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: 43
57
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:49 PM
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 do? How, or rather why, are you including me in that rather bold statement...since I know nothing of the sort.




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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.


You don't get it.
.

If it WAS about space, you'd argue Kubrick was supporting 'the first manned moon landing', of course!

The film was NOT about space, however. Yet, Kubrick made a point of it being released 30 years to the day after Apollo 11's 'moon landing'.

It has nothing to do with space, that's the point here.

Kubrick is not saying Apollo 11 conducted massive space orgies, as you suggest...

The film shows grand-scale sex orgies, but none in space.

Your argument is total nonsense, pure rubbish...


We know his film was released 30 years after - to the exact day - Apollo 11 (supposedly) landed men on the moon.

You think the film being released after his death makes it less significant, when it is just the opposite. It is much more significant, in fact.

His death didn't change the release date, as he had stipulated in the contract.


This was so important to him, not even his death could remove, or alter, that one stipulation...as we know...

You can't get around that fact.


After he died, Spielberg finished the film, and they released it on the exact day Kubrick had stipulated within the contract.


If Kubrick stipulated this in his contract, he surely had a reason for it, without a doubt....


This is why Kubrick chose the title of his film, 'Eyes Wide Shut'. And he would have stipulated that the title of his film is to be 'Eyes Wide Shut', within the contract, methinks. This title explains his specific, intentionally chosen release date.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

General rule of thumb: If a 'fact' can only ever be found on woo and conspiracy sites, it's more than likely made up.

Any proof at all that Kubrick insisted on a specific release date would be just peachy. The film actually premiered on the 13th in LA. So what?

The date is only of significance if you believe Kubrick faked the Apollo landings, which he did not.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

This is why Kubrick chose the title of his film, 'Eyes Wide Shut'. And he would have stipulated that the title of his film is to be 'Eyes Wide Shut', within the contract, methinks. This title explains his specific, intentionally chosen release date.


oh so movies are about the title and ONLY about the titles now??

so when you said that movies with those moon scenes in them were the movie industry giving things away that was just you being wrong??

so the james bond film with its moon scene was irrelevent.. as well as every other movie, the only relevant one is this one thats about sexual relations..

understood!



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So let me get this straight....


A guy made a film (pretty much) named Eyes Wide Shut.

He died before it could get finished so someone else finished it.

He wanted the film released 30 years after Apollo 11.

Said film has nothing to do with space, astronauts, flight, NASA, the moon, rockets, jets or anything whatsoever to do with the Apollo 11 mission (well it involved sex and people and I'm sure NASA and the astronauts has sex and they were people).

So you automatically think it has something to do with Apollo 11?

Here are some other films released on the same date....

Lake Placid
The Wood
Drop Dead Gorgeous

Now I can see as much of a connection to the Apollo 11 missions in those 3 films as I can in Eyes Wide Shut.

BTW that would be NONE.

ETA You do know that Eyes Wide Shut was based on a novella, right?

It is called Traumnovelle (also known as Dream Story) by Arthur Schnitzler.

Oh, guess what? He wasn't American. He was Austrian.

And guess what again? It was published in a magazine (Die Dame) in parts between December 1925 and March 1926 and the first book release was later in 1926.

So even if you want to go by that you'd be wrong as that would be roughly 44 years before NASA went to the moon.
edit on 064706/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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

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.


yes because they UNDERSTAND HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.


They don't even use the Apollo data, in fact.




originally posted by: choos
and they still are, the design of the rocket the design of the CM, the design of the parachute system, the rendesvous procedures etc.


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?


None of those designs have actually worked so far, that's the whole problem.


originally posted by: choos
they havent trashed it all and started from scratch.
they have used Apollo technology and built up on it.



Technology goes forward, not backward.

You have to think of technology as a tool, for serving a purpose, for reaching towards a goal, etc.

Human exploration shows how technology works as a tool...

The early ships we built couldn't cross the vast oceans, for many years. We didn't have the technology to sail across the oceans, at that time. And our desire for the exploration of our world required an advanced technology. Time and effort made it possible, and we finally were able to cross the oceans in ships, as we still do.

We now explore the depths of oceans, and it is again technology that limits our exploration.


Space exploration is the same thing. It is technology that limits our exploration of space.

It is the same for unmanned or manned exploration of space, or the ocean depths. Technology is used to explore what is unknown yet, because we want to explore the unknown.


So when you say we are building on Apollo technology, which is supposed to be 100% genuine technology, we have a big problem....

Building on a technology that was landing humans on the moon 40 years ago is - according to you - being built on today. Except we have no technology capable of landing a man on the moon today. We can only fly humans in Earth orbit, in fact. Not beyond LEO, nor to the moon, nor land a human on the moon.

Which is utterly absurd, pure and simple...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

This is why Kubrick chose the title of his film, 'Eyes Wide Shut'. And he would have stipulated that the title of his film is to be 'Eyes Wide Shut', within the contract, methinks. This title explains his specific, intentionally chosen release date.


oh so movies are about the title and ONLY about the titles now??

so when you said that movies with those moon scenes in them were the movie industry giving things away that was just you being wrong??

so the james bond film with its moon scene was irrelevent.. as well as every other movie, the only relevant one is this one thats about sexual relations..

understood!


You're mistaking separate points as if it's all one thing....that's the problem...

The issue of Kubrick is not the same as the issue of movies in general, that refer to a moon hoax, like Diamonds are Forever, which was simply one example that I mentioned..



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They don't even use the Apollo data, in fact.


even if that was true (which it isnt) they are using REAL data to design and build spacecraft/probes..

so they would know roughly how much radiation would be received since they need to design their spacecrafts to last certain lifetimes with these and other restrictions.



None of those designs have actually worked so far, that's the whole problem.


did work?? so im guessing that you believe that Orion didnt land back on earth but actually smashed into the sea at several times the speed of sound?

oh and orion's shape is nothing like the Apollo command module not one bit..



Technology goes forward, not backward.


what part of building up from Apollo hardware/technology not going forward??


You have to think of technology as a tool, for serving a purpose, for reaching towards a goal, etc.

Human exploration shows how technology works as a tool...

The early ships we built couldn't cross the vast oceans, for many years. We didn't have the technology to sail across the oceans, at that time. And our desire for the exploration of our world required an advanced technology. Time and effort made it possible, and we finally were able to cross the oceans in ships, as we still do.

We now explore the depths of oceans, and it is again technology that limits our exploration.


but we arent exploring the depths of the oceans with manned crafts!!!! ZOMG FAKEEEEEEE


Space exploration is the same thing. It is technology that limits our exploration of space.


well atleast you are correct


It is the same for unmanned or manned exploration of space, or the ocean depths. Technology is used to explore what is unknown yet, because we want to explore the unknown.


theres been less people at the bottom of the mariana trench than there has been on the moon!!!! ZOMG mariana trench HOAX!!!111one!!


So when you say we are building on Apollo technology, which is supposed to be 100% genuine technology, we have a big problem....


why? because you say so??


Building on a technology that was landing humans on the moon 40 years ago is - according to you - being built on today. Except we have no technology capable of landing a man on the moon today. We can only fly humans in Earth orbit, in fact. Not beyond LEO, nor to the moon, nor land a human on the moon.

Which is utterly absurd, pure and simple...


we have the techonology we just dont have the equipment..

the difference between your thinking and reality is that we are trying to improve upon that technology to make it easier for future astronauts, whereas you want to use Apollo hardware because there is no need to improve..

and why do you insist on using Apollo hardware for space missions?? the entirety of Saturn V rocket including the CM was designed for SINGLE USE.. building Apollo hardware for todays missions is only a good way to "steal your hard earned monies".



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

This is why Kubrick chose the title of his film, 'Eyes Wide Shut'. And he would have stipulated that the title of his film is to be 'Eyes Wide Shut', within the contract, methinks. This title explains his specific, intentionally chosen release date.


oh so movies are about the title and ONLY about the titles now??

so when you said that movies with those moon scenes in them were the movie industry giving things away that was just you being wrong??

so the james bond film with its moon scene was irrelevent.. as well as every other movie, the only relevant one is this one thats about sexual relations..

understood!


You're mistaking separate points as if it's all one thing....that's the problem...

The issue of Kubrick is not the same as the issue of movies in general, that refer to a moon hoax, like Diamonds are Forever, which was simply one example that I mentioned..





in other words you are making things up as you go again?
edit on 6-2-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.


Escaping Earth's gravitational pull....not dangerous.
Navigating based on calculations and precise burns...not dangerous.
Landing on another body other than Earth...not dangerous.

Swinging a golf club? Dangerous. Jumping? God awful dangerous.

"...one of the deadliest places in the universe..." Really? One of the deadliest? Crushing gravitational pull of our gas giants, a limited understanding of the universe as a whole; quasars, black holes, novas, etc....not nearly as dangerous as landing on a close by body in space.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So let me get this straight....


A guy made a film (pretty much) named Eyes Wide Shut.

He died before it could get finished so someone else finished it.

He wanted the film released 30 years after Apollo 11.

Said film has nothing to do with space, astronauts, flight, NASA, the moon, rockets, jets or anything whatsoever to do with the Apollo 11 mission (well it involved sex and people and I'm sure NASA and the astronauts has sex and they were people).

So you automatically think it has something to do with Apollo 11?

Here are some other films released on the same date....

Lake Placid
The Wood
Drop Dead Gorgeous

Now I can see as much of a connection to the Apollo 11 missions in those 3 films as I can in Eyes Wide Shut.

BTW that would be NONE.

ETA You do know that Eyes Wide Shut was based on a novella, right?

It is called Traumnovelle (also known as Dream Story) by Arthur Schnitzler.

Oh, guess what? He wasn't American. He was Austrian.

And guess what again? It was published in a magazine (Die Dame) in parts between December 1925 and March 1926 and the first book release was later in 1926.

So even if you want to go by that you'd be wrong as that would be roughly 44 years before NASA went to the moon.


It is known that NASA visited Kubrick before Apollo 11, right?

Now, if you claim NASA was helping Kubrick on his film, then why did he stipulate 'Eyes Wide Shut' be released 30 years to the exact day of Apollo 11's launch? (not landing, as I said)

Other movies were also released that day, so what? It doesn't change the fact Eyes was released that day, since it was.

None of the other movies had stipulated in its contract that they must be released on the exact day Apollo 11 launched 30 years earlier, were they? Not likely, I'm sure.

And none of the directors of those movies likely ever had NASA visit them many times, to help them make a space movie, and so forth...right?

Now, why did Kubrick want to release it that day?

He wasn't saying Apollo 11 should be celebrated by orgies, obviously.

He clearly wasn't trying to support Apollo 11, in any way.

So he meant to disparage Apollo 11, if anything.

The title 'Eyes Wide Shut' meant Apollo 11 has been blindly taken as genuine, despite all the evidence of a hoax in plain view.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Because no other movie has been purposely released on a certain date to commemorate something?

And you're saying NASA visited Kubrick? I'll think you'll find it was merely a couple of people who worked for NASA.

Directors have all sorts of people they speak to when making a film. CIA, FBI, NASA, car dealers, the list is endless.

You're trying to find a link where there is none. In this instance you think that the name and the release date have something in common.

All of what you have said about the connection is purely your speculation with no proof or even a hint of any.

I think you're just clutching at straws.
edit on 060206/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




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



Could you name them?



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


Most film makers credit those who worked on the film...not those who consulted on it.

Also there is no rule in film making that says you have to credit everyone who consulted, or even worked on a movie.

Here you go look how many people involved with the movie that weren't credited in the movie...

www.imdb.com...

That argument is very weak.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

we have the techonology we just dont have the equipment..

the difference between your thinking and reality is that we are trying to improve upon that technology to make it easier for future astronauts, whereas you want to use Apollo hardware because there is no need to improve..

and why do you insist on using Apollo hardware for space missions?? the entirety of Saturn V rocket including the CM was designed for SINGLE USE.. building Apollo hardware for todays missions is only a good way to "steal your hard earned monies".


The goal was to achieve a manned moon landing, by 2020, right?

And they already had the technology to achieve that goal, right?


You claim they were trying to improve upon that technology, and still are, because they'd like to have re-usable spacecraft for these missions, and they need lots of money for it, but don't know how much money they'll need yet, so that's why the project flopped - because of money, for technologies they'd like to have....

The goal cannot be excused, sorry to say.

The wheel is much older technology that Apollo's, and it is still used today. You'd say 'Sorry, we haven't built a car for over 40 years now, since it had wheels, which is really old technology. And now, we want to develop something better than stupid old wheels! We just need to get enough money to develop it, but, unfortunately, we aren't getting enough money yet. So we all must place the blame on our government, for not getting us 'enough' money to build your car!!

The guy who wanted a car says 'I asked you to build me a car, that can drive me to work and back, like the cars you built over 40 years ago did. I never asked you to build a car with new, and better technology, because I don't care what technology it has, I only care about having a car that works.


The goal is to drive to work and back, do you get it?

The goal is to land a man on the moon and back - do you get it?


Technology is a means to a goal, it is not trying to develop new technology, instead of what works already.


You know it, for sure.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Because no other movie has been purposely released on a certain date to commemorate something?

And you're saying NASA visited Kubrick? I'll think you'll find it was merely a couple of people who worked for NASA.

Directors have all sorts of people they speak to when making a film. CIA, FBI, NASA, car dealers, the list is endless.

You're trying to find a link where there is none. In this instance you think that the name and the release date have something in common.

All of what you have said about the connection is purely your speculation with no proof or even a hint of any.

I think you're just clutching at straws.


By making sure the film was released on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11's launch, IT WAS LINKED.

It doesn't matter what you think, because it IS linked. And he deliberately linked it, in fact.

So the question is WHY he deliberately linked it to Apollo 11's launch. Since he DID.

This is the speculative point of it, because nobody knows why he did it, we can't prove why he did it, so it's now a matter of speculation...

We know it is not something positive for Apollo 11, for sure.

We know the film is not about space, at all.

We know he chose the title of the film, though.

We know he could have inside knowledge of a hoax, and could have done the hoax, since he already, in a way, did one (2001).

From all that, the title makes perfect sense. And, absolutely nothing else does.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

He likely wanted it released on that date because it was a very notable date. Just like 25th December, 4th July etc.

You can actually find out why he called it Eyes Wide Shut. It was about the relationship between the husband and wife. There's plenty of explanations of it out there if you look for it.

As for your speculations?

I reckon Lake Placid was released on that date because it's telling us something. I reckon it's because there's giant crocs on the moon. But that's just me speculating.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The goal was to achieve a manned moon landing, by 2020, right?

And they already had the technology to achieve that goal, right?


yes outdated technology.. why do you insist on using Apollo hardware to get to the moon??


You claim they were trying to improve upon that technology, and still are, because they'd like to have re-usable spacecraft for these missions, and they need lots of money for it, but don't know how much money they'll need yet, so that's why the project flopped - because of money, for technologies they'd like to have....

The goal cannot be excused, sorry to say.


yes money is a problem when you are trying to design new things..

you know the automobile has been around for a long time, yet Holden (Vauxhaul for you europeans/chevrolet for americans) spent AUD 1 billion dollars back in 2006 when it was released.. and its just a new car (back then).. you are arguing that they should have just remade (without any new things) a ford model T.


The wheel is much older technology that Apollo's, and it is still used today. You'd say 'Sorry, we haven't built a car for over 40 years now, since it had wheels, which is really old technology. And now, we want to develop something better than stupid old wheels! We just need to get enough money to develop it, but, unfortunately, we aren't getting enough money yet. So we all must place the blame on our government, for not getting us 'enough' money to build your car!!


funny.. you know without a financial backer there wont be new wheels, you probably believe the wheels has had nothing new since its inception..

but what about the material??
the design??
have you heard about the tweel??

none of these would exist without financial backing of some sort.


The guy who wanted a car says 'I asked you to build me a car, that can drive me to work and back, like the cars you built over 40 years ago did. I never asked you to build a car with new, and better technology, because I don't care what technology it has, I only care about having a car that works.


you know what the problem with your analogy is??

buying a car designed and built 40 years ago lets just say it cost them $30000. and cost them $1000000 to design and build.
but now its out of production completely, the infrastructure has changed, the assembly line has changed.

now 40 years later the guy wants that exact same car, the car company needs to re-organise its assembly line, take into account of other productions using the same assembly line.. since everything is automated now, they need to INVENT NEW TOOLING cost of tooling $5000000, cost of parts $10000.. they estimate the cost of the car and present it to the guy and ask him to pay $2000000..

and you think the guy who 40 years ago knew the car cost only $30000, but now its $2000000.. you want him to say ok sure no problem.

the point here is that if the guy is going to pay that much for a car it better be a bloody good investment.. but you want the company to just give him the car as it was 40 years ago..


The goal is to drive to work and back, do you get it?


in a very costly one off machine designed to make only one trip?? dont you get it?


The goal is to land a man on the moon and back - do you get it?


i dont think you get it.. the goal isnt to ONLY get to the moon and back.. its to get to the moon, stay on the moon, get to an asteroid, explore the asteroid, get to mars, stay on mars etc. etc.

the Orion needs to be as future proof as possible.


Technology is a means to a goal, it is not trying to develop new technology, instead of what works already.

You know it, for sure.


no it isnt.. lets say PC's were invented in the 1980's

following your argument, today we would all be using 1980's technology.. because no one would develope new technology they would just use 1980's PC's because they work.
edit on 6-2-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




It doesn't matter what you think, because it IS linked. And he deliberately linked it, in fact.



Who's fact?

I think Stanley Kubrick said it best here...


In the Rolling Stone Kubrick says of his reputation “Part of my problem is that I cannot dispel the myths that have somehow accumulated over the years. Somebody writes something, it's completely off the wall, but it gets filed and repeated until everyone believes it.” His films live in an age where fringe-thinking groups of all philosophies and disparate religious agendas can parse up his work to fulfill their worldview.


rvamag.com...

Looks as though he is saying all the BS that has been said about him is just that BS.



From all that, the title makes perfect sense. And, absolutely nothing else does.



You really have no idea what Eye's Wide Shut is about do you, because it has nothing to do with Apollo 11?

It is about secret societies, but please show where it has anything other than the release date that ties it into Apollo 11?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
At what point do you think excuses won't work anymore?

It's now been over 45 years since the supposed moon landings.

NASA tried to land a man on the moon by 2020, and failed. The technology that supposedly worked somehow couldn't work for them anymore, which is quite an achievement!

We know today that aluminum is a lousy radiation shield within the deep space environment. That's why any manned craft going to deep space will not be made of aluminum, nothing like the Apollo craft were. What does that tell you about Apollo going to the moon without any idea of how radiation loves going through thin aluminum shells?

How many more years will it take to grasp this? Another 40, 60, 100 years? How many documents do you need before it's utterly impossible to make up excuses for Apollo?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

We know today that aluminum is a lousy radiation shield within the deep space environment. That's why any manned craft going to deep space will not be made of aluminum, nothing like the Apollo craft were. What does that tell you about Apollo going to the moon without any idea of how radiation loves going through thin aluminum shells?



it tells me you know nothing about deep space radiation..

what are the levels of radiation in deep space?? if you are so confident that its deadly you should be able to answer this simple question..

i can find sources saying that the levels of radiation are low enough that a human can survive in deep space for several months behind an Alumunium shell provided that they are not hit by any solar storms.

lets see yours that shows the occupants will die in less than 2 weeks in deep space.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join