Ai si tu o boala cu scuzele.
Ok, stii care e deviza mea - spune-i omului ce vrea sa auda.
Umbra e mai mica cu 1 m, ar trebui sa stea in genunchi, las-o asa cum a cazut ca intri in alta zona.
Ai pornit pe o traiectorie gresita.
Sa stii ca daca dovedesti ca eu gresesc, si nu e imposibil, si eu sint om, e doar foarte greu sa gresesc, asta nu inseamna ca ai dovedit ca Nasa a dus oamenii pe Luna in 1969.
Am spus de la inceput, aici comentam despre Luna nu despre noi, dupa cum vad eu, tu vrei sa duci un razboi de anduranta cu mine, nu ma deranjeaza chiar ma simt flatat, doar ca iti urez sa fii de cursa lunga.
Eu am tinut pina acum 4 threaduri pe CG despre Apollo, timp de 8 luni si au peste 300 posturi fiecare, asa ca si aici va dura cel putin pina in octombrie cind vor ajunge cei de la Transorbital acolo si vor filma locul unde ar fi trebuit sa aselenizeze Apollo 11.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by burvi2001
[B]Umbra e mai mica cu 1 m, ar trebui sa stea in genunchi, las-o asa cum a cazut ca intri in alta zona.
Ai pornit pe o traiectorie gresita.
Sa stii ca daca dovedesti ca eu gresesc, si nu e imposibil, si eu sint om, e doar foarte greu sa gresesc, asta nu inseamna ca ai dovedit ca Nasa a dus oamenii pe Luna in 1969.
burvi2001,
Cum adica sa o las asa cum a cazut ca intru in alta zona?
Eu nu am facut nimic umbrei!
Sunt umbrele reale din film...
Chiar vrei sa pun cadru cu cadru?
Mai demult,cand ai vizionat acel film, ai vazut foarte bine ca umbrele sunt egale atunci cand si astronautii au pozitii identice (cand erau amandoi aplecati sau drepti) si cu toate astea ai tacut din gura...
Nu era mai bine sa zici ca ai gresit?
Cum poti ignora filmul care iti arata clar umbrele reale?
Nu am dovedit ca NASA a adus oamenii pe Luna in '69 ci faptul ca umbrele sunt ABSOLUT OK (atat in poza cat si in film)
Nu eu ar fi trebuit sa vad asta (eu fac parte din lumea celor multi,fara puteri paranormale) ci chiar tu,mai ales ca lucrezi si faci investigatii pentru serviciile secrete din tarile civilizate.
Daca nici acum nu esti convins de umbre pun si alte cadre din film.
Salutare
[B]Umbra e mai mica cu 1 m, ar trebui sa stea in genunchi, las-o asa cum a cazut ca intri in alta zona.
Ai pornit pe o traiectorie gresita.
Sa stii ca daca dovedesti ca eu gresesc, si nu e imposibil, si eu sint om, e doar foarte greu sa gresesc, asta nu inseamna ca ai dovedit ca Nasa a dus oamenii pe Luna in 1969.
burvi2001,
Cum adica sa o las asa cum a cazut ca intru in alta zona?
Eu nu am facut nimic umbrei!
Sunt umbrele reale din film...
Chiar vrei sa pun cadru cu cadru?
Mai demult,cand ai vizionat acel film, ai vazut foarte bine ca umbrele sunt egale atunci cand si astronautii au pozitii identice (cand erau amandoi aplecati sau drepti) si cu toate astea ai tacut din gura...
Nu era mai bine sa zici ca ai gresit?
Cum poti ignora filmul care iti arata clar umbrele reale?
Nu am dovedit ca NASA a adus oamenii pe Luna in '69 ci faptul ca umbrele sunt ABSOLUT OK (atat in poza cat si in film)
Nu eu ar fi trebuit sa vad asta (eu fac parte din lumea celor multi,fara puteri paranormale) ci chiar tu,mai ales ca lucrezi si faci investigatii pentru serviciile secrete din tarile civilizate.
Daca nici acum nu esti convins de umbre pun si alte cadre din film.
Salutare
rz: nu ai nici o sansa de a-l face sa spuna ca tine.
Pai nici n-o sa zic ca el vreodata atit timp cit eu am dreptate, sigxcpu.
Rz, pentru tine special o sa editez poza si o sa-ti demonstrez ca diferenta intre cele 2 umbre e de aproape 1 m.
Acum spune-mi si mie cit de mult trebuie sa te apleci in fata ca sa iti scada umbra cu 1 m, in paranteza fie spus, cind te apleci in fata, cu soarele in spate la aprox 10-15 grade, cum stau ei, creste de fapt umbra.
Faptul ca mai tirziu in timpul filmului sint egale umbrele, imi da mie dreptate, intelegi ?
Eu nu vreau sa spun decit ca ori existau mai multe surse de lumina cind a fost facut filmul, ori sint alte personaje decit Armstrong si Aldrin in costumele alea.
Rz, pentru tine special o sa editez poza si o sa-ti demonstrez ca diferenta intre cele 2 umbre e de aproape 1 m.
Acum spune-mi si mie cit de mult trebuie sa te apleci in fata ca sa iti scada umbra cu 1 m, in paranteza fie spus, cind te apleci in fata, cu soarele in spate la aprox 10-15 grade, cum stau ei, creste de fapt umbra.
Faptul ca mai tirziu in timpul filmului sint egale umbrele, imi da mie dreptate, intelegi ?
Eu nu vreau sa spun decit ca ori existau mai multe surse de lumina cind a fost facut filmul, ori sint alte personaje decit Armstrong si Aldrin in costumele alea.
Pai vezi burvi2001, cu aproximatii de genul ''10-15 grade'' nici nu vei putea face niciodata investigatii calumea.
Stiu foarte bine din ce cauza e aceea diferenta...
Astronautul cu umbra mai mica sta aplecat!!!
Tu daca vezi o proba video(la aceea poza) si urmaresti cum pica umbrele reale (absolut normale) inca mai faci calcule?
Imaginea spune tot,mai burvi2001...
Ce surse de lumina visezi, cand acolo,in film, in secundele urmatoare, umbrele se egalizeaza (cand astronautii sunt cu corpurile aproape la verticala)
UMBRELE SE EGALIZEAZA, DOAR LA CATEVA SECUNDE DUPA POZITIA(MOMENTUL ) SURPRINSA IN POZA PUSA DE TINE!!!
Credeam ca am un profesionist in fata dar se pare ca m-am inselat...
Vad ca tu refuzi absolut orice proba...
Deci ai la dispozitie o proba video si pur si simplu nu vrei sa o urmaresti!
Fratilor,
Filmul se afla la:
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/mpg/apollo11_onbclip09.mpg
Uitati-va si voi, veti vedea adevarul pe care burvi2001 nu vrea sa-l accepte sub nici o forma.
burvi,burvi, figura mare esti!
Stiu foarte bine din ce cauza e aceea diferenta...
Astronautul cu umbra mai mica sta aplecat!!!
Tu daca vezi o proba video(la aceea poza) si urmaresti cum pica umbrele reale (absolut normale) inca mai faci calcule?
Imaginea spune tot,mai burvi2001...
Ce surse de lumina visezi, cand acolo,in film, in secundele urmatoare, umbrele se egalizeaza (cand astronautii sunt cu corpurile aproape la verticala)
UMBRELE SE EGALIZEAZA, DOAR LA CATEVA SECUNDE DUPA POZITIA(MOMENTUL ) SURPRINSA IN POZA PUSA DE TINE!!!
Credeam ca am un profesionist in fata dar se pare ca m-am inselat...
Vad ca tu refuzi absolut orice proba...
Deci ai la dispozitie o proba video si pur si simplu nu vrei sa o urmaresti!
Fratilor,
Filmul se afla la:
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/mpg/apollo11_onbclip09.mpg
Uitati-va si voi, veti vedea adevarul pe care burvi2001 nu vrea sa-l accepte sub nici o forma.
burvi,burvi, figura mare esti!
burvi2001, secundele vorbesc...
Sau crezi ca s-a ars,asa din intamplare, un bec din ''studioul de filmare''?
Pica si varianta asta...
Deci:
- un bec in secunda 32
- doua becuri in secunda 38
( pozitia din poza,cand ai zis ca sunt mai multe surse de lumina)
- un bec in secunda 56
Ce becuri proaste aveau americanii...
Sau crezi ca s-a ars,asa din intamplare, un bec din ''studioul de filmare''?
Pica si varianta asta...
Deci:
- un bec in secunda 32
- doua becuri in secunda 38
( pozitia din poza,cand ai zis ca sunt mai multe surse de lumina)
- un bec in secunda 56
Ce becuri proaste aveau americanii...
Nu mai edita poza aia... ca te faci mai rau de kakao!
Vad ca lucrurile nu sunt clare, asa ca ma vad nevoit sa citez din nou de pe site-ul binecunoscut deja... BadAstronomy ! Citatul rezolva problema umbrelor si a efectului de paralaxa ! Deci, Burvi, fii atent, citeste tot 
---
Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.
Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!
Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard's work for more about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad: The program has two segments dealing with what they call ``identical backgrounds''. In one, they show the lunar lander with a mountain in the background. They then show another picture of the same mountain, but no lander in the foreground at all. The astronauts could not have taken either picture before landing, of course, and after it lifts off the lander leaves the bottom section behind. Therefore, there would have been something in the second image no matter what, and the foreground could not be empty. Obviously, the mountain background is a fake set, and was reused by NASA for another shot.
Good: Actually, the pictures are real, of course. As always, repeat after me: the Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!
Another example of the difficulty in estimating distance is due to the shapes of the rocks on the Moon. A rock small enough to sit down on doesn't look fundamentally different from one bigger than your house. Humans also judge distance by using the relative sizes of objects. We know how big a person is, or a tree, so the apparent size of the object can be used to estimate the distance. If we don't know how big the object is, we can be fooled about its distance.
For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16. There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4 meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]
I will admit the Fox program had me for a while on this one; I couldn't figure it out. But then I got a note from Bad Reader David Bailey, who set me straight. However, the producers of the show should have talked to some real experts before saying such a silly thing as this. If they had checked with the folks who run the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for example, they would have been set straight too.
NEW! (February 19, 2001): I found a site that has an animation where the two images of the mountain are superimposed. You need Flash for it, but it's a great animation. The beauty of it is that you can see changes in the mountain range due to parallax!. In other words, this animation is support that the images are real and are not using a fake backdrop. The real beauty of this animation is that the person who put it together is an HB. I like the irony of linking to that animation and using it to show that it is indeed evidence that Apollo did go to the Moon. I love the web!
---
---
Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.
Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!
Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard's work for more about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad: The program has two segments dealing with what they call ``identical backgrounds''. In one, they show the lunar lander with a mountain in the background. They then show another picture of the same mountain, but no lander in the foreground at all. The astronauts could not have taken either picture before landing, of course, and after it lifts off the lander leaves the bottom section behind. Therefore, there would have been something in the second image no matter what, and the foreground could not be empty. Obviously, the mountain background is a fake set, and was reused by NASA for another shot.
Good: Actually, the pictures are real, of course. As always, repeat after me: the Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!
Another example of the difficulty in estimating distance is due to the shapes of the rocks on the Moon. A rock small enough to sit down on doesn't look fundamentally different from one bigger than your house. Humans also judge distance by using the relative sizes of objects. We know how big a person is, or a tree, so the apparent size of the object can be used to estimate the distance. If we don't know how big the object is, we can be fooled about its distance.
For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16. There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4 meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]
I will admit the Fox program had me for a while on this one; I couldn't figure it out. But then I got a note from Bad Reader David Bailey, who set me straight. However, the producers of the show should have talked to some real experts before saying such a silly thing as this. If they had checked with the folks who run the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for example, they would have been set straight too.
NEW! (February 19, 2001): I found a site that has an animation where the two images of the mountain are superimposed. You need Flash for it, but it's a great animation. The beauty of it is that you can see changes in the mountain range due to parallax!. In other words, this animation is support that the images are real and are not using a fake backdrop. The real beauty of this animation is that the person who put it together is an HB. I like the irony of linking to that animation and using it to show that it is indeed evidence that Apollo did go to the Moon. I love the web!
---
Ma tem ca nu avem cum sa-l aducem in DIMENSIUNEA noastra... 
As vrea si eu sa patrund in alta dimensiune dar mi-e frica sa nu ajung... :A
Cand am vazut ce s-a intamplat in filmul ala.....
Si cand te gandesti ca totul a pornit de la o musca
nevinovata! /Bigglasse
P.S.burvi, ai urmarit filmul cu umbrele?
As vrea si eu sa patrund in alta dimensiune dar mi-e frica sa nu ajung... :A
Cand am vazut ce s-a intamplat in filmul ala.....
Si cand te gandesti ca totul a pornit de la o musca
nevinovata! /Bigglasse
P.S.burvi, ai urmarit filmul cu umbrele?
Da, l-am urmarit.
Il mai urmaresc si acum si nu reusesc sa inteleg prin ce lege a fizicii umbrele alea sint cind mai mari si cind mai mici, in acelasi film.
Se pare ca stilul meu de a prezenta o problema, eu spuneam doar enuntul si incercam sa-i fac pe interlocutori sa gindeasca si sa ajunga la rezultatul scontat nu este chiar nimerit.
In situatia creata se nasc confuzii, oamenii nu concep in veci ca ei ar fi grei de cap, asa ca toate neajunsurile provocate de neintelegerea unor lucruri care mie mi se par extrem de simple, se rasfringeau asupra mea.
Nu-i nimic, de acum incolo o sa fac descrieri amanuntite a tot ce vreau sa spun.
Sa incep chiar cu filmul cu umbrele, rz.
In primul rind, trebuuie sa-mi cer scuze, si nu te grabi sa remarci lucrul asta ca pe un eveniment, pentru ca nu e prima data, mi-am mai cerut scuze, contrar a ceea ce crezi tu.
Eu imi cer scuze pentru ca am gresit si am intrat in polemica cu tine, care n-ai alt scop decit sa ma discreditezi pe mine.
Dar trebuie sa-ti destainuiesc ca eu sint deja discreditat, asa ca n-am ce pierde.
Stie toata lumea despre mine ca sint irecuperabil, asa ca obiectul activitatii tale, cade.
In schimb despre tine, nu se stie un lucru, tare curios as fi sa vad daca intuiesti la ce ma refer...
Ca sa revin la film, scot aici, in premiera mondiala, asii din mineca, pe care ii pastram pentru maestrul Andrei.
Dupa cum am anuntat si cu alte ocazii, eu am primit din surse pe care nu pot sa le dezvalui, mai multe documente secrete de la Nasa.
Iata o varianta a filmului cu montarea steagului, dar cu alt scenariu, urmariti urmele de pe sol...
In poza fara astronauti, care e facuta la 5 minute conform spuselor Nasa, dupa cealalta, veti vedea diferente enorme in configuratia solului si a urmelor.
Ba chiar, cu putina imaginatie, te duce gindul la terenurile de tenis care sint refacute cu peria aia enorma...
As dori sa explicati, va rog.
Iar aici este cea de-a doua poza.
Va sfatuiesc sa le puneti in acelasi folder si sa le vizionati rapid cu page down si page up, pentru a observa mai bine schimbarile.
Dupa cum veti vedea, obiectele principale ramin pe loc (steagul, citeva pietre, o parte din umbre) iar celelalte sufera modificari semnificative.
Va sfatuiesc sa le puneti in acelasi folder si sa le vizionati rapid cu page down si page up, pentru a observa mai bine schimbarile.
Dupa cum veti vedea, obiectele principale ramin pe loc (steagul, citeva pietre, o parte din umbre) iar celelalte sufera modificari semnificative.
QUOTE
Originally posted by burvi2001
Da, l-am urmarit.
Il mai urmaresc si acum si nu reusesc sa inteleg prin ce lege a fizicii umbrele alea sint cind mai mari si cind mai mici, in acelasi film.
In schimb despre tine, nu se stie un lucru, tare curios as fi sa vad daca intuiesti la ce ma refer...
Dupa cum am anuntat si cu alte ocazii, eu am primit din surse pe care nu pot sa le dezvalui, mai multe documente secrete de la Nasa.
Da, l-am urmarit.
Il mai urmaresc si acum si nu reusesc sa inteleg prin ce lege a fizicii umbrele alea sint cind mai mari si cind mai mici, in acelasi film.
In schimb despre tine, nu se stie un lucru, tare curios as fi sa vad daca intuiesti la ce ma refer...
Dupa cum am anuntat si cu alte ocazii, eu am primit din surse pe care nu pot sa le dezvalui, mai multe documente secrete de la Nasa.
Vezi ca Andrei a pus un material din care poti afla adevarul despre umbrele de pe luna...
Hai sa vedem...
Te-ai uitat la avatar, ai vazut un deget, si probabil acum stii totul despre mine
Sanatos nu sunt nici eu... :nu:
Vezi ca se vor supara foarte tare aia de la NASA, pentru ca publici documente secrete :@
Deci materialul fara astronauti e in premiera mondiala?
Maine dimineata... dau un raspuns la chestia cu solul (trebuie sa studiez bine in laboratorul personal)
burvi, nu urmaresc sa te discreditez, poate ca am simtul umorului prea dezvoltat...asta e stilul meu, scuze daca te-a deranjat.
Nu mi-ai raspuns la intrebare!
Am gasit deja o explicatie,referitor la sol...
Dar iar te vei face de ras!
Nu eu te fac de ras (te faci singur, cu astfel de probe)
Am gasit deja o explicatie,referitor la sol...
Dar iar te vei face de ras!
Nu eu te fac de ras (te faci singur, cu astfel de probe)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by burvi2001
[B]Eu imi cer scuze pentru ca am gresit si am intrat in polemica cu tine, care n-ai alt scop decit sa ma discreditezi pe mine.
Si eu care credeam ca-ti ceri scuze pentru gafa cu umbrele...
Si n-am mai inteles un lucru...
NASA se discrediteaza singura, dandu-ti poze sau filme compromitatoare?
Stia foarte bine ca are si un film cu alte urme...
Acum ti-a dat un material care ''contrazice'' unul din filmele lor!?
NASA,NASA...
[B]Eu imi cer scuze pentru ca am gresit si am intrat in polemica cu tine, care n-ai alt scop decit sa ma discreditezi pe mine.
Si eu care credeam ca-ti ceri scuze pentru gafa cu umbrele...
Si n-am mai inteles un lucru...
NASA se discrediteaza singura, dandu-ti poze sau filme compromitatoare?
Stia foarte bine ca are si un film cu alte urme...
Acum ti-a dat un material care ''contrazice'' unul din filmele lor!?
NASA,NASA...
shtitzi vorba aia cu "sacu' shi petecu' "?
arty,
Nu stiu daca mai are rost sa-mi bat capul degeaba cu burvi2001...
La faza cu ''premiera mondiala'' a tras o minciuna gogonata cum nu s-a mai vazut vreodata!
Nu pot sa nu iau atitudine, cand vad ca cineva minte cu buna stiinta.
El nu intelege ca ''arhiva ultrasecreta'' pe care zice ca o are, e de fapt pe site-ul oficial de la NASA si oricine are acces la ea...
El stie exact de ce sunt urme diferite in cele doua imagini!
Imi cer scuze si fata de membrii SN, daca am fost prea ''obraznic'' cu burvi2001.
Nu stiu daca mai are rost sa-mi bat capul degeaba cu burvi2001...
La faza cu ''premiera mondiala'' a tras o minciuna gogonata cum nu s-a mai vazut vreodata!
Nu pot sa nu iau atitudine, cand vad ca cineva minte cu buna stiinta.
El nu intelege ca ''arhiva ultrasecreta'' pe care zice ca o are, e de fapt pe site-ul oficial de la NASA si oricine are acces la ea...
El stie exact de ce sunt urme diferite in cele doua imagini!
Imi cer scuze si fata de membrii SN, daca am fost prea ''obraznic'' cu burvi2001.
rz, te-as ruga sa nu mai faci afirmatii fara acoperire.
Daca e pe site-ul Nasa, te-as ruga sa ne pui si noua un link cu poza in cauza.
Eu garantez ca nu exista asa ceva pe net.
Daca e pe site-ul Nasa, te-as ruga sa ne pui si noua un link cu poza in cauza.
Eu garantez ca nu exista asa ceva pe net.
burvi2001,
Sunt foarte acoperite afirmatiile!
N-ai studiat cu atentie arhiva de pe site-ul oficial de la NASA?
Daca dau imaginea, te fac rau de tot de ras...
E mai bine sa o descoperi tu si sa spui din nou ca ai gresit.
Daca chiar vrei o public eu...
Sunt foarte acoperite afirmatiile!
N-ai studiat cu atentie arhiva de pe site-ul oficial de la NASA?
Daca dau imaginea, te fac rau de tot de ras...
E mai bine sa o descoperi tu si sa spui din nou ca ai gresit.
Daca chiar vrei o public eu...
Ai descoperit imaginea pusa de tine, ''in premiera mondiala''?
Iti dau un indiciu...e intr-un filmulet, la secunda 12...
Cred ca un prieten de-al tau,de joaca, se da drept agent de legatura, de la NASA, si iti trimite mailuri ''in premiera mondiala''.
Ce ai pus tu e tot un cadru din filmul respectiv!
Iti dau un indiciu...e intr-un filmulet, la secunda 12...
Cred ca un prieten de-al tau,de joaca, se da drept agent de legatura, de la NASA, si iti trimite mailuri ''in premiera mondiala''.
Ce ai pus tu e tot un cadru din filmul respectiv!
Daca se inchide acest thread o sa-mi para rau, eu vreau sa tina pina in octombrie cind proiectul Traiblazer va trimite pe Luna niste landere care vor fotografia de la fata locului site-urile Apollo.
Din pacate, daca tu continui cu aberatiile astea, se pierde esenta acestui thread (care este aselenizarea, nu persoana mea).
Asa ca eu nu mai continui sa-ti raspund la provocari, condus fiind de crezul meu in proverbul : "Cel mai destept cedeaza !".
Cit despre eventualele comentarii ale tale, stramosii nostri, ale caror izvoare nesecate de intelepciune populara ma inspira si in zilele noastre, aveau o vorba : "Ciinii latra, caravana trece".
Si, anticipind intrebarea ta privitor la ce o sa fac eu de acum incolo, o sa-ti raspund, adinc patruns de spiritul de care vorbeam mai sus, ca "nu e treaba magarului de unde beau oile apa".
Din pacate, daca tu continui cu aberatiile astea, se pierde esenta acestui thread (care este aselenizarea, nu persoana mea).
Asa ca eu nu mai continui sa-ti raspund la provocari, condus fiind de crezul meu in proverbul : "Cel mai destept cedeaza !".
Cit despre eventualele comentarii ale tale, stramosii nostri, ale caror izvoare nesecate de intelepciune populara ma inspira si in zilele noastre, aveau o vorba : "Ciinii latra, caravana trece".
Si, anticipind intrebarea ta privitor la ce o sa fac eu de acum incolo, o sa-ti raspund, adinc patruns de spiritul de care vorbeam mai sus, ca "nu e treaba magarului de unde beau oile apa".
QUOTE
Originally posted by burvi2001
[B]Din pacate, daca tu continui cu aberatiile astea, se pierde esenta acestui thread (care este aselenizarea, nu persoana mea).
Asa ca eu nu mai continui sa-ti raspund la provocari, condus fiind de crezul meu in proverbul : "Cel mai destept cedeaza !".
[/B]
[B]Din pacate, daca tu continui cu aberatiile astea, se pierde esenta acestui thread (care este aselenizarea, nu persoana mea).
Asa ca eu nu mai continui sa-ti raspund la provocari, condus fiind de crezul meu in proverbul : "Cel mai destept cedeaza !".
[/B]
Bravo,burvi2001!!!
E un semn bun...
Ti-ai dat seama in sfarsit in ce situatie penibila esti...
Sa stii ca e si o categorie care nu isi da seama de o anumita situatie!
Tu nu faci parte din aceea categorie, si ma bucur tare mult pentru asta!
K:
Oricum, peste vre-o 5-10 ani vei rade si tu la ceea ce ai scris acum...
Multa bafta in continuare si thread-uri cat mai multe (dar cu informatii mai reale) pe SN!
Stiam eu ca esti baiat destept :cya:
P.S.
Eram convins ca stiai de film, cu siguranta stiai!
Pe cei de varsta ta ii convingi mai usor cu ''premierele'', pe mine mai greu!
Hai sa dam imagini si pentru ceilalti, care nu stiu de existenta filmului...
Salutare!
Si iata ca dupa cateva luni in care acest thread s-a racit... a venit prima dovada ca filmulestul mult amintit despre "fake", considerat de nestiutori mare dovada ca nu au fost acolo... s-a dovedit fake
---
The clip is FAKED
It is not an out-take leaked from a NASA top secret reel.
It was done in a studio, for fun, and to entertain webheads like us.
Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moonlanding was faked.
Adam Stewart died on 28th August 2002. He is greatly missed. Please read this tribute to him
If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'. Most of you will probably get this reference.
---
P.S. Burvi, cred ca e chiar filmuletul ala care mi l-ai aratat tu mai demult... hi hi hi
Unde s-a ajuns coane...
http://www.moontruth.com/adam.htm
Asta e tip-ul care a facut clip-ul. Da las' ca merge nea Bush din nou pe luna si gata, se rezolva toate "misterele"... :cya:
---
The clip is FAKED
It is not an out-take leaked from a NASA top secret reel.
It was done in a studio, for fun, and to entertain webheads like us.
Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moonlanding was faked.
Adam Stewart died on 28th August 2002. He is greatly missed. Please read this tribute to him
If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'. Most of you will probably get this reference.
---
P.S. Burvi, cred ca e chiar filmuletul ala care mi l-ai aratat tu mai demult... hi hi hi
Unde s-a ajuns coane...
http://www.moontruth.com/adam.htm
Asta e tip-ul care a facut clip-ul. Da las' ca merge nea Bush din nou pe luna si gata, se rezolva toate "misterele"... :cya:
Andrei,
Nu ti se pare ciudat ca imediat ce a terminat filmul a murit otravit ?
Ai vazut ce scrie la sfirsit : " Just because our clip is a spoof doesn't mean they DID land on the moon. The truth is out there, man."
Nu ti se pare ciudat ca imediat ce a terminat filmul a murit otravit ?
Ai vazut ce scrie la sfirsit : " Just because our clip is a spoof doesn't mean they DID land on the moon. The truth is out there, man."
Nu mi se pare ciudat... stii cum sunt directorii de film... :cool: 
In rest, de acord cu citatul ala... orcum, deja s-a demonstrat ce si cum si cum programul de reia in viitor... dilema nu mai are sens, ne vom concentra pe viitoarele calatorii
See ya.
In rest, de acord cu citatul ala... orcum, deja s-a demonstrat ce si cum si cum programul de reia in viitor... dilema nu mai are sens, ne vom concentra pe viitoarele calatorii
See ya.
Sunt dezamagit... pacat, si tocmai acum, cand incepusem si eu sa cred ca americanii nu au fost pe Luna in '69...
Am vazut aici ca au CASCO cu 5% mai ieftin. Pentru Renault e oferta in principal! Pare OK... uitati-va si voi!
Aceasta este o versiune simplificatã a paginii originale. Pentru a vizita versiunea originala click aici.