Este documento presenta una lista de 27 fraudes cibernéticos comunes, incluyendo mensajes falsos sobre lunas extras, eclipses peligrosos durante el embarazo, y la posibilidad de nombrar una estrella. Explica que estos fraudes se diseminan ampliamente en línea para engañar a las personas y recopilar sus direcciones de correo electrónico con fines de lucro. Además, describe algunas características comunes de los fraudes cibernéticos, como que son anónimos, suelen contener medias verda
2. Los fraudes electrónicos (hoax) son mensajes con información errónea, que tienen por objetivo engañar a gente incauta y los estimula a retransmitirlo a otros, convirtiéndolo en un fenómeno masivo. En el fondo, los fraudes cibernéticos hacen mofa de la credulidad de las personas, que aceptan los datos sin cuestionarlos. ¿Quién gana? Aquellos que cazan direcciones electrónicas para lucrar con ellas.
3. Los fraudes más ingeniosos están redactados de manera tal que, sin arrojar datos equivocados, tienen la “virtud” de desorientar al lector y lo impulsan a tener certeza de que la verdad le asiste. El resultado es una voluntad manipulada. A veces, los fraudes cibernéticos empiezan inocentemente, por un simple malentendido.
4. ALGUNAS CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LOS FRAUDES CIBERNÉTICOS 1.- Son anónimos (o están referidos a un personaje inexistente) En el peor de los casos, se recurre a la difamación. 2.- La información se presenta de manera “creíble”. A veces recurre a medias verdades. 3.- Se anticipan a una fecha “especial” 4.- Te piden reenviar el mensaje a todos tus contactos. 5.- Vienen acompañados de advertencias ( Te caerá la maldición gitana si no lo reenvías )
5. 1.- HAY MÁS NACIMIENTOS EN LUNA LLENA Buscar en http://stardate.org/nightsky/moon/
58. ¿Qué papel desempeña el cercano CINTURÓN FOTÓNICO en estos momentos? El Cinturón puede dividirse en tres secciones: P rimero entraremos en lo que se denomina la Zona Nula que demora aproximadamente 5 ó 6 días, incluyendo 72 horas, aproximadamente, de oscuridad total (3 días de oscuridad); Luego, pasaremos a la parte principal del CINTURÓN mismo y se experimentará una luz de día permanente (24 horas al día). Este viaje normalmente dura alrededor de 2.000 años (Dramáticas Profecías de la Gran Pirámide) y termina cuando el Sistema Solar sale por el otro lado del Cinturón, cruzando la otra Zona Nula por otro periodo de 5 ó 6 días
63. Para el momento crucial habrá tres fuentes de ayuda: 1.- De los grandes ayudantes espirituales y ángeles de las muchas dimensiones. 2.- Aquellos en forma humana que ayudan a las fuerzas celestiales. 3.- Se han establecido patrones energéticos protectores alrededor del planeta. Todo este conjunto minimiza la actividad sísmica.
64. Las capas de hielo no resistirán mucho debido a la ausencia de lluvias y pronto se derretirán producto de la radiación constante. Entonces la Tierra se inundará, los niveles de agua subirán hasta los 900 metros de altura cubriendo la faz del planeta
65. Según profecías y estudios Mayas el 22 de Diciembre del Año 2012 entraremos definitivamente en el Campo de Radiación Fotónica
91. Charles Totten publicó en 1890 el libro Joshua's Long Day and the Dial of Ahaz: A Scientific Vindication Pero no publicó ningún cálculo que demostrara cómo llegó a esta conclusión En 1960, Harold Hill mejoró la versión, diciendo que la NASA había hecho el cálculo
http://www.worldwidepropertyshop.com/china/china-wall.jpg http://space.about.com/od/fungamesandhumor/ss/Great_Wall.htm Even the game, Trivial Pursuit claims that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible by NASA astronauts from space or from the moon with the naked eye. It's a space urban legend. While many man-made objects are visible, the Great Wall of China generally isn't, at least to the unaided eye in low Earth orbit. It certainly isn't visible from the Moon. The visible wall theory was tarnished in 2004 with the launch of Chinese Cosmonaut, Yang Liwei. According to the Associated Press, "For decades, the Chinese propagated the myth that their most famous creation was visible from space. Elementary-school textbooks in the world's most populous nation still proclaim that the structure can be seen by the naked eye of an orbiting cosmonaut." Yang Liwei, said he couldn’t see the historic structure. There was even talk about rewriting textbooks that espouse the theory, a formidable task in the Earth’s most populous nation. The idea popped up again when astronaut Leroy Chiao pointed his camera at the Earth from International Space Station. Images taken of Inner Mongolia about 200 miles north of Beijing were determined to show small sections of the wall. The photos, taken with a digital camera and a 180mm lens, and later with a 400mm lens, were greeted with relief and rejoicing by the Chinese. Chiao himself said he didn't see the wall, and wasn't sure if the picture showed it. This photo of central Inner Mongolia, about 200 miles north of Beijing, was taken on Nov. 24, 2004, from the International Space Station. The yellow arrow points to an estimated location of 42.5N 117.4E where the wall is visible. The red arrows point to other visible sections of the wall. Kamlesh P. Lulla, NASA's chief scientist for Earth observation at Johnson Space Center in Houston, directs observation science activities from the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. He says that generally the Great Wall is hard to see and hard to photograph, because the material from which it is made is about the same color and texture as the area surrounding it. While the Great Wall of China is very difficult to see or photograph from low Earth orbit, sections of the wall can be seen readily in radar imagery. This image of sections of the wall in a desert about 435 miles west of Beijing was made by the Spaceborne Imaging Radar flown aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour. The wall appears as an orange line extending the length of the image. The theory that the wall could be seen from the Moon dates back to at least 1938. According to About.com's Guide to Geography, Matt Rosenberg, "The myth of being able to see the Great Wall from space originated in Richard Halliburton's 1938 (long before humans saw the earth from space) book Second Book of Marvels said that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from the moon." (See "The Great Wall of China.") It was repeated and grew until astronauts landed on the lunar surface. Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope columnist says, "Nobody knows exactly where the story got started, although some think it was speculation by some bigshot during an after-dinner speech in the early days of the space program." "The only thing you can see from the Moon is a beautiful sphere, mostly white, some blue and patches of yellow, and every once in a while some green vegetation," said Alan Bean, Apollo 12 astronaut. "No man-made object is visible at this scale." While not visible from the Moon, Ancient pyramids at Giza, Egypt are clearly visible in this photo from the Station. "From space you can see a lot of things people have made," Kamlesh Lulla said. Perhaps most visible from low Earth orbit are cities at night. Cities can be seen during the day too, as can major roadways and bridges, airports, dams and reservoirs. Three Houston landmarks are visible in this photo taken by an Expedition 10 crewmember. Minutemaid Park is the bright rectangle on the left side. The dome on the right side is the Toyota Center. At top center in the photo is the George R. Brown Convention Center. While it's questionable whether you can see the Great Wall with the unaided eye from space the myth that it is the only man-made object visible has definitely been busted.
http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_shuttle_Columbia_STS-107_launch_original_800x600.jpg http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/space_shuttle_colombia_explosion.jpg INCREDIBLE PHOTOGRAPHY, YET PAINFUL TO VIEW. Quite hard to believe this; these are amazing! Attached are pictures of the Shuttle Explosion from an Israeli Satellite in space. They are from the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. These are some incredible pictures (jpg format) of the shuttle explosion provided by the Israeli govt. website: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart on re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, killing all seven crew members aboard. In the hours after the tragedy, terrible images of debris and destruction were paraded across our TV sets, but none were as terrible as these "satellite images." That's mainly because only Hollywood can produce pictures like these. That's right, these images were not taken by an Israeli satellite floating in space. Rather, they were taken by a movie camera in a Hollywood special effects studio. The sequence above is a series of screen shots taken from the opening sequence of the 1998 sci-fi disaster film "Armageddon." In the movie, the Space Shuttle Atlantis is torn apart by debris on the leading edge of giant "planet-killer" asteroid (note the streaking objects in background). In case that's not enough proof for you, here are a few other reasons these pictures could not possibly depict the Columbia disaster: These pictures clearly show a shuttle in space - the real Columbia was well into the Earth's atmosphere when it was destroyed. Columbia did not "explode." It broke apart under the stresses of re-entry into the atmosphere. You may have remembered seeing the startling image of debris "streaking" in the skies above the nation. When the Columbia was destroyed, it was hurtling toward Earth, literally at thousands of miles per hour. No satellite could capture such a clear picture of an object moving that fast. During re-entry, the black thermal shielding tiles on the bottom of the shuttle become super-heated and glow bright orange. The shuttle is also engulfed by a "halo" of flame caused by the friction of the atmosphere. No such super-heating or halo is evident in this series of pictures, despite the fact that news footage taken just before communication was lost with the crew clearly show a re-entry halo. A real explosion of the type pictured would have lasted 3-5 seconds, tops. It's unrealistic to assume that there is an Israeli satellite orbiting earth tracking a moving space shuttle and shooting 3-4 frames a second. Don't you think the media would have been all over spectacular images like these if they were real? They probably would have interrupted programming and put these shots on page one of every paper imaginable (just as they did with the real pictures of shuttle debris streaking across the sky). The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), the official team looking into the cause of the disaster, is aware of photographic hoaxes being circulated in relation to the Columbia's destruction and advises that their Web site is the only source for validated, authentic photos on the subject. "As part of the ongoing investigation into the loss of the Columbia Shuttle and its crew, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) will occasionally release official photos on its Web site. The CAIB analyzes and validates any photographs it releases. The Board is aware that a number of fabricated, altered or otherwise falsified photographs have been circulating on the Internet. The CAIB cannot validate the authenticity of photos not posted on its Web site." What we have here is the creation of a sick joker. However, since few people actually know the details of the Columbia disaster and are unaware of the intricate details and risks inherent on shuttle missions, the joke isn't as obvious as some might think, as notes added as it circulates indicate: I must warn you these photos are extremely graphic and gripping. But they do provide a sense of closure and some reassurances that these brave astronauts did not suffer for a prolonged period of time. In some ways, these photos remind us very graphically the risk these courageous souls undertake when they commit to a life of adventure in outer space. And they also remind us that this world will be better for what they accomplished. Our lives will be lengthened though theirs were shortened. May God bless them one and all and may we never forget all they gave. ----------------------------- These impressive photographs were taken from a spy satellite in outer space, and only recently released. They reflect the sequence of events that heralded last moments of the shuttle Columbia. The attribution that these pictures come to us via the United States Department of Justice is the result of False Attribution Syndrome (FAS). An employee of the DOJ's Office of Domestic Preparedness received this letter and forwarded it friends and colleagues, adding her name, title and contact information (including web address) to the message. Some versions still have this information intact, most have abbreviated it into the misleading statement seen above. The last time I saw a photographic hoax as popular as this one, it was a fictional image of a tourist's last moments atop the World Trade Center. Another photographic hoax about the Columbia disaster, this time featuring an impossible picture of sunset over Europe , is also being forwarded with gusto. In all of these cases, a hoaxter has used doctored images to illustrate a sensational and marginally believable story that appeals to a nation's heightened emotions. Break this chain!
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-shuttle-explosion.htm Subject: Columbia Photos A friend of a friend forwarded the following: "Got these from a friend of mine who is a retired NASA space engineer. Haven't seen anything like this on the news yet. " These photos of the shuttle explosion are very graphic but are outstanding in their clarity and detail. They were taken (I was told) by an Israeli satellite and have not yet been released by the U.S. Government. I thought you might want to see them if they haven't been sent to you already.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-shuttle-explosion4.htm CONTACTED VIA EMAIL, the folks at NASA's Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Lab in Houston confirmed what some recipients of these so-called "satellite photos" had already deduced: they're fake. "There is some speculation here at the NASA Johnson Space Center that those images have been taken from the movie Armageddon ," my informant wrote. Which is precisely where they did come from, in the form of individual frames of a computer-animated sequence about four minutes into the 1998 science fiction film in which a space shuttle collides with fragments of a comet and explodes ( see video ). It's stunning to realize that even after being bombarded for weeks on end with real-life news footage of the Space Shuttle Columbia's fiery disintegration on February 1, 2003, anyone could mistake what happens in these CGI images for the same event — but such is evidently the case, this being one of the most widely forwarded emails of the past month. Even if we hadn't been able to so easily establish their fictitious origin, Rob Rosenberger of Vmyths.com argues, the "photos" themselves are inherently incredible. "First," he writes, "they suggest we (or the Israelis) keep a satellite in extraordinarily low orbit, close enough to the shuttle to take high-res pictures of its reentry. We know this because the pictures show the shuttle in a head-on view, slightly from below, rather than from above. Remember, things burn up on reentry, and that's not a good place to put an orbiting satellite. "Second, it suggests the NRO (National Reconnaisance Office) released photos in extraordinary wide-angle, 'movie-quality' detail, thereby giving our enemies a clue as to our best resolution. The Hubble telescope can't possibly take such a wide-angle shot, for example. The existence of a wide-angle, movie-quality camera in orbit would shock the world. "Third, the configuration of the blast in later pictures suggests the shuttle carries fuel in areas not previously known to carry fuel. A typical Hollywood cliché - when a fuel tank blows up, the entire vehicle blows up in unison, in place." As usual, we're left guessing as to the motivation of the anonymous prankster who launched the hoax.
http://moonpans.com/prints/aldrinflag.jpg http://space.about.com/od/astronomyhistory/a/moonhoax.htm Did NASA actually send humans to the Moon in the 1960's? Of course, but some people claim that NASA lied about the Apollo program and faked the landings. Actually, it would have been harder to fake the whole thing than to do it! Still, many people are confused about it, so let's look at a few points of contention and clear it up. There are no stars in lunar photographs. This is really simple to understand. The sun was shining brightly on the surface of the moon where the astronauts were working. With no atmosphere, that's some very bright light. In order for any photographs to come out and not be overexposed, the camera had to be set for a very fast shutter speed, which would prevent the much fainter stars from showing up at all. The American flag seems to be waving in the breeze. Try this. Take a flag on a short pole and wave it back and forth vigorously. You'll see that it stands out and ripples, but the moment you stop waving, it settles down. This is because of Newton's laws and gravity. The flag stops waving because of the friction from our atmosphere and settles down because of our gravity. If you tried the same experiment in space, the flag would continue to wave. Well, there is no atmosphere on the moon and the gravity is 1/6 that of Earth. So, when the astronauts had to twist the flag pole back and forth to get it to go into the lunar surface, it caused a ripple affect to be seen on the flag for quite a while. Thanks to the moon's gravity, the flag did eventually settle, as much as the second, horizontal pole would allow. In fact it dropped even further eventually. As the Lunar Module launched to rejoin the Command Module, the blast knocked the flag over. Why aren't the shadows darker? Objects can be seen in the shadows. Since the sun is the only light source and without an atmosphere to scatter its light, those objects should not be visible. OK, this might be a bit confusing. Even though the Sun is the only light source, that light is being reflected by many things; the astronauts' suits, the lunar Lander, Earth, and most especially the Lunar surface, itself. This creates multiple light sources. No human could survive the Van Allen Radiation Belts, so the astronauts could not have actually gone to the moon. On the surface, this sounds pretty reasonable. If a human being stayed inside these areas of trapped solar wind particles for any length of time, he would die. The answer is really rather simple. The astronauts were not unprotected, nor did they spend any length of time in the radiation belts, probably not much more than an hour. They did not need lead shielding to be protected, the hull of the spacecraft provided more than enough protection. Moon Rocks You want physical evidence? Some of the biggest reasons to accept that the Apollo moon landings were real are rock solid. Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rocks home to Earth, a unique treasure trove that has taught us a great deal about the Moon. "Moon rocks are truly unique, and differ from Earth rocks in many ways," says Dr. David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Center, one of the people who run the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "Several museums, such as the Smithsonian and others, let the public touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says David. Dr. McKay says that faking a Moon rock to fool scientists around the world would be next to impossible. "It would be far easier to just go to the Moon and get one!" he says. The Eyes Have It While the United States was frantically trying to send men to the moon, it "was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water." * No, not by aliens. Russia, China, East Germany and other cold-war enemies of the USA closely monitored the lunar missions. It was easy to tell whether the Apollo radio signals were coming from the direction of the Moon, and whether the time delays in conversation matched the distance the signals had to travel. If anything had seemed wrong, surely these unfriendly countries would have loudly shouted to the world that the USA was pulling a hoax! Yet none of them ever questioned NASA's accomplishment. When even your enemy gives you credit for something, it's pretty convincing!
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/apr/HQ_08103_student_asteroid_calculations.html The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has moved to calm any emergent fears of a possible asteroid collision following the appearance of a German newspaper story claiming NASA’s impact predictions for the Apophis (99942) asteroid to be significantly wide of the mark. Specifically, the Potsdamer Neuerster Nachrichten ran a news story on Tuesday relaying how a fastidious young German schoolboy had discovered a worrying miscalculation in NASA’s prediction figures regarding the possibility of an Earth-strike by the asteroid Apophis. According to findings made by 13-year-old student Nico Marquardt during a project for a regional science competition, NASA has vastly underestimated the probability of a chance collision with the 270m chunk of space debris. He offered that NASA’s strike prediction of 1in 45,000 is significantly too high, with the actual probability more likely to be somewhere around 1 in every 450. And, to pour further fuel on the fires of panic, the German publication also claimed NASA had conceded to the European Space Agency (ESA) that young Mr. Marquardt’s calculations were indeed correct. Quick to reinforce its position following the Internet distribution of the story, which was bound to whip up a degree of fear mongering based on NASA’s apparent admission, the agency stepped forward on Wednesday to insist that the boy’s project results are wrong and that its expert figures in relation to Apophis are absolutely correct. Speaking with the AFP news agency, NASA spokesman Dwayne Brown commented that NASA’s Near-Earth Object Program Office “has not changed its current estimates for the very low probability (1 in 45,000) of an Earth impact by the asteroid Apophis in 2036.” Mr. Brown also went on to label the German newspaper story as inaccurate in relation to NASA admitting its supposed calculation error, while also noting that at no time did the agency have contact with Nico Marquardt regarding the Apophis asteroid. The boy’s science project took into account the possibility that Apophis could strike one or more of the approximately 40,000 artificial satellites currently orbiting the Earth when it passes in 2029, which would then lead to a shift in the asteroid’s orbit, duly increasing the probability of a planetary collision when it passes once again in 2036. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200816/728/NASA-quashes-German-student-s-asteroid-correction WASHINGTON -- The Near-Earth Object Program Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has not changed its current estimates for the very low probability (1 in 45,000) of an Earth impact by the asteroid Apophis in 2036. Contrary to recent press reports, NASA offices involved in near-Earth object research were not contacted and have had no correspondence with a young German student, who claims the Apophis impact probability is far higher than the current estimate. This student's conclusion reportedly is based on the possibility of a collision with an artificial satellite during the asteroid's close approach in April 2029. However, the asteroid will not pass near the main belt of geosynchronous satellites in 2029, and the chance of a collision with a satellite is exceedingly remote. Therefore, consideration of this satellite collision scenario does not affect the current impact probability estimate for Apophis, which remains at 1 in 45,000.
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/shuttlesunset.html http://contenidos.educarex.es/mci/2003/47/imagenes/Earth-night-day.jpg This photograph was taken by the crew on board the Columbia during its last mission. This photograph was taken via satellite, on a cloudless day. The picture is of Europe and Africa when the sun is setting. Half of the picture is in night. The bright dots you see are the cities lights. The top part of Africa is the Sahara Desert. Note that the lights are already on in Holland, Paris, and Barcelona, and that's it's still daylight in London, Lisbon, and Madrid. The sun is still shining on the Straight of Gibraltar. The Mediterranean Sea is already in darkness. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean you can see the Azores Islands; below them to the right are the Madeira Islands; a bit below are the Canary Islands; and further south, close to the farthest western point of Africa, are the Cape Verde Islands. Note that the Sahara is huge and can be seen clearly both during daytime and nighttime. To the left, on top, is Greenland, totally frozen. In case you were wondering how this photo could possibly have been taken "by the crew on board the Columbia" and "via satellite," you're right to be skeptical. In truth, it's technically neither. The photograph included in this mailing predates the Columbia shuttle disaster by quite some time. As we found with the World Trade Center attacks of 2001, even the most nondescript of chain letters seems somewhat more "special" when associated with tragedy. Fortunately, this one appears to be a hopeful misattribution and not an intentionally misleading hoax like another chain , supposedly including a series of photographs of the Columbia's destruction. The image above is not a "photograph" in the literal sense. According to NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day web site, it is a computer construct drawn from a variety of sources. "No single spacecraft or astronaut took this picture. It is a digital composite of archived images taken by several Earth-orbiting satellites and ocean-faring ships... Specifically, the daytime land images were taken by the MODIS instrument on NASA's Terra satellite, while the nighttime images were taken by the DMSP satellites. This image is different from what an astronaut would see for reasons including a complete lack of clouds and an unrealistic exaggeration of lights and contrasts.“ It is a stunning image and the descriptive text accompanying it is at least geographically correct. But it's not a real photo, nor is it a beam of hope from a tragic mission. Break this chain
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blgorsky.htm When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled. On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question. When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!" True story. Analysis: This whopper has been circulating for years via forwarded email and can be found on dozens of websites accompanied by the claim that it "really happened." But it didn't happen, as anyone can verify by perusing the official lunar landing transcript on NASA's Apollo 11 site (audio & video clips included). Sometimes attributed to stand-up comedian Buddy Hackett, "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky" clearly came into this world as a joke, earning the status of urban legend over time through sheer repetition under the guise of a "true story." In spite of the ease with which this revisionist history of the Apollo lunar landing and moonwalk is debunked, it's so much fun to read and pass along that it will doubtless be with us for decades to come. A related urban legend popular among Muslims claims that Armstrong heard a voice say " Allahu akbar " ("God is great") the moment he stepped on the moon and was inspired to convert to Islam. Never happened.