What is Digg?96 Comments
- cjsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, actually I discovered this article when researching about another "fake moon landing" story and the story just posted reminded me to submit this article.
- twitchr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1your using a site named http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk to prove your theories? you've got to be kidding!
- cjsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually I discovered this article when researching about another "fake moon landing" story and the story just posted reminded me to submit this article.
- red.shoes.jeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0people seriously argue over things like this? context created
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yay. Again - don't play if you don't actually bother to read the problems. This isn't about something being in the way of the camera. It was VERY much about a static shot, where NOTHING moved except the astronaut in question, and a sudden, very obvious source of light magically happening.
- clubgus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I reckon the Astronauts Landed on a big ball of cheese somewhere in a huge hanger/studio that made it looked like space the videos' a fake!!!!
- Racoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everything the woo woo(s) think is fake is very well debunked here.
http://www.clavius.org/
By real experts and real scientists.
You're either deliberately obtuse or the stupidest person that has ever lived. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You're either deliberately obtuse or the stupidest person that has ever lived."
Wow. I was thinking the same thing about you lot!
What's amazing, is that on THIS PAGE - http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html - the author, trying to refute one picture, gives us AMPLE example as to why the rest of the photographs look the way they do. It's literally amazing how you guys pick and choose what you want and don't want to believe.
The problem? He CROPPED the full image!
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif
And what does the FULL image show? EXACTLY THE PHENOMENON he stated was generated by a studio light. Look at the photos! Read his OWN words!
You guys have this crap STARING you in the face, and you ignore it. Why did the page you linked to DELIBERATELY crop out the portions of the photo which made his point moot?
The portions which, in fact, PROVE what those of use who don't believe the 1969 footage is real, have been saying all along?
Danke! - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Nothing at all needs to be said other than the FACt that we have monitoring devices on the moon that we use to measure the distance to the earth. We send lasers to the moon, and the monitors bounce them back to us."
We don't have monitoring devices. There's a prismatic mirror which scientists can shine a laser at and see how far it's moving. Christ, if you folks wanna contribute to the discussion, at least know what the hell you're talking about. - Racoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It must be fun to live a life completely unburdened by reality.
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Japan said we didnt have the technology to destroy them with 1 bomb...they were right, it took 2. So dont say we never have enough technology, america has done amazing things with technology and the moon is just another example."
You sir, are a ***** moron. Amazing things with technology = Hiroshima and Nagasaki? - moonmovies, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0Most people believe Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise, but this does not make it true. We now know that Japanese Subs had been sunk at the harbor's edge and not reported to the base, crucial radar antennas had been removed not long before the attack, and 12 days before the U.S. intercepted and decoded a message from the Japanese Admiral which even gave the date of the attack - 12 days before the attack! So belief does not equal truth. I'm not saying that you stated that, but the implication was there.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, that's not actually true. If you find a picture of me in bed with a goat, and say "you were in bed with a goat," and I try to refute it, it's my job to prove how the picture is wrong. Afterall, you have evidence.
And again, I ask you - look at the pictures. Look at the lighting and shadow problems. Look at the spotlighting. Look at the way in which a light suddenly appears when that's IMPOSSIBLE on the moon, because there's no clouds, no external lights, and no moving of a camera.
See, that's what you have to explain. Just like I'd have to explain to my girlfriend why I was in bed with a goat. - CJHtxGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The fact that its using Real only adds to the complete ***** btw... just from a tech standpoint... EVERYONE HATES ****ING REAL!I would go so far as to prefer wmv, a freakin microsoft product, than use real.
On topic: jkfan seems to have just about nailed the two overwhelming things that make it true:
1>NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD! I personally think this closes the case, you cant keep even 100 people quite for almost 40years.. especially with a secret like the one you suppose.., and at that "us americans" are supposed to be loud-mouthed boasters...(sad considering the moon landing is quite a boast, but that wouldnt change the fact that someone would spill the beans, be it on purpose or not, and a more conclusive evidence than the ufo.com or w/e site), I might be more inclined to believe if the photos and video was hosted on nasa's site to insure that they themselves were not tampered with to make them look tampered, but no.
2>I thought you said we didnt have computers powerful enough to go and set the moons, not to mention that the van allens belt probably affected the Electronics of the equipment more-so than the human passengers... So how the hell is a robot supposed to set mirrors on the moon with NO ONE on-board,,,
As an answer as to how they did it, thats simply answered by just housing the actual mainframe workhorse that takes entire warehouses to store, ON THE EFFING EARTH!, and they DID have radios... hmmm, gee.
the rest is mostly just additive.. but those you can not falsify, seeing as they contradict your own TMLWF theory.
And again, ALL the lighting elements have been made false,
And one more. IT WAS A 1969 CAMERA, its not a PERFECT marvel of technology in-of-itself - danio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://carpenoctem.tv/cons/moon.html omfg
- baaadbart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The "bad astronomer" (badastronomy.com) has a pretty good article proving the moon landings occurred--it tore to pieces the conspiracy theorist's "facts."
@bleutuna: Take your tinfoil hat and go outside, I think you need it. - spyres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's a good link with some nifty visual aids.
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm - mmcvey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 bleutuna, the reason the sun illuminates everything on Earth during a clear day is that we happen to have a fairly rich atmosphere which disperses the light every-which direction. On the moon, where there is no atmosphere, light is simply reflected off any surface object which causes shadows to point different ways and casts light where one would not expect there to be any.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This has nothing to do with Fox. Fox just simply did a special about information which had been out there for years. Did we land on the moon? Most likely. Are these photos from the moon landing? Absolutely not. I dont think we've ever seen the real moon landing.
Pages like this read like what they are - excuses to try and appease the sheeple. - joebus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Japan said we didnt have the technology to destroy them with 1 bomb...they were right, it took 2. So dont say we never have enough technology, america has done amazing things with technology and the moon is just another example.
- Justblaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I saw a special on the Discovery Channel a few days ago talking about this. I think most people believe we landed on the moon...
- moonmovies, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0The article is not without flaws. For example, the C-Rock picture is cropped - hiding the C on the ground beneath the rock and the obvious cut and paste line to the right of the rover's fender [right side of photo]. If you want to know the truth, watch Jarrah White's videos at MOONHOAX.US.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From the article:
"...Try going into a small darkened room and shine a flashlight on the wall. The side of you opposite the flashlight which only sees the lighted wall will be lit by the scattered light off the wall from the flashlight spot..."
The problem? The sun is not a flashlight. Not by ANY MEANS. The sun is an omnipresent, massive light source. The light of the sun would have a significantly longer luminance distance than what's seen in this photograph.
Want proof? Go outside on a sunny day. Do you see any light fall off? Of course not. because the sun illuminates EVERYTHING. Not a 500meter square around a few people.
The footage we've seen of the landing was clearly done in a sound stage, with actors. - fatb0b, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Holy *****, its 2005 and there are actually still people out there that dont believe we've been to the moon? WOW
- cjsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also from the article:The TMLWF crowd usually falls back on the typical large and complex, self sustaining conspiracy theory arguments, including the grand notion that they were faked by elaborate Hollywood style film fakery on some secret sound stage. Lets stop to ponder this for a moment. Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistencies and visual errors that even the casual and uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to 1969 and the movies that were made then. Could we have produced such fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of scientists familiar with the geologic study of celestial bodies? In fact, the only ones to find fault in this record is a small "cottage industry" group of TMLWFers.
- slowspin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is funny, I think everyone is digging this just for revenge on the Faked Moon Landing post. Ha ha... digg rules. This was posted like less than 20 mins. after the other post. Should be on the front page in another 20 mins or so.
- moonmovies, on 01/27/2008, -0/+0Twitchr's digg proves it. If someone can punch another person and make a joke about their own name, then by all means - why even discuss this topic? Those two things prove man stepped foot on the moon. I seem to recall that some of the most deceitful people in History were also pleasant to be around at times, and had a bit of a temper as well. Hmm.....
Read the story behind that punch: http://moonmovie.com - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"bleutuna, the reason the sun illuminates everything on Earth during a clear day is that we happen to have a fairly rich atmosphere which disperses the light every-which direction. On the moon, where there is no atmosphere, light is simply reflected off any surface object which causes shadows to point different ways and casts light where one would not expect there to be any."
You're missing the point - the sun does not provide SPOTLIGHTED LUMINANCE. It doesn't happen. The sun is a singular source of light, providing FAR MORE light than to simply encompass a few astronauts. That's what you folks don't seem to get, and I can see this, as none of you have probably had any training in the nature of light.
The light would focus specifically on the astronauts, then fall-off within a dozen feet of them. It's impossible. Furthermore, this theory completely erradicates the other argument in regards to the lack of shadows, as that theory is based upon a large amount of light coupled with the reflective nature of the moon.
Just THINK for a few seconds people - why would there be a bright spotlight on Armstrong, while simultaneously a bright spotlight on Aldrin? Did the two walk all over the surface of the moon to find the ONE place in which the SUN and EARTH were equally reflecting small amounts of light onto the satellite, and each stand directly in the center?
LOL!
Here's some videos:
Look at the wires reflect above their heads - http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rm
A site that should convince ANYONE -
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
This picture ALONE is suspicious - look at the different light sources, and shadows: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif And remember, NASA has said CONTINUALLY there were no extra lights taken to the moon.
Look at the lighting in this video. Halfway through the walk down - a light suddenly comes on. Why? Where did it come from? There are no clouds to move out of the way, nothing to obscure the light: http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/11landing.rm
Watch the flag in this video. This isn't simply inertia moving it non-stop - this is clearly wind blowing, and the astronauts trying to keep it from moving. It's freakin a riot: http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rm
Finally, one of the most DAMNING pieces of evidence: http://www.tntleague.com/misc/lem.rm
HOW does the camera pan up?? There was no one left on the moon to do this! How doe sit perfectly keep the module in frame, even as it rises?
Honestly, folks. Open your eyes. You wouldnt believe George Bush if he told you this fib, would you? - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Aldrin punched someone for saying the moon landing was fake! It MUST be real!!"
Hulk Hogan punched John Stossel (sic) on a 20/20 episode when he asked Hogan if WRESTING was fake.
That is one of the biggest straw-men I've come across here. - bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dknighton, trying to divert the attention on my misspell is just lame as the rest of your post, the photos are the only proof all this stuff was a sham, sorry but is true, NASA never could come with GOOD answers to all the doubts.
The one that called those pioneers cowards was YOU ***** *****, don't quote me saying something I didn't say, learn to read.
And stop embarrassing yourself, if you think that google or wikipedia contain all the truth or the facts for everything you are in for being called an idiot, get yourself educated, read from various source, go to a library, talk to people, if all the stuff you come up comes from your computer I can just have pity of you, the big difference between you and me is than at least I'm more confident in writing about something I have learned from that trying to watch my ass googling a fact and posting here just to look like a smart ass when you certainly ARE NOT. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The hoax proponents consistently exaggerate the effects of radiation in space. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first spaceflights, and they invested a great deal of research in it before flying the first astronauts into space. The most dangerous part of the journey to the moon for radiation exposure was during the passage of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This is a zone from aobut 1000 kilometers up to about 20000 kilometers. The Apollo missions flew through this zone at very high speed - outbound starting around 40,000 kph and inbound at about the same speed. They spent a few hours within the Van Allen belts and estimates of the total exposure during their entire flights were about 2 rems (the equivalent of about 100 chest x-rays or about 40% of the maximum permissible dose of radiation according to OSHA standards). Doses of 100-200 rems cause a person to experience nausea several hours after exposure and fatal doses occure above about 300 rem. Solar flares were a concern as well, but typical doses due to flares that the Astronauts were exposed to were only a few rem. The crews wore dosimeters which were read back roughly daily during the flights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about the magical energy belt around the Earth? No human can get past that without his soul being torn from his body. God doesn't want you to leave the bounds of Earth. Also, the Earth is flat. We proved it long ago in old Europe, let's just let the issue drop.
And if anybody took me seriously, take that stick out of your ass. I too think these TMLWF loons are just as crazy as any cult. - cjsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"This is about 2 years old. The last update he did on that page is 1 year old."
And the topic is 40 years old. Your point? - coachace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WHAT???! WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!??!
lol - timeshifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd read the story but the green and white text on a black background really f's with my eyes.
- jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WHAT THE *****!!!? People actually actually think the moon landing didnt happen. WHAT a bunch of fags!!
1. The field of radiation is short enough and they were moving fast enough that they would not be heavily exposed to it.
2. It doesn't have to be pitch black in areas not exposed to the sun due to ambient light reflected from the surface of the moon.
3. The people in NASA knew the flag which just sink, so they put wires in it to make it stay up.
4. You have small penises
5. Things in the way of the camera can be matched up to parts of the ship.
_8_
___| - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man, I need to start a story, the Twin Towers were taken down by Muslim Terrorists. That is about as big of a shock as this. :-)
Eric Wilson - baaadbart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Those silly astronomers and scientists with their PhD's, technological equipment, and knowledge know nothing! The only sources I trust are me (even though I haven't even graduated High School) and what Fox says!
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Apparently the hoax advocates have never heard of a remotely operated camera. The video camera that shot the LM launch footage was mounted on the Lunar Rover and was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The signal commanding the camera the pan upward was sent early to account for the 1.3-second time delay."
-- http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm - ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0'http://www.mindbreakers.com/fake-moon-landing.htm '
amazing - SwimTorrent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0About the intensified light--I'll admit to knowing very little about the behavior of light, but from where was that filmed? It seemed like from inside a window. Seems to me like it could possibly be that the sun caught the window badly at a slightly different angle, creating extra glare.
- jhassel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@bleutuna. The article that you believe was conveniently cropped on purpose actually makes very valid and true points in his own favor. The cropping has to do with focusing on the point he was making. Try and comprehend what is actually happening, it may take some time for you but hang in there.
Some also point to the converging shadows and exclaim that there must be multiple spotlights. Ever heard of the vanishing point? - moonmovies, on 01/27/2008, -0/+0Most people don't know that van Allen's first research, published in 1959 - proved that man would need to travel from the North and South poles to get past the Belts. He said that the radiation was too dangerous. One must wonder, was it threats to life, liberty or the offer of money that made him recant his research?
For those who trust this government, I suggest you do a bit of your OWN research into how inhumane and cruel the 'secret government' has been since the 1950's - after the Intelligence Agencies and Black Ops got going. - michielnl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fake Moon Landing
http://www.mindbreakers.com/fake-moon-landing.htm
NASA fraud. At last we have the conclusive proof. Here is a documentary with evidence fake moon landing pictures and photos, no video. - Racoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your invited to make your case here if you dear.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=3 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We didn't go to the moon because wikipedia said so! hahahahaha
- virga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0best proof that we went to the moon is that we can shine a laser at one of the several mirrors set up by the apollo missions and watch it bounch back to earth to record the exact distance.
- Dahak2150, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just wish they'd called it regolith instead of soil. Soil has living things in it.
Anyway, yet another conspiracy blown apart.
:) - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are you really espousing the phrase "think for yourself" when the only evidence you have of us going to the moon is our governments word?
Mirrors on the moon? There's NO WAY that could have been placed by an automaton, could it? I mean, we've NEVER sent a robot to a planet we couldn't get to, have we? Nah...
Explain this: http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/11landing.rm
Please. PLEASE. Explain why light SUDDENLY comes on. Don't simply say, "some show" already did it, because I've SEEN the television programs, and they continually pick the problems they can easily piss away, and never things like this. Where it's VERY clear a light source suddenly appears for NO reason.
There are no clouds on the moon, folks. There's nothing "move out of the way" of the light here - some light source is clicked at the end of the clip, and you people just say, "Well...but...the government told me we've really been there! So it's gots to be true!!"
Whose the redneck that's simply following what he's been told? Certainly not me. - moonmovies, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0You mean a rock from NASA's advanced labs? Or do you mean the Antarctica rocks?
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 