Apollo Hardware Spotted!

Originally posted by THX-1138
This is endless just like other denial conversations.
Are you going to throw a bowling ball at da nihilists?

Anybody can deny the Moon landing. It is not illegal. Anybody can deny anything in the history of the world. It is not illegal.

I do enjoy reading the ramblings of the huffy 'we went there' crowd though.

That's how I feel about the "we didn't go there crowd"
Really the only difference between the 2 is as follows:
There is evidence proving we went to the moon.
There is ZERO evidence proving we didn't.

Originally posted by jfj123

To actually believe the mythbusters are on the CIA's payroll is beyond absurd and beyond paranoid.

Is that what you believe?

I know I didn't say anything about a payroll...

An asset doesn't need to be on a payroll - But you already knew that.

All that is required for them to be Assets is for them to act at the behest of an agency, such as the one featured in that Mythbusters episode.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
All that is required for them to be Assets is for them to act at the behest of an agency, such as the one featured in that Mythbusters episode.

Why would the mythbusters be motivated to do so? I mean, setting aside how crazy your claim sounds, can you actually prove it or is it just an assumption to fit your bias?

reply to post by nataylor


Where are the lunar buggies and where are the buggy tracks? You would think if you could see the footpaths you could see the buggies and tracks

Originally posted by ngchunter

Why would the mythbusters be motivated to do so?

They explain everything in the episode.

Since you obviously haven't watched it, it is titled 'Magic Bullet'. Now you can watch the show you are commenting on.

They did not test dense bone-coloured ceramic bullets in that show.

*They didn't test the projectile they found out about with their FOIA - for some nefarious reason...

As far as their Moon Hoax episode - that was pitiful.

They used the retroreflectors as proof of the Apollo landings, even though the Russians proved those could be placed via unmanned mission (they omit this from the show).

Then they botched their experiment with slow motion and wires:

reply to post by Exuberant1


I disagree. They addressed several aspects of the hoaxer camp claims, the flag in a vacuum, footprints, shadows and lighting sources quite successfully.

If you weren't around at the time, it's difficult to convey what the state of the art of special effects technologies were back then, compared to now. The capabilities were just not there yet.

Originally posted by elfie

The capabilities were just not there yet.

Stanley Kubrick's footage disagrees.

Here he successfully replicates one of NASA's famous star-free spacewalks:




Here is is John Young and Charlie Duke in the simulator at Langley, showing us how easy it is to fake the landing portion of the Apollo Missions:









[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


www.bautforum.com...

Take note of the 3rd post:

I am C.W. Powers
This is absolutely insane. I know this thread is long dead, but I need to clear up the record.

I am C. W. Powers, and twelve years ago, I posted a send-up of the moon landing hoax to the newsgroup "alt.movies.kubrick" in response to some dweeb who seriously questioned whether we actually landed on the Moon.

I took the idea of the moon landing hoax and ran with it, claiming that Stanley Kubrick, the director of "2001: A Space Odyssey", was hired by NASA to help fake the Apollo moon landings. I sprinkled the posting with authentic facts and authentic-sounding facts that anyone familiar with Kubrick's work and/or the space program would recognize.

The post was an obvious satire. An attempt at humor. To wit, a joke.

(cont.)

reply to post by elfie


The video I posted was created by Youtube member greenmagoos.

Why are you cross-forum posting from BAUT? The person you are quoting had nothing to do with the video I posted...

reply to post by Exuberant1

The video I posted was created by Youtube member greenmagoos.

'Nuf said, then!!!

He is a wonk! Total nutcase. I'd like to copy/paste what he wrote to me, on MY YouTube account, but it would violate the T&C here.

Lemme see....maybe I can clean it up....

reply to post by Exuberant1


The notion that Stanley Kubrick had anything to do with the footage was begun as a joke (quoted) back in '95. The video you posted was from 2007. How is this not a direct result of that joke?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

He is a wonk! Total nutcase.

He used Kubrick's footage and NASA's footage in the two videos I just posted.

In the first video, you can see the spacewalk was perfectly recreated by Kubrick.

The second video is NASA archival footage. Crazyness....

Edit: Why do you slander people so often? Your consistent use of ad hominem attacks goes to your credibility - If you can't debate without calling names...



[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ngchunter

Why would the mythbusters be motivated to do so?

They explain everything in the episode.

Since you obviously haven't watched it, it is titled 'Magic Bullet'. Now you can watch the show you are commenting on.

No, you're claiming the CIA influenced them in the episode about the Apollo hoax claims. Please prove this.

As far as their Moon Hoax episode - that was pitiful.

They used the retroreflectors as proof of the Apollo landings, even though the Russians proved those could be placed via unmanned mission (they omit this from the show).

One of the russian reflectors failed, none of the human placed reflectors failed. The other russian reflector was not as accurately aligned as the human aligned reflectors. This is only further proof of a manned landing.

Then they botched their experiment with slow motion and wires:

No, they didn't. Slow motion and wires would make the dust look all wrong no matter how you tried it. The dust kicked up doesn't billow and gets too high to be done on earth.

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies
jayweidner.com...

interesting read and he brings up some good points

What is really more interesting about the photos NONE of the John Lear stuff is evident what was it he said again on the Pegasus Research Corr sorry Consortium.

The Moon has Factories , Domes, Bridges, Tanks, Spires, Machines ,Machine parts etc the list goes on.

Now giving that the Living Moon pages on above site were supposed to be evidence why dont you guys who think its a hoax compare the John Lear pics to the LRO pics when they pass over one of Johns factories etc now the massive structures he claimed to SEE would stick out like a sore thumb would they not!

[edit on 20-7-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by warrenb


Front screen projection would be immediately revealed by stereo image analysis. Suffice it to say, Apollo is consistent even when looking at compatible pairs of images (taken a short but useful distance apart, from the same angle) as stereo pairs.
history.nasa.gov...

interview with Apollo Astronauts right now.....

www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Exuberant1


It took a little searching but I found the reference to the joke posting from alt.movies.kubrick:

groups.google.com...

edit: fixed link

[edit on 20-7-2009 by elfie]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by elfie]

If they used front screen projection, where is the line between the back screen and the stage in this apollo 17 shot?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

find more Apollo pictures here (1000's)
www.hq.nasa.gov...


This one I found a clear line
www.hq.nasa.gov...

This one, cant find a line
www.hq.nasa.gov...

stars in this one
www.hq.nasa.gov...

love rover pictures...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


very strange....
3 rover pictures, the rover is not moving, look at the wheels....
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

This one is interesting, because he almost puts the camera into the sun...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

why doesnt the rover make marks? there are clear footprints closeby..
www.hq.nasa.gov...

this what the tracks looks like
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is some strange in the sky
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The hill is strange!
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

strange shape of the sun's reflection
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 20-7-2009 by conar]

Originally posted by conar
If they used front screen projection, where is the line between the back screen and the stage in this apollo 17 shot?

In this case, it is harder to see the line because the edge of stage is angled relative to the camera.

See the fiduciarials (little plus signs) that are at the high of the astronaut's head -This is where the background/frontal projection begins.

Start with the fiducial at the far left-hand corner, level with astronaut's head and work your way across the screen at a slight upwards angle (about 7 degrees). This looks like it is the edge of the stage.

The big rock to the right of the rover is really there, but is used to break up the line.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]