njelrapheal:
This is funny because another must have taken a photo and even video of the night sky. I could do a Google search on that and come with many results. Anyway, out there in outer space if it ever exists, there are no clouds that could obstruct the presence of stars

Theres no need for any fuss, You could do a practical with your phone to see if you will see any stars

and you don't even believe outer space exist?

Horus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbSPzeRvacU

Undeniable Proof Man Has Never Gone to The Moon


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960vBSKT-Pw

What is funny is that millions of people in 1969 believed this

Now you have something to show people that look at you like you are crazy when you say the moon landing was faked

no data to watch the video but I'm sure the questions brought up in the videos are not any different from the ones I already answered.

I'm a conspiracist, I love conspiracies but I have to admit the moon's landing is real

Y'all need to chill out okay?

Mobilegees there was absolutely no reason to throw shades at anyone, we are all learning njelrapheal is learning, I'm learning, we are all learning so no need to rain curses on anyone please

lalasticlala

The Codex Gigas is the largest surviving medieval manuscript in the world.
At nearly nine inches (22cm) thick and 36 inches (92cm) tall, the book is so large that it is said to have required more than 160 animal skins to complete.But it’s not just its size that has surprised historians. Inside is a menacing full-page colour image of the Devil, leading many to believe the pages themselves are cursed.The mysterious manuscript is today housed within the National Library of Sweden in Stockholm and nicknamed ‘the Devil’s Bible’.


The text requires at least two people to lift its 165lbs (74kg) of leather binding and vellum pages.But how it was created is still unknown. Legend has it that a monk from the Middle Ages was sentenced to being walled up alive for breaking his monastic vows.To avoid punishment, the monk promised to write, in a single night, a book containing all human knowledge.As midnight approached, the monk became desperate and turned to Lucifer for help, offering to make a pact to finish the book in exchange for his soul.


Lucifer agreed and signed the work by adding a self-portrait of himself. In the colourful image, he is placed against an empty landscape framed by two large towers.


‘Clearly, the author of this massive tome was possessed by something to create such a masterwork. Whether it was the power of light or darkness, is lost to time,’ the report claims.
The Codex Gigas contains five long texts along with the complete Bible.


The book begins with the Old Testament, and it is followed by two works by Flavius Josephus who lived in the first century AD.


It ends with the New Testament and the last of the long works is a Chronicle of Bohemia by Cosmas from Prague.
Some researchers believe the legend of the punished monk comes from a misunderstanding in the signature of the book which reads Hermanus inclusus.


That single Latin word ‘inclusus’ was thought to signify a horrific punishment, but the word’s true meaning is closer to ‘recluse’.


This means the signature could have been made by a solitary monk who chose to shut out the outside world and dedicate his life to the Codex Gigas.

.

Also included in the Devil’s Bible, on pages that follow the picture of the devil, (the picture below), are detailed instructions for the exorcism of demons or evil from people and objects.


There are also two magic spells, both with specific instructions on how to identify and catch a thief.

Possession by demons was commonly thought during medieval times to be the cause of many illnesses.

The church had specific rituals to exorcise evil by casting demons out of an afflicted person’s body.

Portraits of the Devil are common in medieval art, but this one in the Codex Gigas may be unique in books for showing him alone and occupying a whole page. The Heavenly City (photo below) and the Devil Portrait are the only full page pictures in the Codex Gigas.

The provenance of this extraordinary book and its unlikely story as well as its journey across centuries, passing through a succession of monasteries and royal palaces to its current destination, the National Library of Sweden, is a legitimate story and not a farce or fable

The television show combined the story and the extraordinary history of this giant book with modern forensic science to see what can be established about the Devil’s Bible. The manuscript was definitely produced by one person, according to analysis of the ink and penmanship.

Most likely the producer of the Devil’s Bible was a monk whose name is mentioned in the index and who probably devoted many, many years to the task, perhaps as a form of penance. The Devil’s Bible was written by one person and it was written in a single night.

The story goes that such a feat was possible only because the monk had made a compact with the devil. The implication is that the devil himself wrote this bible, which is why his portrait adorns it.


However, if the devil inspired the book then there is nothing in it that appears to cast Satan in a good light, at least not that I can find by searching for information on the Web about the Devil’s Bible. (It is more properly known as Codex Gigas, or “Giant Book.”)

What makes the Devil’s Bible such an object of fascination is the back story associated with it. According to the TV show, which I watched when it premiered, the legend about the Devil’s Bible was that it was written by a monk in a single night.!!

It got its name “Devil’s Bible” from the illustration of the devil on page 290 (in the photo above). It is believed to be the only bible of its era that depicts Satan. There the devil is, looking more like a cartoon character in an ermine diaper, rather than evil incarnate.

It’s a mysterious book that in its day was believed to contain all human knowledge. But why did medieval people believe that the author sold his soul to the devil to be able to write it?

The “Devil’s Bible,” a behemoth volume weighing in at 165 pounds, believed to have been produced by a single monk over the course of decades in the 13th Century, is the focus of a documentary that was featured on the National Geographic Channel.

A complete Old Testament and New Testament, and a collection of a number of secular works besides, the Devil’s Bible is an encyclopedia of medieval knowledge. But it has also been haunted by dark speculation, including that its writing was guided by the devil’s hand.

lalasticlala

for your reference sake I decided to do some practicals, I went out this night and took a picture of the sky, did you see any stars? and I can see stars with my physical eyes

njelrapheal:
you didn't clear anything. You said the moon reflects light and the glare would make it difficult to see the star. That surface u saw, does it look like it's reflective to you. You and I know how reflective surface should be to reflect such huge amount of light that travels all the way down to earth. What is the reflectivity of the moon.there simply is no way the glare would make it impossible to see the stars on the dark side. I don't know much about cameras but am sure dey had videos Right. Why are there no stars on the video too

check the link below to be certain if the moon truly reflects light
https://www.livescience.com/45979-why-does-the-moon-shine.html


so to the next topic why the sky dark and not blue like earth if it's reflects light ?

With the atmosphere of the moon being times less dense than that of Earth, there is negligible
scattering , so whereas on Earth, approximately 25% of direct solar radiation is scattered around (making the sky light up and appear blue), there is no mechanism for this on the moon, and all light from the sun travels (essentially) unaffected to the surface.



And to you last question, I can't emphasize it enought

number one which I already said is the 1969 Apollo wasn't a video footage, it was camera which took pictures at 1/150th of a second and talking about cameras

a photocamera has a certain exposure time. For bright objects you choose a short exposure time, and than you will not be able to see the dimmer objects; and for dim objects you use long exposure times, and than bright objects will be overexposed. To see stars on a photograph the exposure time has to be at least a few seconds. You will need a tripod to keep the camera steady and perhaps even let the camera follow the daily movement of the stars.


On almost every picture you will find a rather bright object (Earth, ISS, Moon, etc.) with the correct exposure time -- so you should not expect to see any star at all.

That is, If the cameras were set up to capture the relatively dim stars, brighter objects in the image - such as the Earth, the spacecraft, the ISS, etc. - would be overly bright and “"wash out” the image. You simply can't capture that wide a range of brightnesses at once.


and for your info it is not literally impossible to see stars in the moon even those Apollo footages contain stars you just have to hunt for them

Tomoyayi:
Why have they not gone back again?

Of course theve gone nine different times since the

njelrapheal:
The moon landing is a hoax. Even NASA admitted not leaving lower earth orbit. If it were to be true, then why is it that not one single photo of the earth from the moon. Mind you, all pictures put up by NASA has been proven to be fake. Even one NASA employee was caught on tape saying that it has to be Photoshopped.

I would really appreciate if you can provide links for your claims

njelrapheal:
so when they were mounting the flag, whose chest had the camera videoing them

Buzz Aldrin's

njelrapheal:
there is no way that one isn't supposed to see stars on the dark side of the moon given how dark it is. One facing that dark side would definitely see the stars at least one star shining. Lol. From the photo u put up there, from the shadows, you can tell the light source. So why can't you see a single star on the other that isn't receiving the light of the sun.

- the moon surface reflects light and that glare would have made it difficult to see star

-Dont forget it was 1969 so the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, not the hd camera we have now, and this would have limited incoming background light

- They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second, in n that amount of time, stars just don't show up bruh.... it's impossible

I hope I cleared this question

mkmyers45 , UjSizzle , lalasticlala Seun Mynd44

#5 Why Are The Shadows Misaligned If There Only One Source Of Light?


Let’s talk about the shadows in photographs from the Moon. One of the subtler arguments against the Moon landings has to do with non-parallel shadows. If the Sun is the only source of light, why do some shadows appear to point in multiple directions? For example, in the picture on the left, the astronaut’s shadow matches up with the lander’s, but there seems to be another shadow from the lander foot pointing towards the astronaut. There must be additional studio lights to explain this!


Actually, a rough, uneven surface can cause all sorts of shadows at different angles, even with a single light source like the Sun. This something that can be easily experimented with at home. The combination of the Moon’s rough surface and the long shadows from a Sun low in the sky can easily create complicated shadows.


The funny shadow in the picture above is likely created by an uneven ridge that extends towards astronaut and a low-angle Sun.

Question #4: You can tell Apollo was faked because ... only two astronauts walked on the moon at a time, yet in photographs such as this one where both are visible, there is no sign of a camera. So who took the picture?


Answer:
The fact of the matter is ... the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests, said astronomer Phil Plait, author of the award-winning blog Bad Astronomy and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation

Question #3: Why can’t we see stars in the Moon landing pictures?


Speaking of the flag photographs, it’s often pointed out that there are no stars to be seen in the background! This is actually a common feature of photographs from space, where the contrast between light and dark is extreme.


The surface of the Moon reflects the strong sunlight and appears very bright in photographs. This brightness drowns out the relatively dim light from stars in the dark sky, akin to how car headlights can drown out the fainter light from nearby objects. The human eye can adjust and pick out the stars, but unless it’s set to the right settings, a camera struggles with the contrast.


Astronauts on the International Space Station today regularly take photographs of the Earth that show a completely starless background, but it’s the same problem of contrasts at work.

Question #2: Why did the flag flap on the Moon?

Answer:

Another ‘giveaway’ that the landing was faked comes from the footage of the American flag that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin placed on the Moon. From photos and video, it appears to be flapping in the wind. But hold on a minute! There’s no air on the Moon so how can it flutter?!


The truth is that the flag isn’t flapping. If you look closely at the gif to the left, the flag is in the same position between two frames as the astronaut moves. There is a horizontal rod projecting from the post at the top of the pole to hold the flag unfurled. The flag was disturbed as it was planted into the ground and kept this bent shape because of the lack of strong gravity on the Moon.


In video footage of the flag being planted into the Moon’s surface , it also appears to wave back and forth. This is because when the astronauts were planting it, they rotated it back and forth to better dig into the lunar soil, which of course made the flag ripple as it swung like a pendulum- without a breeze. There’s a huge amount of footage of the flags stood on the Moon in exactly the same position.

Holumhidey:
i no know oo


dont ask me stupid question......

oga I didn't force you to comment, you could have just kept quiet and let someone that has something to say come forward

Questiin #1: Wouldn’t the Van Allen belts have fried the astronauts?


Answer:

One of the most popular theories as to why the Moon landings couldn’t have happened has to do with something called the Van Allen belts . These are two huge belts of radiation that surround the Earth, shaped by Earth’s magnetic field and pounded with high-energy particles from the Sun’s wind.


It’s been claimed that humans couldn’t have passed through these belts without being fried with lethal doses of radiation.
In fact, the international scientific community was aware of the Van Allen belts thanks to the
Explorer , Pioneer , and Luna missions in the 1950s


Luckily, the timings of the Apollo launches were such that the Van Allen belts were at their lowest intensity, which fluctuates with the Sun’s activity.


Radiation sickness occurs when you have been exposed to around 200 to 1000 ‘rads’ of radiation within a few hours. The Apollo 11 crew were within the belts for less than two hours during their journey to the Moon, and so would have only been exposed to an estimated 18 rads – well within the safe limit. There can still be some adverse effects from even this level of radiation, so NASA made sure that the Apollo 11 spacecraft was well-insulated such that the average dose of radiation over the 12-day mission was just 0.18 rads, or similar to the radiation dosage from a chest X-ray.



You can work through all the maths of the estimated radiation levels, along with some helpful answers, in this NASA Education worksheet here .

Mankind first stepped foot on the Moon on 20 July 1969, achieving what is arguably humanity’s greatest ever feat of exploration. For two and a half hours, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin explored the lunar surface on foot while Michael Collins piloted the Apollo 11 orbiter around the Moon. That’s the history that we continue to celebrate today, nearly 50 years on from the first landing. Many of us either remember watching the landing ourselves or have heard the memories from our parents and grandparents. But did it really happened?

Bobrisky dey dream

ayojohn4real:
Ancient Alien Technology truly exist I won believe so

You should believe...... there are other proofs to back this stay tune to my topics to learn more

7. EIGHT-SIDED DESIGN OF THE GREAT PYRAMID


While it may initially seem like the Great Pyramid of Giza has four sides just like most pyramids, it is the only one to have been built with eight sides and four slightly-concave faces.
Also worth mentioning is the degree of precision required in forming all eight sides of the pyramid, with each side indented by one degree of a half-degree, which is not an easy thing to do even in modern times.
.
Moreover, all sides of the Great Pyramid cannot be easily seen from the ground or even from afar, and are only visible from above.


As for what purpose the eight-sided design of the Great Pyramid served, some say that it had the structural purpose of keeping the casing stones from loosening, while others suggest that the indentations are nothing more than the incidental consequence of erosion. Of course, there are also those who believe that multiple-sided pyramid served an astronomical purpose or that it could be a communication device between ancient Egyptians and the extraterrestrial beings that guided them in the distant past.

6. ALIGNMENT OF THE PYRAMIDS WITH THE STARS OF ORION’S BELT


According to the Orion Correlation Theory, which was first presented by Robert Bauval back in 1983, the placement of the three main pyramids in the Giza Plateau aligns with the three main stars of Orion’s Belt. This theory also alleges that the whole outline of the Great Sphinx, the pyramid complex in Giza as well as the Nile River reflects the location of the constellations of Leo, Orion’s Belt and the Milky Way galaxy, in that order.


What’s interesting about this theory is its suggestion that the three pyramids of Giza were precisely aligned with the three stars of the Orion’s Belt in 10,500 BC. If true, this would mean that these pyramids were constructed 12,000 years ago and not 4,500 years in the past as mainstream science has led us to believe. Which is going to make it even much more of a mystery