"

 False inormation in the article 
As you would expect, the propagandists would say and do everything to mislead us. They once again proved themselfs to be the proven LIARS we alreayd knew they were since the article wrongly states that the darker picture with the ""fall-off"" effects is the edited one, which is pure BS.

The original photo is the one with the ""fall-off"" effect which was printed in The West Australian already back in august 2, 1969 (~6 min in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMuTiziCszU) while the lighten up picture is the EDITED version who came out much later. So unless the propaganda trolls cant find a version of THEIR claimed original version dated EARLIER than august second 1969, i suggest them to SHUTUP.

Proven fake: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg/179px-Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg

Original: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/180px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53   
Youtube is not a reliable source for information about a conspiracy theory. Is there a reliable source available that supports your claim?   

 The Buzz Alrdin photo is explained at Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Issues with crosshairs in photos.   You talkin' to me? 

The video shows a guy holding up the actual newspaper from 2 aug 1969 to prove that the ""fall-off"" picture is how the original one looked like, but then its youtube who isnt a reliable source!?  your desperate try for making a point is laughable... but i wouldnt expect more from a propaganda TROLL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53   

 No, that newspaper doesn't show what the original one looks like.  The original is a transparency that is in NASA's vaults.  They made prints that were widely reprinted. See this for more information.  You talkin' to me? 

Bullshit! excuses from NASA wont make it true! you have the history of that picture in the video i linked to and even the NASA site you linked to shows the fact that the darker picture is the first one, the original from 1969, while the more lighten edited version came out 1975. So why you arguing? you dont have a chance here. As i said, BRING UP a picture dated earlier than 2 aug 1969 or SHUTUP - its that simple!

91.145.38.53, please stop insulting other editors and please sign your posts, just put four tildes at the end .   

I dont tolerating having my talk session closed, this is what the propagandists do? censoring their opponents!
Unless the propagandists cant bring up the picture THEY claim to be the original together with a date which needs to be earlier than second of august 1969, i will change the article. False misleading information should never be tolerated! Its already proven that the ""fall-off"" darker version IS the original. If anyone wants to argue, then bring up! 91.145.38.53  

 The propaganda liars 
This article is beyond laughable! Since the propagandists trash talking and like to ""debunk"" ppl like Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, and Bill Kaysing (with no evidence to debunk them, however) we should debunk the LIARS the propagandists listen to!  ""youtube is not a reliable source"" the propagandists says... still they link to youtube videos themselfs to suit their false propaganda in a desperate act to try prove THEIR laughable points. So if they can link to youtube videos, i will do the same just to prove that THEIR sources are nothing else than FALSE PROPAGANDA. Using proven liars like Jay Windley, Phil Plait, and Svectors youtube series as some kinda evidence is laughable.  I think that these trolls needs their own section! lets see what kinda ppl who is behind the sites that the propagandists always links to. Its time to face their cl

Toxicity label: other