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.

 

Moon Conspiracy - New Evidence

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I can't see that anyone has posted this.... I stumbled across it... and it was only released 5 days ago.

It's a piece by Jay Weidner where he examines the conspiracy that the moon footage was done with the help of Stanley Kubrick.... using scotchlite technology.. the same technology used in Space Odyssey 2001.

I must say... this is very very compelling argument... and once he points out to you the anomolies in the photos.... you can't ignore it. Personally I think it's some of the most conclusive proof yet.

jayweidner.com...




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


Too bad the equippment is still on the moon, and can be seen.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


This is not "new" --- except that it was recently put up (20 July) on Weidner's site. It may be new to him, perhaps, but I doubt it. This idea has floated around for decades, and is based on a joke. It is bunk.

I think Weidner is just desperately scrambling for his last 15 minutes of "fame" in this area, hoping to cash in as much as possible before the well finally dries up.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
[edit on 7/25/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


Star and flag for you. This looks like pretty good analysis by Weidner. But our govt. would never mislead or lie to us would they?




[edit on 25-7-2009 by son of total newbie]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by son of total newbie
 


Oh, come on!!!

This 'Weidner' guy is just total rubbish!

Think --- HIS claims only focus on the still photos. Yet, there is plenty of contempraneous video footage as well, covering many of the same scenes. Panning, tilting, zooming....unedited, showing a vast landscape completely impossible to reproduce on any soundstage that exists!!!

The Apollo hardware is there. 'Weidner' is using the next few weeks to potentially clean up from the last few remaining suckers who will believe his tripe.

[edit on 25 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How is this bunk?

This is actually the best explanation I have seen yet as far as how the pictures and film that were taken.

Im not so sure about all the glass buildings he speaks of on the moon though.

I agree though this is not new, Ive heard of the S.K. filming this before.
But I think this guy Weidner try's a different angle.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by earth2
 


The "S.K." (you mean Stanley Kubrick) story was started because of a JOKE! This has been fully explained on another thread, it was just a few days ago. I will try to find. *** (see below)

The ONLY photos that 'Weidner' has cherry-picked to use as examples are showing a situation where the action in the foreground occurs on a slight rise. In the background, the actual terrain falls away into a depression or shallow valley, and THEN what you see as distant hills are, in fact, distant.

Quite frankly, the scenes in 2001 of the African Savannah in the Dawn Of Man sequences were pretty crappy, to me. His use of the 'Front Screen' technique looked junk. SK wanted total control, he didn't want the hassle and expense of a location shoot, so he and his art directors devised this, because it could be done on a soundstage, with controlled lighting. AND IT LOOKED FAKE! But, as entertainment, the audience knew it was a film, and that it was obviously filmed indoors. It's the nature of 'science fiction', after all.

To attempt to equate what we've seen of the Apollo evidence to that sort of fiimmaking is absolutely insane.


*** (found it)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There's a discussion about this on one of the other recent Moon threads, now that the LROC images are being presented.

Basically, the entire Kubrick thing was someone's idea of a joke.

Unfortunately, it's been picked up by rabid "hoaxists" who just won't accept that it's false.


Edit:

Found this. If people actually fell for this obvious bit of satire.....



THE GREAT MOON LANDING HOAX: From the files of Jessica Atwater
(1910-2008), the original Movielady
~~~~~

On the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, it seemed like a good time to officially release a recently discovered document left by Jessica Atwater (1910-2008), the original Movielady. It has been kept from the public for almost 40 years.

The instructions accompanying this document prohibited its release until after her death.

Thank you to the estate of Jessica Atwater for making this report available.

~~~~~

Estate Property ID Number: 1000255231

"The Great Moon Landing Hoax"
Copyright © 1969 by Jessica Atwater


I wandered around the MGM back lot for over an hour before I saw it. It was a typical smoggy, lung-busting day in Los Angeles. I finally stumbled across the little-used soundstage tucked away in the back, right next to the old train station set. The area looked deserted and the only sound was that of chattering cicadas drilling their racket mercilessly into my brain.


Ummm...i grew up in LA. First time I ever even heard of a cicada was here in the Northeast...


I was just about to turn around and head back to my car when I heard my name called, "Jess, over here." It was Stanley Kubrick and he was walking toward me at a fast clip.

"Jess, I'm so glad you came. You are the only one I can trust.".....

blog.seattlepi.com...

Sounds like quite a story, eh???

"You are the only one I can trust" ??? Really? From the notoriously taciturn Stanley Kubrick??


....Kubrick was noted for the scrupulous care with which he chose his subjects, his slow method of working, the variety of genres he worked in, his technical perfectionism and his reclusiveness about his films and personal life. He worked far beyond the confines of the Hollywood system,...

Source


[edit on 25 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha. Like it or not Weidner has something to say here. I'm not a photo buff, but I can follow the reasoning, the way it was explained.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


I'm not saying you're wrong, but are there any pics from amateurs of this? I've never seen any, though I'll be honest the Moon Hoax Conspiracy is low on my list of interests!

The op showed me/us some compelling evidence. I just may be more interested in Moon Hoax Conspiracy after today! Ha!



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosis111
 


gnosis111, go to page four of the website cited by OP, and look at #7, the shadows as "proof"!!

Perhaps you will see, after a short time, WHY 'Weidner' is off his rocker!!

(Hint: Take a look at shadows cast at, say, the beach. In the desert. ANYWHERE the ground isn't perfectly flat.)



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosis111
 


But still, even if we went there, doesnt mean pictures weren't manipulated or even faked for some reason.


I doubt there are pictures from amatours that show the equippment on the moon, but there are pictures from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

They show the landing spots and the equippment that is still there. Everyone can see it if they just built one and sendt it off


If we THEN were to see nothing on the moon, we'd know that NASA is fake.. but i doubt that'll happen, as ANYONE can bust them by just getting a look at the moon. A rich guy could send an orbiter up or something and VOILA. I realy doubt NASA would lie about it.

www.nasa.gov...



Apollo 11 lunar module, Eagle. There it is :p



Apollo 14 lunar module, Antares.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Total Package
 


This is not "new" --- except that it was recently put up (20 July) on Weidner's site. It may be new to him, perhaps, but I doubt it. This idea has floated around for decades, and is based on a joke. It is bunk.

I think Weidner is just desperately scrambling for his last 15 minutes of "fame" in this area, hoping to cash in as much as possible before the well finally dries up.


Actually it's not "based on a joke". The "joke" which is the mockumentary "Dark side of the Moon" was based on the conspiracy.

How do you keep a secret? very easily.... here is the recipe.


Recipe for keeping a secret


1. Take 5 parts TRUTH and mix with 3 parts of LIES
2. Mix well
3. Get Buzz Aldrin, Kubrick's widow, Kissinger and Rumsfeld involved.
4. Release the mockumentary to the public via a French movie maker (not US of course... independant lends more credibility)
4. Sit back and wait while the NASA sympathisers do the rest of the work and at every opportunity ridicule anyone that uses a "fact" that was in the mockumentary.

It's a well worn method used everywhere from government agencies to lawyers in court rooms. If you mix lies with truth.... nobody has any way of sorting it out. If you put doubt into people's minds they will start to question ALL of the information if any part of it is proven bunk.

You are a perfect example of how people are manipulated that way. You just assume because what was in his investigation was seen in a mockumentary where some of the stuff bordered on ridiculous and was obviously made up..... means it must all be made up and anyone who uses it is getting their info from that movie.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by Total Package
 


Too bad the equippment is still on the moon, and can be seen.


Cmon now.... please please don't tell me... that the recently released LRO footage you are taking as "evidence."

Please don't tell me you read Phil Plaist from Bad Astronomy fame.... who announced this photo was and I quote "Physical, tangible evidence that human beings walked on the surface of the Moon".

I am still trying to find out from Phil how this is "Physical" and "Tangible" when it's a photo released from an agency renouned for releasing photoshopped images and who are suspected of covering up the Moon Landing.... yet we are to blatantly regard any image they release as " physical and tangible proof" when the photos are blurred images that are of even less quality than some of the UFO photos these guys love to debunk.

Phil Plait is a hypocrit.... and anyone that uses this as "proof" of the moon landing and looks at other moon photos as "tricks of light" is a hypocrit.

Phil-Plait-hypocriti cal-over-proof-of-Moon-Landing.aspx





[edit on 26-7-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How is this bunk?

This is actually the best explanation I have seen yet as far as how the pictures and film that were taken.

Im not so sure about all the glass buildings he speaks of on the moon though.

I agree though this is not new, Ive heard of the S.K. filming this before.
But I think this guy Weidner try's a different angle.


Actually the glass buildings he talks of is a theory that Richard Hoagland has about those photos of the moon..... Weidner is actually saying that he doesn't think they are glass buildings at all but the tell-tale signs of stitching from using that technology of the time.

And yeah I didn't mean Kubrick being involved is new evidence... I mean someone going into this much detail and analysis of the footage was something I hadn't seen before.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by Total Package
 


Too bad the equippment is still on the moon, and can be seen.


It can be seen? Really? And who provided the images of the "seen" objects on the moon? Oh right NASA! nuff said.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


Here's a very good deconstruction/debunk of most of all "mooners'" arguments:

After 40 years of first Moon landing: Was it real?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by gnosis111
 


gnosis111, go to page four of the website cited by OP, and look at #7, the shadows as "proof"!!

Perhaps you will see, after a short time, WHY 'Weidner' is off his rocker!!

(Hint: Take a look at shadows cast at, say, the beach. In the desert. ANYWHERE the ground isn't perfectly flat.)


Here is a perfect example of someone using a "theory" without any proof at all of that theory being correct.

Look at this photo again.



Now do you know exactly how much higher the astronaut on the right would have to be to cast a shadow that much longer. Could you please let me know.

Then once you have figured that out..... could you tell me why the astronauts would plant that flag on the side of a hill.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Total Package
 


Here's a very good deconstruction/debunk of most of all "mooners'" arguments:

After 40 years of first Moon landing: Was it real?


Yeah "MOST" not all. What you mean is they debunk what they can find "theories" for. What they can't explain they just ignore. As I posted earlier... just becasue most of it is lies and wrong... doesn't automatically mean you can ignore what you can't explain and use the rest of it as some sort of proof the whole conspiracy is wrong.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by gnosis111
 


gnosis111, go to page four of the website cited by OP, and look at #7, the shadows as "proof"!!

Perhaps you will see, after a short time, WHY 'Weidner' is off his rocker!!

(Hint: Take a look at shadows cast at, say, the beach. In the desert. ANYWHERE the ground isn't perfectly flat.)


Here is a perfect example of someone using a "theory" without any proof at all of that theory being correct.

Look at this photo again.



Now do you know exactly how much higher the astronaut on the right would have to be to cast a shadow that much longer. Could you please let me know.

Then once you have figured that out..... could you tell me why the astronauts would plant that flag on the side of a hill.


Ah tha's simples!
The guy on the right is at a surface level that changes past the guy on the left, as shown by the fact that the shadow part of his legs is longer than his body part!
Ah and the moons surface is rather rugged with undulations

Also flag looks good there.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join