact the dishes and receivers don't work, which YOU have said you believe. Occam would walk away shaking his head, so don't ever talk to me about Occam

Cracking thread, best on both forums atm, some real ' loons ' out there

=#800000Eyeroll[i Firstly you used the word gullible. Now I'm the one who's rejecting the official narrative so how can the rejecter be the gullible one. The one accepting the official credulous narrative is the gullible one.Another typical tongue twisting Aardvark trait. PMSL. More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in [url=https://astronomynow.com/category/news/Astronomy Magazine[/url I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. With regards to faith. My faith is spiritually fulfilling whereas yours is based on a Stanley Kubrik filmset somewhere in/near Hollywood. [/iicon_lol.gif

Hi Butcher.