Comments on: Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:50:33 +0000

That pic has been doctored, look at the surrounding craters, you will see hues of gray that part of the shadowing…go to the areas that are listed for the crash site, the pixels are all black, there is no graying as in the crater photos. DOCTORED!!!

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 1 (-1)

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:45:08 +0000

So how will the discovery of FTL particles change all this? I see people talking like scholars about light, yet these FTL particles will change everything you know!

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: mitaka

mitaka — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:03:17 +0000

Is it a special school where they teach you how to create so many contradictions with so less words? First contradiction: you involved the Russia. If there were any doubts about the moon landing they would be the first to say it. But since they’re smart and since the people in the communist countries were well educated they will know that those arguments are big lie not representing the truth and the reality. There are no scenes with the shadows in opposite directions -- they look in different angles and you can observe this into a daylight if you go out in a field and OPEN YOUR EYES. To explain this -- simple geometry -- paralax and with combination of wide angle lens can see miracles. Here is the Second contradiction:
If there are more than one light sources why there is no single object with more than one shadows? Cause they were in different distance pointing at different objects but yet the whole surface appears equally illuminated??? Well cause you don’t know what you’re talking about that’s why. And you were saying about the richest country -- you think Russia -back then Soviet Union was not richer than USA -- ahahahahaha. They just failed that’s it. The USA won the space battle as many others -- get over it.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: mitaka

mitaka — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:47:55 +0000

I wonder who is this non educated, not able to think person who gives you minus points?? Hi all of you, whatever this guy said is 100% fact and even you can test it. How can you dare to say the opposite? I will never been able to understand the people who just stand a point just like that….

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: mitaka

mitaka — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:42:12 +0000

Allow me to correct myself for a few things I missed. The conduction of the heat happens through a electromagnetic radiation also not just by friction of the air molecules so it happens but with well covered camera -- except the lens aperture will prevent the fast heating process. Also why nobody questioned all of the videos and pictures we’ve seen from missions into the Earth’s orbit on a direct sunlight -- of course it’s not the same as the moon since you have additional reflection which adds up to the overall radiation but still -- why nobody questions those pictures? What about the orbit telescopes too. Why we don’t doubt them? Don’t throw the Earth’s magnetic field stuff -- it doesn’t change the Gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation coming up -- it changes only Alpha (neutron’s stream) direction and Beta (electron beam) radiation’s components -- both reflected easily by not so tick let’s say (1/4 inches) metal surface in our open space conditions. I’ve heard also about this argument that the radiation was too high on the moon -- haha -- it is not higher than the one in Earth’s orbit (alt least the electromagnetic and Gamma component) which are not stoppable by 1/4 inch metal or deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. Again -- why nobody argues about those pictures and videos? I say they’re all fake and they used it to lie to us that the Earth is a sphere -- you know I think actually it’s flat and all we’ve been told is lie

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: mitaka

mitaka — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:47:48 +0000

Yes, you’re right. You cannot compare capturing the moon and stars. The conditions are even worse -- you have the sun in the sky, it’s reflection from the moon’s surface (imagine sunny day in snowy mountain (may be I over exaggerated with the snow)) and as you said lack of the atmosphere (which means more sunlight on the surface). So even with the widest dynamic range camera (digital CSMOS/CCD sensors or films they had back then) you’ll not be able to capture the stars (may be Venus???) at this low exposure value (what ever combination between exposure time(shutter speed), ISO and aperture). If on the other hand you or you wife knows how to do it -- I’ll talk to my boss to invite you for an interview for a nice job position in our company cause after over than 10 years with digital photography the wide dynamic range is still one of the biggest issues we have (just to mention that the conventional film has a lot wider dynamic range but still not enough for what we’re talking about). On the other issues you were talking about is the temperature -- you’re again right -- no way the camera film to survive at the heat, BUT -- the temperature of the surface cannot be transferred into the camera cause there is no atmosphere -- nothing to conduct the heat -- actually the COLD here will be the problem if the camera is well covered from the sun so we should ask the guys how their cameras were able to work at such low temperatures…. And if everyone doubts -- please read around the net to see how much is the difference into the temperatures between the sun illuminated surfaces and the ones in shadow(consider it this as a homework) in vacuum. And just to inform you -- I use to doubt about all moon landing stuff but after I’ve read and watched all of the conspiracy theories -- I’m telling you -- I cannot be more sure that the guys HAVE LANDED on the moon -- just there is no way to simulate the reality as we know it so well in studio -- there should’ve been at least a single mistake (for example at least one object with two or more shadows as if there were more than one light source over there as our not very well educated (or if there are please give your diploma back the the university and ask them to give you money back) conspiracy theorist friends insist). And finally how come we’ve got this nice reflector on the moon surface people use every they since then? May be our guys got in orbit of the moon, drop the reflector and it lent nice but our guys couldn’t that’s why they come back (or before that) into a special studio to make all of this fake? Guys just get over it. All of this made possible because of the work of 1000 extraordinary people (not like me and you (obviously)). So if for a some reason the man walking on the moon doesn’t seem to you as possible especially for 1969 cause your brain doesn’t get it well think of heart transplant operations -- can you do it? Do you know what it takes? Have any idea about what 25nm smei conductor technology is? I guess no. But is in you packet. Or under the keyboard (or around it) which you’re now thinking to use to argue with me?… Have a good day everyone. I like you all. Without your arguments I would still think the lending of the moon was fake

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: good funny uk t shirts

good funny uk t shirts — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:46:04 +0000

I take pleasure in, result in I discovered just what I used to be taking a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: jfb

jfb — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:46:53 +0000

The whole point behind this example is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re on the Moon or not; the issue is the dynamic range of film, which simply isn’t wide enough to capture both the sunlit surface of the Moon and the background stars in the same exposure. You need to expose for at least several seconds to capture the brightest stars, whether you’re on Earth or the Moon. If you’re trying to photograph the sunlit lunar surface (which is what the Apollo missions were interested in), that level of exposure would leave you with a detail-free blob of solid white. To properly capture the lunar surface, you’d only have to expose for a fraction of a second, which is too short for the background stars to register.

Photographic film simply cannot capture the same dynamic range as our eyes.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 2 2 (0)

By: Think

Think — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:45:24 +0000

Think inertia and zero air resistance.
But don’t take my word for it.
A small child in elementary school could explain it to you.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

By: Think

Think — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:29:27 +0000

Leave the thinking to people that are equipped to do it. You’re doing a fine job transferring petroleum.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)