conspiracy theories

[rodsky]

---

Ok, just reminding our readers...I summed up all the photos available on the links above, and they total up to 3,209 images. Still not convinced this is "loads" of photos?

Ok, now let's see if people will decide if this is "loads" or not. Take note, this is only a fraction of the actual image library, because it excludes the black and white, infrared, U/V, gnomon closeup analysis shots, and the inflight (spacecraft interior) shots. So theoretically, mga 4x pa ang actual photos you need to view, and let's do the math shall we?

3,209 x 4 = that is 12,836 photos in storage, to review and analyze.

Again, "loads" or not?

-RODION

[Soul Doctor]

nice work Rodsky...

thats what i like about you.

you produce things that are new to us.

And that is what this thread is about.

Education.

We need to know more.

Thanks for the photos.....
It is very much appreciated...

[rodsky]

You're welcome Doc.

-RODION

[THE SKULLS]

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.

I can take limitless amount of pictures from a controlled environment.

[rodsky]

I can take limitless amount of pictures from a controlled environment.

Your "controlled environment" is a studio over 8 kilometers big, with an 8 kilometer big roof (to darken the area), 8 kilometers of what, Portland cement as regolith substitute? And mofo-HUGE spotlights to cover an 8 kilometer big area (gee, I wonder how many spotlights would that take, and the candlepower for each ) Even Hollywood didn't have anything THAT BIG in the 1960's. And you'd then say "They didn't need a studio, they used computer graphics..." riiiiiight.

Here is a video of Charlie Duke (Apollo 16 Lunar Module Pilot) running back to the Lunar Module "Orion" from the ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Science Experiment Package) site, this is about a 55 meter run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDokd7TCvs

Now look at the scale of the Orion LM and the size of Charlie Duke. You can see that the rover camera had to zoom in to see him arrive at the base of the LM. Now if they used wires to hold him up (as some hoax conspirators say), how would they accomplish this over a 100 meter radius from the LM (for those unfamiliar with wire-flying technique in special effects, to effectively move transitionally, your rig needs to have a wheeled cart that runs on a track, that crosses the entire stage area, for convincing flying or weightless/microgravity/low gravity effects), without showing the rigging? And if the wires are so high up (in case you say the wires are attached very high up so that it won't be seen by the camera), how will you compensate for the potential swinging/pendulum effect from such a high attach point? Now about slow motion--some conspiracists say gi-slow motion daw ni. How could they have accomplished the timing of the slow motion and the speech/voice of the astronauts when in fact, this was broadcast LIVE on television when it happened?

Furthermore, towards the end of video, you can see that the AP16 US flag is NOT waving (contrary to what conspiracists say that the flags were waving on the lunar surface because of HUGE electric fans needed to cool the astronauts in their suits).

-RODION

[treize]

nice job rodz...

[THE SKULLS]

Your "controlled environment" is a studio over 8 kilometers big, with an 8 kilometer big roof (to darken the area), 8 kilometers of what, Portland cement as regolith substitute? And mofo-HUGE spotlights to cover an 8 kilometer big area (gee, I wonder how many spotlights would that take, and the candlepower for each ) Even Hollywood didn't have anything THAT BIG in the 1960's. And you'd then say "They didn't need a studio, they used computer graphics..." riiiiiight.

they made the moon landing real. they must have the latest technology that time.

Furthermore, towards the end of video, you can see that the AP16 US flag is NOT waving (contrary to what conspiracists say that the flags were waving on the lunar surface because of HUGE electric fans needed to cool the astronauts in their suits).

-RODION

and why is the flag during the first manned apollo landing waved?
could that flag in AP16 made of cardboard?

[rodsky]

they made the moon landing real. they must have the latest technology that time.

and why is the flag during the first manned apollo landing waved?
could that flag in AP16 made of cardboard?

Ang dili nako dyud masabtan bay, kay gipost na gani nako ang ALSJ site (you even LIKED it on my Facebook page!), and then ikaw mismo man mag exert ug effort nga pangitaon ang video sa flag sa Apollo 16, para ma-prove kung cardboard ba ni or dili. Ikaw gani ang sige'g sulti nga dili dapat i-spoon feed ang mga tawo or mga bata, nya ikaw dyud gapa-spoon feed sa akoa. I already gave you the tools--it's time you start exerting your OWN effort.

You sound like a kid who cannot enter the carnival, so he tries to get into a hole in the fence then nakit-an sa security guard ug gikasab-an, then wala pa dyud nag learn ug lesson, kakitag another another hole, you then try to enter it, and gikasab-an na sad sa guard, then wala gihapon natagam, dagan na sad to another hole, kakita na sad another guard, dagan na sad sa another hole...ad infinitum. I have very little respect for people like this, because it's clear that their brain works like an animal brain, rather than a human brain, sorry.

I'm now convinced dili man ka magpaconvinced (bisan tinood pa dyud ang usa ka butang) kay ang imo mang lingaw kay nga dili maundang ang discussion.

Pasensya na to the people who read this thread sa akong gibati, nga mura na ko'g nang-insulto ni Nasyo...kay kinsa man dili masuko sa usa tawo nga ing ani ang style when it comes to discussions?

-RODION

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

do you have to live in new york just to use your head?
do you live in new york?
you too are so convinced of the debunks,
you must have lived in new york yourself..
do you have any point that i could question or you just conveniently pass it to your linked readings.

That story i told you here shows that i have an analytical mind.
That's why I became a Chemical Engineer.
No one can tell me how to think.
I can do that myself.
I don't know about you though.

I'm the one who is biased? pagchure oi.

I already presented you my points backed with evidence.
So far, what have you presented?
nil.
o thus "read my link" count? to me? No.
Its too convenient for someone who has no words coming from his mouth other than "its all been debunked" and "read my link".
what a way to argue.
Im sure you can do better than that.
Or can you?

Dok ... all you had were basis of thoughts from an existing claim . Do you really think people are gonna buy your sentiments that you came up with that ANALYSIS ? That is HORSECRAP on your behalf , you know why ? To start with about your NEW YORK issues , did I even say you have to lived there to know ? See where we are going now ? CHEMICAL ENGINEER pa man kaha ka , knows how analysis ? yeah based ona 2 minute video lage . You dont have to live there mi amor , but knowing you who were never there and makes a conclusion , well based again from an existing conclusion doesnt make any sense . Have you even been there to collect such powdery dust and examined yourself in your superlab ?

Tabla ra ka ni ingon ug , I will study different insects found in the rainforest of the Amazon in the comfort of my home Minglanilla .

So far what have I presented ? I have presented links to you that DEBUNKS your CLAIMS este someone else CLAIMS and you know why I believed that it is a LEGITIMATE ANSWER ? Because the ANSWERS and , EXPLANATIONS and CONCLUSIONS never changed over the years , it stayed like that since it was released unlike basis of claims from conspiracy theory people changed over the years coming up with hilarious , ridiculous and out of this world claims .

Relating your reply to THE CHILD :

Welcome back the Child.
This is the first time I heard you agreed with me.
I remember we used to argue a lot before.
Things never changed do they?

Do you even know what is the meaning of ANALYSIS ? OR DO YOU ?

@springfield
judging from your avatar,
i can say you are in the military.

And what do the military say about thinking?

Are you allowed to think when an order is given?

Are you allowed to question your superior?

Now I understand why your so submissive to the official 911 report.

Lol ... get your facts straight dok . You dont know what you are talking about dok . To answer you questions , YES .

You my sir, are programmable.
Probably product of military psychological and mental trainings.
You think what they what you to think.
That makes us two different types of person.
The reason why you could not accept what i'm saying.
Me on the other hand is willing to accept an idea
if somebody can present my with a reasonable point.

Because if you only read , then you can figure out how reasonable it is but you only came up with a four letter word , CRAP . Where is the WILLINGNESS in there dok ?

Regarding your tower 7 again ... you are missing something , did it collapsed because of FIRE ? Why dont you answer that Mr. Suave .

AHHH!
Now I figured it out!
Nice try Springfield.

You want me to read your links
so you would not have to argue and post for yourself.

So then I would post the link you gave and i will post it here
and i will try to post some more to discuss whats wrong with their findings.

In the process I would be posting your link.
I would be posting my opinion.
I would be posting all your debunks.
And I will again post all there is to squash them.
And it would look like I am doing all the posting.
So you will have grounds to call me "flooding the thread".

Nice try though.
What a cheat!

I will make it short and sweet , YOU NEVER HAD ANYTHING AGAINST THEM IN TERMS OF YOU FINDING SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEIR CONCLUSIONS . Naa naka nakita diay ? YAWERDS nimo dok ah ! HI hi hi .

@SILENT HILL ...

that is correct, the burden of proving the conspiracy is within the conspirators.
But nowadays truth is just a rule that can be bend, the results of those investigations can easily be influenced, if the price is right. US is involved in lots of conspiracy like Roswell, economic saboteur, CIA Assassinations etc etc.. so i wouldn't blame the conspiracy theorist who come-up with these stories. I think in due time, we will know the truth, of these matters.

you are correct it stays as a LEGITIMATE CONCLUSION and findings but it doesn't follow that it is correct,and everybody should just keep their mouth-shot. like I said before these theories are like "faith"/religion it depends on the people who wants believe in them or not.

That makes more sense but the thing is , how can one figure out how things are done when you are one sided ? I used to read all the CLAIMS and CONSPIRACY THEORIES and if you are in your right mind , knowing how it is REFUTED matters most kay diha makita ang katag . Like you said , it doesnt follow that it is right but our in house dok here calls it CRAP without even READING it first .

now, can we talk about UFOs, lol i find them more interesting...
do you think that the world governments are hiding something from the masses in relation to UFOs? lol.

That would be interesting also but mananghid pa ta ni dok ana because this thread is all about JFK , 9-11 and MOON LANDING lang ra ba . He is paranoiod man gud ma lock daw ang thread, too much chemicals doc in the lab as a chemical engineer ?

Good night este morning dok , catch you laters , beauty rest sa ko .

[Soul Doctor]

Springfield sir, the 911 commission report was one of the basis on this conspiracy theory. not the debunks.
Here is the criticisms of the 911 report in wikipedia (dili youtube ha)

1.)The Report has been accused of not giving the whole story about the warnings the U.S. received prior to the attacks.[5] While the Report did describe that "the system was blinking red" and that an al Qaeda attack was imminent, it did not include the testimony of former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January 2004, in which he claimed to have given a specific warning to the Administration in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."[6]

2.)FAA counter-terrorism expert Bogdan Dzakovic believes that the security failures at airports that allowed the hijackers to board the planes were not due to the failures in the system that the Report identified. Furthermore, he stated that "Many of the FAA bureaucrats that actively thwarted improvements in security prior to 9/11 have been promoted by FAA or the Transportation Security Administration."[7] The report did not mention his name, despite Dzakovic giving the following testimony to the Commission regarding his undercover checks on airport security prior to 9/11:

We breached security up to 90 percent of the time. The FAA suppressed these warnings. Instead, we were ordered not to write up our reports and not to retest airports where we found particularly egregious vulnerabilities, to see if the problems had been fixed. Finally, the agency started providing advance notification of when we would be conducting our 'undercover' tests and what we would be 'checking.' . . . What happened on 9/11 was not a failure in the system. Our airports are not safer now than before 9/11. The main difference between then and now is that life is now more miserable for passengers.[7]

3.)Other sources have criticized the Commission for not digging deep enough to get to the core of the issues. In a 2004 interview, Bernard Gwertzman, of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated of the Report:

Again, one of the great problems in the commission report is that it looked at exactly one issue — counterterrorism — and none of the others. But [U.S.] intelligence users consist of more than one million people, many of them in uniform, and when you talk about budgeting and programming authority, you have to consider that. . . . Many of these conclusions are probably very valuable. But this is a 13-chapter report. Eleven chapters are a masterful description of what happened and what went wrong that led to the 9/11 attack. There is no chapter that explains what people did after 9/11. There is no chapter that qualifies that this is only one of many problems in intelligence and intelligence reform."[8]

4.)In a 2004 article titled, 'Whitewash as Public Service: How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation,' Harper's Magazine writer Benjamin DeMott stated that:

The plain, sad reality . . . is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation. . . . At the core of all these failures lies a deep wariness of earnest, well-informed public debate."[9]

The debunks were mere manipulations of the truth done by politicians and government officials---
using so called experts paid by the the people behind all this mess.

1.) The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents.

--------now, out of the 2 and a half million pages of documents--
--how much is actually used in the 911 commission report?
how much of it is edited?
how much of it is ignored?

2.)The Commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. Before it was released by the Commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.

Ha ha ha the PENTTBOM investigation.
This is the whitewash and coverup team of investigators.

Remember, the FBI and the CIA offices are in the WTC building 7.
They, of all people, should be the ones who should investigate this incident meticulously.
They should be analyzing the traces of explosives found on the steel beams in the ground zero of 911.
pero nganung wala man to nila gianalyze?
dili kaha tungod kay military explosives ang gigamit didto?
But in the next post you will see how they made their report.