It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 42
57
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I wonder what the old Apollo engineers said to the Constellation engineers?

We can only speculate, of course...


I think they explained what specific jobs they had at NASA, and that's about it. I bet none of them could explain how it all worked in the end, since they had no idea. It wasn't their job, it was compartmentalized.

And that's why none of them ever knew Apollo really didn't work, at the time, also.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, it is beyond our capability.

There is a huge difference sending a probe into deep space, compared to humans...

Radiation, primarily, among other severe hazards existing within that environment.



So nothing is able to land on the moon?

This radiation of which you speak - do you have any data that proves it would be fatal to humans using the technology employed by Apollo?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You actually think these engineers would ever speak out against NASA, that they hoaxed the moon landings???

Are you serious??

There is NO engineer, afaik, who has ever come forth to claim the moon landings were hoaxed. Not one has ever said they doubted the moon landings were genuine.


its not just AN engineer, its not even JUST AMERICAN engineers.. its engineers, scientists from AROUND THE WORLD that realise the reality of Apollo.

the ONLY "humans" that claim Apollo to be fake seem to have limited education in the field of science.


Do you think that's because every engineer around the world over the past 45 years has always believed it is 100% true, and not a shred of doubt that the official story is 100% true??

Not a chance..


not a chance??

and yet you think that every single engineer in the entire world knows it is impossible even with todays technology yet they all remain 100% silent for over 45 years is a much more plausible scenario..

we have scientists trying to make new discoveries every day trying to prove or disprove einstein and yet when it comes to the moon landing they are too afraid because they might lose out on their livelihood.

get real.


As you know, Constellation engineers were working on our 'return' to the moon, by 2020. They were instructed to use 'heritage' technology as much as possible, to reach this goal. 'Heritage' technology was actually the famous Apollo technology, in fact. The technology that got man to the moon, which would basically guarantee a successful 'return' by 2020, quite obviously...

Do you know why it would fail so dismally?


because such technology from the 60's is not good enough when we have access to todays technology. and 60's health and safety concerns were not at the level as todays.

and they dont have a seemingly unlimited long term budget to play around with (before you complain that their budget is increased do can you answer me how many other side projects NASA needed to fund while funding the Apollo program and can you compare it with the current NASA).

also what do you mean by heritage technology?? cause as far as i know they are using heritage technology with new technology engineered into it.


Why would these engineers call in Apollo engineers, to help them?


because it beats working from scratch.


Because they couldn't figure out how it worked, in the first place. They were totally baffled. That's why they asked the Apollo engineers for help.


your claim.


What happened, after that?

They dropped the famous Apollo technology, and looked for other technologies - that would work...


and thats why they are using the same design as the apollo command module?? the same heat shield?? similar stages in rocket design?


So here's the point - these engineers were told to use Apollo technology to get to the moon. They didn't know how it would work, though. But if anyone knew how it worked, the Apollo engineers did. So they were brought in for that purpose. The Apollo engineers were no help, obviously, since they dropped it like trash and looked elsewhere instead.

What would these engineers think about Apollo's veracity, from that point?

It's very clear, no?


why would you use ONLY apollo technology?? your understanding of them saying heritage technology is skewed.

to you thats like saying you want to build the worlds fastest super computer using 1960's technology. what a load of rubbish.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, I am showing the entire clip to support my argument.

That is not nitpicking, in any way.


your entire clip?? you mean the full 2.5 hr EVA??


You showed a clip that is much shorter, and shows the astronauts much farther away than my clip. Yet, you claim it supports your own argument, and somehow believe it refutes mine.


yes it does, because you agreed that it looks too fast at double speed. which goes completely against your argument that Apollo 11 was using 50% speed.


I have yet to confirm the speed is correct in your clip, but I have confirmed my clip is the correct speed. I will find out if your is, or is not, then I can go ahead from that point....


right... its taken you what?? 2 months or so to do this.. i thought you were eager to find out the truth??


The clip I cited still has to be explained, that's the main issue here.


its simple, the astronauts were moving slower than they normally would.. they dont need to declare this over the comms.. one would think if you were the first person on another planet ever that you would be a little more cautious especially if you have only been there for less than an hour.


Your clip shows movement faster than normal, but I still need to confirm it is correct. I'll stand by the result, no matter what it shows.

I am only assuming it is correct, at this point. You assume it is already known to be correct, when you have no proof at all...as usual.

Are you aware of what I am arguing, here?


yes you are trying your hardest to find the smallest of proof that Apollo 11 was using exactly 50% speed.


Are you aware of why my clip is more important than any other Apollo clip?


because you THINK it is proof


This clip showed the world that a human being was really walking on the moon, for the first time ever.

Show me any other clip you believe is/was more significant, or equal to it, if you can.... Not many can even compare to it, that's for sure.

How many clips show the astronaut(s) move near the camera, like my clip does?

You talk about 2.5 hours of footage, so why haven't you shown me similar clips to mine? You've only shown a clip shorter than mine, with astronauts far away from the camera - so that's it?


what has distance from the camera got to do with anything??
a camera capturing someone moving at their maximum speed is not going to show that person moving faster when the camera is further away..

if a maximum speed that someone can run is at 16km/h he will run at 16km/h its physically impossible for that person to run faster. the cameras location will only affect the cameras RELATIVE velocity..
and having said that, the opposite of what you believe would be true.. fast objects further away would APPEAR to move slowwer even though they are still moving fast.
edit on 30-1-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

We can move slower than normal, sure.



then that is all you need to know about the possibility of explaining your perceived anomaly.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


And that's why none of them ever knew Apollo really didn't work, at the time,


what EXACTLY " didnt work " ??????????????

the saturn 5 launch vehicle clearly worked

as you conceed that space probes have been launched - the ability to exit earths orbit also clearly worked

you also conceeded in previous post threasds that you accept that unmanned landers sucessfully deposited payloads on the lunar surface

so all the operations of trans lunar trajectory , lunar orbit insertion and lunar landing - clearly work

further - you doint dispute that the missions returned lunar samples to earth - so lift off from the lunar surface etc all the way back to atmospheric re-entry and splashdown on earth clearly work

this leaves astronauut life support - which clearly works - unless you are now going to claim that no manned space missions ever occured [ i cannot find a cite for you confirming or denying this - so i leave it open ]

so - what " didnt work " ?????????????????



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

its not just AN engineer, its not even JUST AMERICAN engineers.. its engineers, scientists from AROUND THE WORLD that realise the reality of Apollo.

the ONLY "humans" that claim Apollo to be fake seem to have limited education in the field of science.


No, it's because we can speak the truth, as independents who have nothing to lose or gain in the issue.

The scientists and engineers are not experts in camera images and film footage. They are experts in rocket propulsion, etc.

The experts in camera images and film footage are movie producers, directors, photographers. They know about stage lighting, special effects, and so on.

If you've noticed, there are many, many movies which reference the moon landings as faked. Kubrick above all. NASA visited him on his stage sets, before Apollo 11 even began. Why would NASA visit a movie director? Because they are fans of his movies? If you really believe that, I have some swamp land to sell you!

NASA even gave Kubrick a special Carl Zeiss camera lens, as a gift, after Apollo ended.

Do you want to tell me that's also because NASA really liked his movies? Because they were such great fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

What does a real space program, a real manned moon landing, have to do with a movie director who fakes space missions?

NOTHING

What does a faked moon landing have to do with a movie director who fakes space missions?

Get the idea?

For his final film, 'Eyes Wide Shut', Kubrick stipulated in the contract that his film was to be released exactly 30 years to the day after the Apollo 11 (supposed) moon landing - July 16, 1999.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why Kubrick did this. Only an open mind.


Many other films, and TV shows, have referenced the faking of the moon landings. 'Diamonds Are Forever' showed James Bond running onto a fake moon stage set. Someone told him he couldn't enter the set without wearing a 'radiation badge'! The people who wrote this into the film were not only showing the moon landings were faked, they deftly included the main reason it had to be faked - space radiation.

Think about it - why would the writers of this film (or director/producer) say that Bond needed a stupid little 'radiation badge' before he could enter a fake moon stage set?

The film industry was/is well-connected, and they knew what was really going on. They can't say 'It is a hoax', so they spell it out in their films, or release dates.


originally posted by: choos
and yet you think that every single engineer in the entire world knows it is impossible even with todays technology yet they all remain 100% silent for over 45 years is a much more plausible scenario..


I never said "every single engineer in the world" knows it, first of all.

I said that every engineer in the world over 45 years has never said it was a hoax, or implied it was a hoax, or even questioned it, or had a sliver of doubt.

None of these engineers have ever landed on the moon, or flown to the moon, or flown beyond LEO, or flown in LEO. They have never landed a LM on the moon, or witnessed it first-hand.

Yet none of them have said it was a hoax, or said they have doubts, or questions.

Do scientists watch it on TV, and that's their 'proof'??


originally posted by: choos
we have scientists trying to make new discoveries every day trying to prove or disprove einstein and yet when it comes to the moon landing they are too afraid because they might lose out on their livelihood.

get real.



Scientists question Newton, to Einstein, and everything else....

But they do NOT question the moon landings. They have not been to the moon, and do not see anyone actually land on the moon. By that, I mean first-hand. Not on TV.

The Constellation engineers were given the Apollo technology, and they trashed it. They didn't question the moon landings, either..

They haven't been to the moon, they haven't seen a man land on the moon first-hand, they haven't seen a LM land on the moon first hand, they haven't flown in space, in LEO, in the VAB, beyond the VAB, to the moon, and they have no idea how the technology worked in the first place.....

Despite all that, none of them have a sliver of doubt that the technology DOES work, and that we landed on the moon!!!!

So that's your story?




originally posted by: choos
because such technology from the 60's is not good enough when we have access to todays technology.


I agree completely - the Apollo technology is not good enough.


originally posted by: choos
and 60's health and safety concerns were not at the level as todays.


So what? The Apollo astronauts returned safe and sound, no?


originally posted by: choos
and they dont have a seemingly unlimited long term budget to play around with (before you complain that their budget is increased do can you answer me how many other side projects NASA needed to fund while funding the Apollo program and can you compare it with the current NASA).


Dredge up the money excuse, once more!l...

I've told you many times that NASA got all the money they requested.

They spent it all, getting nowhere,

They asked for more money, and once again, they got it.

And again, they spent it all , getting nowhere.

When they asked for even more money, they didn't get it. This time, they were asked for an exact amount of money.

They said they didn't know how much money would do it.


If they don't know how much money would do it, you sure don't know it either.



originally posted by: choos
also what do you mean by heritage technology?? cause as far as i know they are using heritage technology with new technology engineered into it.


The Constellation project was told to incorporate as much 'heritage' (Apollo) technology as possible.

In other words, the technology used for (supposed) manned moon landings, back in 1969, would serve as a foundation for their new efforts. It worked, so they thought.


originally posted by: choos
and thats why they are using the same design as the apollo command module?? the same heat shield?? similar stages in rocket design?


You want to show me your sources for those claims?

Are you saying that they had the Apollo technology on hand, were told to incorporate it for a 'return' mission, and trashed it, and tried to develop other technologies that would work, which failed to work.... and now, they are using the same designs, which they trashed earlier?


originally posted by: choos
why would you use ONLY apollo technology?? your understanding of them saying heritage technology is skewed.

to you thats like saying you want to build the worlds fastest super computer using 1960's technology. what a load of rubbish.



I didn't say they were told to use ONLY Apollo technology. I said they were told to use as much Apollo technology as possible.

They weren't told to build a 1960's Apollo computer, because, obviously they already had much better computers to use.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Wow. Talk about grasping at straws lol.

So some movies implied the moon landings were fake? I watched a film once. It was called Dumbo. OMG! They must be telling us elephants can fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the snowman film!! #snowmenlivesmatter !!!!!!

And why exactly would they not ask someone who has extensive knowledge of video cameras about, um, video cameras?

The reason the scientists don't contest the landings is because of tenge mountain of proof there is for them PLUS all the data.

Funny how you started with a stupid 20 second clip, said it proved everything, then moved the goalposts with that. Now all this other (absolutely hilarious) "evidence".

Like I said......wow.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, it's because we can speak the truth, as independents who have nothing to lose or gain in the issue.


I'm an independent with nothing to lose or gain on this issue. We went to the moon.



The scientists and engineers are not experts in camera images and film footage. They are experts in rocket propulsion, etc.


Apart from the scientists and engineers who specialise in the production of cameras and film. You will find that the engineers who are experts in rocketry are all absolutely happy that the equipment built for Apollo worked as designed, and that all the scientists who have ever had anything to do with Apollo are entirely happy with the data and samples it returned.



The experts in camera images and film footage are movie producers, directors, photographers. They know about stage lighting, special effects, and so on.

If you've noticed, there are many, many movies which reference the moon landings as faked. Kubrick above all. NASA visited him on his stage sets, before Apollo 11 even began. Why would NASA visit a movie director? Because they are fans of his movies? If you really believe that, I have some swamp land to sell you!


Because Kubrick asked NASA for advice on how to make sure 2001 looked as real as possible. Kubrick started shooting that in 1965 before we even had a picture of the entire Earth to look at it. If you knew anything at all about how Kubrick made 2001 you would know just how many people would have been involved if he faked Apollo and how long it would have taken.

Find anyone who is actually an expert in film making and photography who believes the bogus claims of hoax proponents.



NASA even gave Kubrick a special Carl Zeiss camera lens, as a gift, after Apollo ended.


False. Kubrick got his Zeiss lens the same way NASA did - he bought it from Zeiss.

You seem to be confusing movies (which are made up stories) and actual events that contain verifiable facts. You also seem to be confusing how science works with Apollo, which was an engineering and technical project that carried scientific equipment. The technical exercise of getting a rocket to the moon was repeated many times, and the scientific data that those missions returned have been verified over and over again by scientists.
edit on 31/1/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: tyop



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1


And that's why none of them ever knew Apollo really didn't work, at the time,


what EXACTLY " didnt work " ??????????????

the saturn 5 launch vehicle clearly worked

as you conceed that space probes have been launched - the ability to exit earths orbit also clearly worked

you also conceeded in previous post threasds that you accept that unmanned landers sucessfully deposited payloads on the lunar surface

so all the operations of trans lunar trajectory , lunar orbit insertion and lunar landing - clearly work

further - you doint dispute that the missions returned lunar samples to earth - so lift off from the lunar surface etc all the way back to atmospheric re-entry and splashdown on earth clearly work

this leaves astronauut life support - which clearly works - unless you are now going to claim that no manned space missions ever occured [ i cannot find a cite for you confirming or denying this - so i leave it open ]

so - what " didnt work " ?????????????????


Apollo spacecraft didn't work as claimed - these spacecraft were incapable of flying humans beyond LEO, to the moon, landing men on the moon, and returning them safely back to Earth.

These spacecraft can fly humans within LEO. But, they cannot fly humans safely beyond LEO.

Apollo spacecraft were built of thin aluminum, mainly. This is a good material to use for flying humans into LEO, being light in weight.

However, as I've cited sources on, aluminum is a 'very poor shielding material', for manned spacecraft flying into deep space, beyond LEO. In fact, aluminum makes it WORSE than before for humans. It cannot be more clear than that.

The argument of apollo-ites is that this only applies to 'long-term' missions, and not to short-term, 'Apollo'-type missions.

But in fact, the sources NEVER claim or suggest that it applies only to long-term missions. The apollo-ites are simply making a claim that doesn't hold up.

The apollo-ites still say it, despite that fact. They have no argument.

Aluminum spacecraft is only one example of what doesn't work for manned moon missions, there are many others as well.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, it's because we can speak the truth, as independents who have nothing to lose or gain in the issue.

The scientists and engineers are not experts in camera images and film footage. They are experts in rocket propulsion, etc.


those scientists and engineers dont need to look at Apollo images and video to know that Apollo was real.


The experts in camera images and film footage are movie producers, directors, photographers. They know about stage lighting, special effects, and so on.


yea movie also show how the americans always win how our british spies drive around in flashy cars with all sorts of weapons hidden within them and transforming robots.
must mean its all real and not entertainment.


Get the idea?


sure do, you are speculating because you have no proof.


Many other films, and TV shows, have referenced the faking of the moon landings. 'Diamonds Are Forever' showed James Bond running onto a fake moon stage set. Someone told him he couldn't enter the set without wearing a 'radiation badge'! The people who wrote this into the film were not only showing the moon landings were faked, they deftly included the main reason it had to be faked - space radiation.


so like they are also trying to say that the MI6 employ flamboyant spies that like to do spectacular stunts and destroy everything will trying to infiltrate the bad guys right??


The film industry was/is well-connected, and they knew what was really going on. They can't say 'It is a hoax', so they spell it out in their films, or release dates.


why cant they say its a hoax?? will they lose their livelihood??



I never said "every single engineer in the world" knows it, first of all.

I said that every engineer in the world over 45 years has never said it was a hoax, or implied it was a hoax, or even questioned it, or had a sliver of doubt.

None of these engineers have ever landed on the moon, or flown to the moon, or flown beyond LEO, or flown in LEO. They have never landed a LM on the moon, or witnessed it first-hand.


they dont need to, they dont even need to watch it live on tv or see the images, they can study the data. the difference between you and them is that they understand the data.



Scientists question Newton, to Einstein, and everything else....

But they do NOT question the moon landings. They have not been to the moon, and do not see anyone actually land on the moon. By that, I mean first-hand. Not on TV.


again, engineers and scientists that design rockets or probes are regularly using data available to them, they design their crafts according to given data, these crafts have expected lifetimes attached to them.

if any of the data was severely understated (like what you believe) their crafts wont survive anywhere close to their expected lifetime..

yet we occasionally see probes rovers surviving way past their designed lifetime.


The Constellation engineers were given the Apollo technology, and they trashed it. They didn't question the moon landings, either..


yet again they didnt.. the shape of the command module is still in use, the heatshied design is still in use, the multi stage rockets are still in use, the rendezvous procedures will still be in use.



Despite all that, none of them have a sliver of doubt that the technology DOES work, and that we landed on the moon!!!!

So that's your story?


yes because they UNDERSTAND HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.



So what? The Apollo astronauts returned safe and sound, no?


safe and sound yes, but not safe enough for todays standards.

we used to be able to smoke onboard passenger jets also, alot of people have survived that too, no?

do you think you can build a car and sell it to the public using 1960's safety standards?? people still survive in them today, no?


Dredge up the money excuse, once more!l...

I've told you many times that NASA got all the money they requested.


and?? its not enough, back in the 60's the entire budget allocated to them was about 10x as much as today, and they had LESS PROGRAMS to support than they do today.


They spent it all, getting nowhere,

They asked for more money, and once again, they got it.

And again, they spent it all , getting nowhere.


who says they got no where?? they've tested orion and will be testing the SLS soon.


When they asked for even more money, they didn't get it. This time, they were asked for an exact amount of money.

They said they didn't know how much money would do it.

If they don't know how much money would do it, you sure don't know it either.


because it costs ALOT. they also need to keep funding alot of other programs which they didnt need to in the 60's.


The Constellation project was told to incorporate as much 'heritage' (Apollo) technology as possible.

In other words, the technology used for (supposed) manned moon landings, back in 1969, would serve as a foundation for their new efforts. It worked, so they thought.


and they still are, the design of the rocket the design of the CM, the design of the parachute system, the rendesvous procedures etc.



You want to show me your sources for those claims?


look it up yourself, look at the shape of orion.. any reason why they chose that shape??
look at the parachute system.. any reason why they chose that?
look at how Orion uses similar rendezvous procedures as apollo, any reason why they done that?


Are you saying that they had the Apollo technology on hand, were told to incorporate it for a 'return' mission, and trashed it, and tried to develop other technologies that would work, which failed to work.... and now, they are using the same designs, which they trashed earlier?


they havent trashed it all and started from scratch.
they have used Apollo technology and built up on it.



I didn't say they were told to use ONLY Apollo technology. I said they were told to use as much Apollo technology as possible.

They weren't told to build a 1960's Apollo computer, because, obviously they already had much better computers to use.


and you think think using new computers from today wont cause any issues?? you know nothing about intergration.

you also no nothing about how todays computers are much more sensitive to particle radiation than the computers used in Apollo. not to mention the amount used.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So some movies implied the moon landings were fake? I watched a film once. It was called Dumbo. OMG! They must be telling us elephants can fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You'd argue they have expertise to know about flying elephants, to tell us about them, right?

No? They don't have expertise on flying elephants?

The films I'm referring to were made by people with expertise in staging science fiction films, experts in faking 0 g space, experts in special effects, and so on. Stanley Kubrick, for example.

But let me make it simple for you...

Why would NASA visit Kubrick on many occasions?

Why did NASA give Kubrick a special camera lens, as a gift?


originally posted by: TerryDon79
And why exactly would they not ask someone who has extensive knowledge of video cameras about, um, video cameras?


They would, that's my point.


originally posted by: TerryDon79
The reason the scientists don't contest the landings is because of tenge mountain of proof there is for them PLUS all the data.


You mean the mountain of proof the Constellation engineers trashed, right?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Why would NASA visit Kubrick on many occasions?


Erm, all 400,000 employess did not visit Kubrick. Kubrick was making a science fiction film and asked for their help in making it as realistic as possible. NASA's Public Relations department saw it as an excellent opportunity to sell the public on space exploration.


Why did NASA give Kubrick a special camera lens, as a gift?


They did not give him anything as a gift. They loaned him a lens that could gather enough light to film by candlelight, allowing his period drama to look more authentic. 2001 was an excellent advertisement for space exploration, NASA was grateful it was portrayed positively. Kubrick was principally known as a social critic; he could have made the space program look like a boondoggle.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Because Kubrick asked NASA for advice on how to make sure 2001 looked as real as possible. Kubrick started shooting that in 1965 before we even had a picture of the entire Earth to look at it. If you knew anything at all about how Kubrick made 2001 you would know just how many people would have been involved if he faked Apollo and how long it would have taken.



How would that unfold? hmm....

'Hi, this is Stanley Kubrick. I'm making a sci-fi movie, and I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out, to make it look as real as possible.'

NASA replies.. 'Sure, no problem Mr. Kubrick. We'll send you a few of our top experts who are currently working on the first-ever manned moon landing, because helping people make realistic-looking sci-fi movies is among our top priorities!

That makes perfect sense, no doubt!! Sheesh...


NASA is in the middle of their Apollo project. Why would they be concerned about sci-fi movies? What is so important about making sci-fi movies look realistic? Why, oh why, would NASA take people off the Apollo project, fly them over to the UK, just to help someone who wants realistic-looking sci-fi films?

They would never, ever, do such a thing. It is ludicrous, in every way.


It only makes sense if NASA wants to make a realistic-looking moon landing film.

'Eyes Wide Shut' was released exactly 30 years after Apollo 11's supposed 'moon landing'. This shows what Kubrick thought about NASA's 'realistic' moon landing, beyond a doubt!



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You make it sound like NASA is six guys and a pickup truck! NASA employed thousands of people in specialized positions. Some of them specialized in Public Relations. So did IBM, Westinghouse, Bell Telephone and all the other corporations who assisted Kubrick's conceptual artists. Apparently, you have no idea how industry works. Corporations hire artists to design concepts for future products. They used to spend lots of money creating displays like "The Kitchen of the Future" at places like the World's Fair and Disneyland. That's the talent pool Kubrick tapped, and that's why every scene in the movie is bristling with logos. Pan Am. Howard Johnson. Bell Telephone.

NASA assisted Kubrick because it was an extremely high profile project that would stir up enthusiasm for space exploration. NASA scientists also consulted on the Star Trek TV series, and those special effects were pretty cheesy.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

NASA is in the middle of their Apollo project. Why would they be concerned about sci-fi movies? What is so important about making sci-fi movies look realistic? Why, oh why, would NASA take people off the Apollo project, fly them over to the UK, just to help someone who wants realistic-looking sci-fi films?

They would never, ever, do such a thing. It is ludicrous, in every way.


Really? You're the professional expert in this now? I suggest you look at a whole range of science fiction films and see how many times NASA gets an acknowledgement for their services. I also suggest you look at how poor science fiction at the time was at representing the moon and also the Earth from space - any film that tried to be convincing used actual NASA images taken by either Gemini or Apollo. Kubrick used neither because when he started his project these photographs weren't available. His special effects team had to re-do his lunar models many times because Lunar Orbiter photographs gave new details. And he still got things wrong.



It only makes sense if NASA wants to make a realistic-looking moon landing film.


No, it only makes sense if Kubrick asked NASA for help in producing his film and they said 'fine'.

Have some information about it all from someone who knows what he's talking about:

blogs.indiewire.com...



'Eyes Wide Shut' was released exactly 30 years after Apollo 11's supposed 'moon landing'. This shows what Kubrick thought about NASA's 'realistic' moon landing, beyond a doubt!


Nope. It shows that you are attaching far more significance to this release date than is reasonable, particularly as Kubrick was actually dead by then.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Kubrick was making a science fiction film and asked for their help in making it as realistic as possible. NASA's Public Relations department saw it as an excellent opportunity to sell the public on space exploration.


Don't you mean it was an opportunity to sell the public on faking space exploration? Since it was, as we all know, a fake.

It seems to me that NASA would have been putting all their efforts into ACTUAL space exploration if they were trying to sell it to the public. The public knows 2001 is a sci-fi movie, it doesn't sell the public anything but that movies can fake space exploration better than ever! That's what it did, mainly.

NASA should have no involvement in ANY sci-fi movies, that is quite obvious.




originally posted by: DJW001
They did not give him anything as a gift. They loaned him a lens that could gather enough light to film by candlelight, allowing his period drama to look more authentic. 2001 was an excellent advertisement for space exploration, NASA was grateful it was portrayed positively. Kubrick was principally known as a social critic; he could have made the space program look like a boondoggle.


By releasing 'Eyes Wide Shut' exactly 30 years to the day of the 'moon landing' said it perfectly, then!



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

By releasing 'Eyes Wide Shut' exactly 30 years to the day of the 'moon landing' said it perfectly, then!


so by going what you stated earlier about the film industry being so "well-connected" especially stanley kubrick.

and also about how you were saying that the content of the film was what the film industry was trying to expose. such as "Diamonds are forever"

and given that "Eye's Wide Shut" was released in the US 30 years after Apollo 11 (coincidence?? i think not duh)

its clear that you conclude that Apollo 11 was actually a large sex orgy in space.. this is clearly what the film industry is trying to expose.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Don't you mean it was an opportunity to sell the public on faking space exploration? Since it was, as we all know, a fake.


We? Is there someone sitting next to you in your mother's basement?


It seems to me that NASA would have been putting all their efforts into ACTUAL space exploration if they were trying to sell it to the public. The public knows 2001 is a sci-fi movie, it doesn't sell the public anything but that movies can fake space exploration better than ever! That's what it did, mainly.


400,000 people toiling away at a project, and you think three "Idea Guys" doing a little PR would have an impact on the project's success? Please tell me you're just trolling.


NASA should have no involvement in ANY sci-fi movies, that is quite obvious.


Why not? In fact, that statement deserves its own thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Really? You're the professional expert in this now? I suggest you look at a whole range of science fiction films and see how many times NASA gets an acknowledgement for their services. I also suggest you look at how poor science fiction at the time was at representing the moon and also the Earth from space - any film that tried to be convincing used actual NASA images taken by either Gemini or Apollo. Kubrick used neither because when he started his project these photographs weren't available. His special effects team had to re-do his lunar models many times because Lunar Orbiter photographs gave new details. And he still got things wrong.


I know about other films with NASA involvement, which is no better for your argument.

Those films gave credit to NASA, but the film '2001' did not credit NASA at all.

Why not?


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Nope. It shows that you are attaching far more significance to this release date than is reasonable, particularly as Kubrick was actually dead by then.


How is it any less significant that Kubrick died before it was released??

He had stipulated the release date in the contract - his death didn't change that...


He wanted to make it known and he did, for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join