conspiracy theories

[THE SKULLS]

---

@ doc and rodsky
noted. no more off shoots. sorry.

[THE SKULLS]

He died with his dignity intact.
If he undergoes investigation, his dignity will be chewed up by hungry senators who has an axed to grind
for helping Arroyo throw his father out of the palace.

Besides, compare to other senators and congressmen, who would not accept money from the government.
Who among the politicians are not corrupt? Compared to them He is still dignified at the moment he took his life.
Just like the Japanese politicians.
If one gets accused of ruining their family'sname, the will take their own life just to save the families dignity.

"It ain't Reyes." - Trillanes

[Soul Doctor]

But it could be secret military experiments, those people saw as UFO's.

[rodsky]

Exactly the point.

Why would anyone bother to edit photos, when they are in fact real, and that the landings really happened?

First off, in the YouTube video you posted, much of the allegations rest on ONE person's testimony, this woman named Donna Tietze. Now why is it, pray tell me, that if you search the internet for this name, puros lang UFOlogy ug hoax related sites ang name nya mo appear? Go ahead, try it using google and use the search string "Donna Tietze". My question is, why are there no legitimate and established scientific sites (i.e. scientificamerican.com, space.com, nationalgeographic, discoverychannel etc) that make mention of her claims? Are you therefore saying that the entire scientific community and major science broadcasting companies are all involved in a grand conspiracy to ignore her allegations? And we're talking about MILLIONS of scientists, engineers and media people around the world. So again, ngano man ang establishment dili i-honor iyang claims?

Simple. Her claims are incredulous and downright ridiculous.

The universe is designed to keep an inhabitant to its habitat.

You sound as if you designed the universe yourself. Right.

Nonetheless, I'll first explain some of the "supposed" irregularities of the photos as "explained" in this video:

YouTube - [ HD] NASA moon landing pictures Analyzed

First, let us examine 1 minute 40 seconds into the video, when the narrator claims that there was an "edited" rock on the photo, showing some kind of photoshopping work done on the picture. Yes, if you look at that part of the photo on that BOOK, yes, the rocks appear to have been cloned. The question that Soul Doctor asked was why. Simple--it's a BOOK--in books, you have to alter reality in order to make the image look more engaging and presentable. It's the same as showing the sun and planets all crowded around together in a page of a book, which is NOT TRUE in real life, but since you cannot put all planets and the sun on one page on a book in real life because the proportional distances would render the planets as microscopic dots on the page of the book, then the publishers of the book wouldn't want to do that--they would settle for an altered image of the scene. Now going back to that page in the book, the answer is very simple--it's sloppy editing work--the photo editor/layout artist was instructed to "make more regolith (technical term for lunar soil) below the photo". Why? Because the original Hasselblad photo of that pan (yes, it's a pan, a series of frames were taken for that shot) has the lower frame already down the limit of the lower edge, and since they wanted more soil to be on the lower edge, they simply cloned the image to get more soil. But, but, it does not prove that the photo is faked or was not taken on the moon. I'll show you why. Here's the original, untouched photo of that frame from the pan:



Now tell me, are those "cloned" rocks you see in that book, still in this image? But of course, all you will say is "Gikan man na sa NASA, so in your image, expertly edited na na nila para mawala ang mistake." Which is why it's impossible to argue with you people--your minds are already closed. Bisan unsa pa ko ka expert mag explain diri, you will NEVER accept my explanation because your minds are already made up.

BTW if there is any photo in the Apollo program that shows that they really landed on the moon, that Apollo 17 image above (Taurus-Littrow Valley, December 1972) is actually proof that this is a photo take on the moon...the lunar module is actually in the photo. I'll give a treat (free coffee at Starbucks or Bo's) to anyone who can point to me where the lunar module is.

Soul Doctor, you already wanted to stop discussing about the Apollo Hoax issue several pages back, and I already emphasized the negative impact of this silly discussion on this issue, the TRUTH of which is ALREADY accepted by well-established and respectable scientific, engineering, and media communities around the world, and that the negative impact would be on children who are getting interested in science and space exploration. I request you to stop questioning the truthfulness of the Apollo programme and instead concentrate on your conspiracy theories that involve other matters such as 9/11 and whatever. The Apollo Program is FACT--people have walked on the moon. For the sake of children who are eager to learn about space and space exploration, please stop continuing this line of discussion.


-RODION

Addedum: Here's the next image in that pan, and again, the lunar module is also in the photo, so regard this as a bonus hint. Point out to me where it is. Another clue--it's very small--why?--because Cernan and Schmitt are four kilometers from it!



Now tell me, where in the United States (Area 51, Nevada, Arizona or wherever you claim they photographed it) has a studio/movie set that is more than 4 kilometers in diameter, to effectively make shots like this?

-RODION

[eternitycontract]

UFO?
Aliens?
SAlida ra man gud ni.
Wala man jud ni kamatuoran ani bro.

The universe is designed to keep an inhabitant to its habitat.

humans are designed to stay on earth.
the vast empty space serves as a wall to keep us here.
If there are aliens I think they would not be able to get out of their own system to reach here.

Just as we human are not designed to go to the moon or out of our own solar system.

aliens not sure. pero ufos wr true.. gitaguan sa government ang reality aning mga butanga.. countless encounters na ang nahitabo pero wa nila gi.inform ghapon ang public. and one thing, daghan cia people ang nagpaluyo sa mga movies about aliens, ufo sukad sauna para muhanap ang tan.aw sa taw. but a lot of us airforce, us navy, army retirees nga nibulgar sa mga encounters nila. for all people here, research mo aning butanga. naa koy nkit.an before ang title ky murag DISCLOSURE man cguro nga indie docu, collaboration sa tanan witnesses.. share lang..

["*"*]

on topic.. i think the only people that have given the word conspiracy a bad aura is the media.
off topic.. i hate conspiracytheory this topic is one sided and self serving ,,, nagsasabi lang po ng totoo pasinsya na.

[Soul Doctor]

Exactly the point.

Why would anyone bother to edit photos, when they are in fact real, and that the landings really happened?

First off, in the YouTube video you posted, much of the allegations rest on ONE person's testimony, this woman named Donna Tietze. Now why is it, pray tell me, that if you search the internet for this name, puros lang UFOlogy ug hoax related sites ang name nya mo appear? Go ahead, try it using google and use the search string "Donna Tietze". My question is, why are there no legitimate and established scientific sites (i.e. scientificamerican.com, space.com, nationalgeographic, discoverychannel etc) that make mention of her claims? Are you therefore saying that the entire scientific community and major science broadcasting companies are all involved in a grand conspiracy to ignore her allegations? And we're talking about MILLIONS of scientists, engineers and media people around the world. So again, ngano man ang establishment dili i-honor iyang claims?

Simple. Her claims are incredulous and downright ridiculous.



You sound as if you designed the universe yourself. Right.

Nonetheless, I'll first explain some of the "supposed" irregularities of the photos as "explained" in this video:

YouTube - [ HD] NASA moon landing pictures Analyzed

First, let us examine 1 minute 40 seconds into the video, when the narrator claims that there was an "edited" rock on the photo, showing some kind of photoshopping work done on the picture. Yes, if you look at that part of the photo on that BOOK, yes, the rocks appear to have been cloned. The question that Soul Doctor asked was why. Simple--it's a BOOK--in books, you have to alter reality in order to make the image look more engaging and presentable. It's the same as showing the sun and planets all crowded around together in a page of a book, which is NOT TRUE in real life, but since you cannot put all planets and the sun on one page on a book in real life because the proportional distances would render the planets as microscopic dots on the page of the book, then the publishers of the book wouldn't want to do that--they would settle for an altered image of the scene. Now going back to that page in the book, the answer is very simple--it's sloppy editing work--the photo editor/layout artist was instructed to "make more regolith (technical term for lunar soil) below the photo". Why? Because the original Hasselblad photo of that pan (yes, it's a pan, a series of frames were taken for that shot) has the lower frame already down the limit of the lower edge, and since they wanted more soil to be on the lower edge, they simply cloned the image to get more soil. But, but, it does not prove that the photo is faked or was not taken on the moon. I'll show you why. Here's the original, untouched photo of that frame from the pan:



Now tell me, are those "cloned" rocks you see in that book, still in this image? But of course, all you will say is "Gikan man na sa NASA, so in your image, expertly edited na na nila para mawala ang mistake." Which is why it's impossible to argue with you people--your minds are already closed. Bisan unsa pa ko ka expert mag explain diri, you will NEVER accept my explanation because your minds are already made up.

BTW if there is any photo in the Apollo program that shows that they really landed on the moon, that Apollo 17 image above (Taurus-Littrow Valley, December 1972) is actually proof that this is a photo take on the moon...the lunar module is actually in the photo. I'll give a treat (free coffee at Starbucks or Bo's) to anyone who can point to me where the lunar module is.

Soul Doctor, you already wanted to stop discussing about the Apollo Hoax issue several pages back, and I already emphasized the negative impact of this silly discussion on this issue, the TRUTH of which is ALREADY accepted by well-established and respectable scientific, engineering, and media communities around the world, and that the negative impact would be on children who are getting interested in science and space exploration. I request you to stop questioning the truthfulness of the Apollo programme and instead concentrate on your conspiracy theories that involve other matters such as 9/11 and whatever. The Apollo Program is FACT--people have walked on the moon. For the sake of children who are eager to learn about space and space exploration, please stop continuing this line of discussion.


-RODION

Addedum: Here's the next image in that pan, and again, the lunar module is also in the photo, so regard this as a bonus hint. Point out to me where it is. Another clue--it's very small--why?--because Cernan and Schmitt are four kilometers from it!



Now tell me, where in the United States (Area 51, Nevada, Arizona or wherever you claim they photographed it) has a studio/movie set that is more than 4 kilometers in diameter, to effectively make shots like this?

-RODION

haha, remember star wars?
the scene where they were walking in a wide desert that looks like snow?
It was shot on a table.

the scene from The Bible where the seas part?
it is just a small pond. and it was way earlier than the moon landing pictures.
Photos can be manipulated. If you want to fool people.

the eyes can be fooled.

If you yourself go to the moon.
Tell me, would you not bring loads of pictures back home?
I would be bringing pictures from every angle, side to side top to bottom.
I would show all the bad pictures and the good ones.
because i would not be hiding anything.

But how many pictures did they show to the public?

I agree its an old discussion, and I already gave the points to you.

Now back to the 911 attack.
What can you say about it?

by the way the picture you shown is not the cloned rocks i was referring to.
ill show it to you later if i know how to capture it from a video.

[Soul Doctor]

i agree with you about donna tietze.
she can easily be discredited.

but look at this video (sorry, i dont know how to capture a picture yet from a video)
YouTube - [ HD] NASA moon landing pictures Analyzed
so just start with time=2 minutes.
you could see those small rocks are copy pasted.
as pointed by markuz.

those were the rocks i was talking about.

[rodsky]

Tell me, would you not bring loads of pictures back home?
I would be bringing pictures from every angle, side to side top to bottom.
I would show all the bad pictures and the good ones.
because i would not be hiding anything.

But how many pictures did they show to the public?

You want to review all the Hasselblad rolls? Ok, you asked for it--I'll gladly give it to you--be prepared to sacrifice about a month for this activity though. These are LOADS of photos indeed.

================================================== ==================================
From APOLLO 11
Magazine 39/Q (B & W) Lunar Surface out LM Windows (AS11-39-5737 to AS11-39-5843, a total of 106 photos, for this magazine alone, times two, kay there are low resolution photos, which are the left links, and the high resolution scans, which are the right links)
Apollo 11 Image Library

Magazine 40/S (Color) Lunar Surface (AS11-40-5844 to AS11-40-5970, a total of 126 photos for this magazine/canister alone, times two, lores and highres).
Apollo 11 Image Library

================================================== ==================================
Now, from APOLLO 12

Magazine 46/Y (AS12-46-6715 to AS12-46-6868, 153 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 12 Image Library

Magazine 47/Y (AS12-47-6869 to AS12-47-7021, 152 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 12 Image Library

Magazine 48 (Frames 7022-7171, 149 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 12 Image Library

Magazine 49 (Frames 7172-7324, 152 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 12 Image Library

================================================== ==================================
Now, from APOLLO 14
Magazine 67 (Frames 9361-9393, 32 images for this magazine)
Apollo 14 Image Library

Magazine 64 (Frames 9046-9201, 155 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 14 Image Library

Magazine 77 (color) Frames 10357-10374 (17 photos for this magazine)
Apollo 14 Image Library

================================================== ==================================
Now, from APOLLO 15
Magazine 86 (Frames 11530-11694, 164 photos)
Apollo 15 Map and Image Library

Magazine 87 (Frames 11695-11860, 165 photos)
Apollo 15 Map and Image Library

Magazine 88 (Frames 11861-12014, 153 photos)
Apollo 15 Map and Image Library

Magazine 89 (black and white) (Frames 12015-12178, 163 photos)
Apollo 15 Map and Image Library

Magazine 90 (black and white) (Frames 12179-12328, 149 photos)
Apollo 15 Map and Image Library


================================================== ==================================
Apollo 16 EVA film canisters
(I'm only going to paste the links to the colored photos, the black and whites are too many to list down here)
Magazine 107 (Frames 17419-17583, 164 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Magazine 113 (Frames 18279-18382, 103 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Magazine 114 (Frames 18383-18470, 87 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Magazine 115 (Frames 18471-18562, 91 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Magazine 116 (Frames 18563-18724, 161 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Magazine 117 (Frames 18725-18856, 131 photos)
Apollo 16 Image Library

Whew, ok, for Apollo 16 that alone is over 800 photos to check out Pahulay sa ko and on to Apollo 17 taod-taod...

...and to think that after Apollo 14, mag DOUBLE na ang ang photo count per EVA because the J-Missions covered more area...why? Because AP15, AP16, and AP17 had the lunar rover...

================================================== ==================================
Apollo 17 images
(again colored lang kay daghan kaayo ang B/W frames...)

Magazine 134/B (Frames 20376-20532, 156 photos)
Apollo 17 Image Library

Magazine 137/C (Frames 20866-21027, 161 photos)
Apollo 17 Image Library

Magazine 140/E (Color) EVA-3, Frame 21351-21509 (158 photos)
Apollo 17 Image Library

Magazine 146/F (Color) EVA-3, Frames 22289-22450 (161 photos)
Apollo 17 Image Library

This excludes the infrared, ultraviolet, black and white and some close-up photography they took in all the missions...which means if you want to view those as well, mga times two na sad ang amount of frames you need to view.

There was a time (kani, hinambog na dyud ni, I admit hehehe) I knew the exact frame numbers of all the "famous" Apollo photos, the ones that ultimately were published by Life, Time, Newsweek, and other famous magazines, the ones that looked "good enough" for the editors-in-chief" of these magazines...they wanted photos that "sell" because they were businesses, so this led to the misunderstanding of people nga gamay ra ang photos nga gikuha sa mga astronauts kay katong mga gipili ra man sa mga editors sa magazine ang napopularize sa media--the rest of the images were ignored because they weren't sellable...so what I'm saying is, if it's the first time for you to see some of these photos, then blame those publications (i.e. Life, Time, etc) for not featuring them (but then would you blame them if they decided not to do it because it won't earn any money for them?), DO NOT BLAME NASA, because NASA always had them and NASA was always willing to show them to the public. People kept asking me the frame numbers of the famous photos, and I didn't want to look up the frame number for a particular photo...too bad my powers of memorization are weak LOL

BTW, some of you might wonder why I know the existence of this image repository. Here's the story. Sometime in 2005 some programmer friends of mine were developing a perl/javascript application which would automatically "suck" all photos, along with folder structure, and with proper, customizable file naming convention, from a publicly accessible website. The function would mimic something like the "Black Widow" type of software, but this web app they were developing targeted images rather than HTML pages. They asked me if I knew of a repository that contained a lot of image data. At first I joked to them "Why not try porn image sites?" hehehe, but then I seriously suggested they should try sites that were sure to have tons of images and that images should be sequentially arranged by some form of file naming convention. After a week of research, I found the ALSJ site (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal), and I suggested it to them...and they used the site for testing, and eventually, we managed to "suck" all the photos from the site, and came up with an image database well over 3 gigabytes. I think I still have them in a DVD somewhere.

-RODION

[Soul Doctor]

on topic.. i think the only people that have given the word conspiracy a bad aura is the media.
off topic.. i hate conspiracytheory this topic is one sided and self serving ,,, nagsasabi lang po ng totoo pasinsya na.

i know you take this conspiracy theory lightly.
because you think it could never happen to you.
because you think this could never happen to innocent civilians and children.

but you are wrong.

after the 911 attack,
the U.S. troops had their own version of terror brought to Iraq.

thanks to wikileaks

we are witnessed to what the U.S.military can do to innocent civilians.

Collateral Murder