conspiracy theories

[treize]

---

I'll be glad if somebody answer my simple curiousity

Ingon nila walay hangin sa moon, akong pangutana nganong nag-lupad2 lagi ning flag nga ila giugbok kuno sa moon?

Watch this bro and you will know why the flag flapped and what exactly happened up there.. Keep your eyes on the flag..

YouTube - ‪APOLLO 11: PROOF OF MOON LANDING‬‏

[Sand Man]

Watch this bro and you will know why the flag flapped and what exactly happened up there.. Keep your eyes on the flag..

YouTube - APOLLO 11: PROOF OF MOON LANDING

40 minutes worth of footage and the shadows never moved.

Hmmmm.... Let's see that again.

Edit: OK ... it did move -- I clicked on 2:02 and on 2:40 of the video.

[treize]

40 minutes worth of footage and the shadows never moved.

Hmmmm.... Let's see that again.

Yep, not even when the astronauts passed by it.

[treize]

From a documentary show
Dr. David Groves alleged that the lunar photos were staged.
Dr. Groves is a physicist and computer image analyst.
he can prove that there was an additional lighting in those photos.
He studied it and knew exactly where the light was placed based on the light reflected on the boots.
But NASA told TV that there was no additional studio light carried on board.
YouTube - ‪Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis‬‏

I want pinoy_09, xavimao, springfield and rodsky to discuss on this (intelligently) if they can.

It's already been debunked bro..

watch this YouTube - ‪Debunking Moon Hoax Believers' Claims that Apollo 11 photo 5903 was Faked‬‏

1. CLAIM The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof there are clearly two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see on a studio set.

ANSWER Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.

Michael Shermer´s brilliant (and VERY LONG !) "Moon Hoax"-debunk

Since you really wanted to know the real reason why the astronauts stopped going back to the moon, here's the real reason YouTube - ‪the REAL reason why they haven't been back to the Moon‬‏

Mr:Green

[orochimaru700]

i believe na answeran ni ang Apollo Landing sa usa ka episode sa Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters"... try to look at it and give your ideas about it...

[treize]

Just here to present little odd things about the moon landing hoax.
(Again copy pasted for the convenience of the readers and for the inconvenience of my detractors)
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

Nine Space Oddities | Lunar Landing Hoax

***facepalm*** specially on No. 3

Loved this part..

It doesn’t seem likely that someone would be flat on the surface pointing a camera at Armstrong. Surely, if that were the case, the shot would only have captured his boots rather than his entire body?

Also, why does the conspiracy theorist assume that someone – a human being – needs to be pointing a camera for that camera to work?

The answer is a simple “because conspiracy theorists need to defy logic to make their “points” stick”, but we’ll step that aside and just get on with explaining who filmed Armstrong’s first step.

Nine Space Oddities | Lunar Landing Hoax

[Soul Doctor]

It's already been debunked bro..

watch this YouTube - ‪Debunking Moon Hoax Believers' Claims that Apollo 11 photo 5903 was Faked‬‏

1. CLAIM The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof there are clearly two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see on a studio set.

ANSWER Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.

Michael Shermer´s brilliant (and VERY LONG !) "Moon Hoax"-debunk

Since you really wanted to know the real reason why the astronauts stopped going back to the moon, here's the real reason YouTube - ‪the REAL reason why they haven't been back to the Moon‬‏

Mr:Green

physicist nagstudy bro.
lugar, ang physicist dili kahibaw unsay naglight ato, kung naa pa?

Im sure convinced mo sa inyong self about everything in the moon landing as true.
and no amount of evidence can convince you otherwise.

no problem with that.
I know what i know.

[Soul Doctor]

Nine Space Oddities | Lunar Landing Hoax

***facepalm*** specially on No. 3

Loved this part..

It doesn’t seem likely that someone would be flat on the surface pointing a camera at Armstrong. Surely, if that were the case, the shot would only have captured his boots rather than his entire body?

Also, why does the conspiracy theorist assume that someone – a human being – needs to be pointing a camera for that camera to work?

The answer is a simple “because conspiracy theorists need to defy logic to make their “points” stick”, but we’ll step that aside and just get on with explaining who filmed Armstrong’s first step.

Nine Space Oddities | Lunar Landing Hoax

because there were no other cameras carried in the lunar module.
The cameras they carried are supposed to be designed for that special mission.
And they were attached to the astronauts body.
But see how perfect the framings were.
How could they do that if they don't have a viewfinder.

And how did the film survive such environment in perfect condition?
The moons temperature are on the extremes.
At night or when the sun is on the other side, the temp drops to -173 celcius
imagine 0 degrees as the freezing point of water. -173 is way below that.
meaning the film could have frozen along with its chemicals.
think of what will happen to the pictures of the camera?

On a day environment where the sun is up, the temperature reaches above 100 degrees centigrade or boiling point of water. If youve seen the camera, do you think that camera can survive extreme coldness of negative 173 degrees celcius and the heat of a boiling water?
What happens to the negatives of the camera?
But the radiation on the moon also affects the unprocessed films.
Mao gani careful ta nga dili maabli ang camera while naa pa ang film para dili maexpose sa radiation.
But in the moon. radiation is everywhere.
Kung walay lead insulations ang cameras dili unta sila kadevelop og ingon ato ka clear nga pictures.

[Soul Doctor]

If you are a christian.
You could easily swear and put your hand in the bible if you are telling the truth.
They do it in the court room.

But in this scene.
Somebody with a bible walk to Neil Armstong and ask him to swear to a bible that he walked on the moon.
Armstrong could never do it.
Why?
If he could just be a sport and did it, it would all be over then.

Criminals swear to a bible in court and lie anyway.
But why cant he swear to a bible that he walked on the moon?
Ask yourself that!
Do you need to google just to answer this one pinoy_09?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqfH7...eature=related

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

ot: