Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


You are so full of it.....

.... if this was done correctly, we shouldnt see a shift of those hills being that they are so far away. What you basically are showing us is that these are models and they are closer than we are told they are. They are probably miniatures:

BULL!

You are in such denial, it's appalling. The dimensions of the terrain were provided by jra.....you can go out, and re-create that same effect with similar topography on Earth....just scout a location, and DO IT!! Take your camera, take photos, and you will see the SAME parallax effects!


Now....are you serious with that college kid's film??

If a guy can pull this off in his garden, then what could NASA do with a few billion.
LOL.

Yeah...it was cute, and creative....the guy may have a great future career. But, it was obviously an homage to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey masterpiece. AND, in NO way would it ever, ever, ever be mistaken for real space....not by intelligent adults, anyway.

I thank you for finding that clip, as it's interesting to me....doesn't prove your point, in any way though. In fact, watch again...@4:40 or so....on the "Mars" landscape....the camera tracks to right of frame (as if on dolly tracks).....it clearly, clearly shows the shallow depth of the "set" (his garden, apparently).

Really.....things like this, these continuous claims of "hoax" are unsustainable, any more. To rational, logical adults with all of their faculties.


post script: And, NO! Up above, in-thread.....I found those YT videos that Astrobrant2 made, and that punk Jarrah White whined about.....the false DMCA claims.....and, for a while, those videos were "gone". Now, they are back, baby!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker

You are in such denial, it's appalling. The dimensions of the terrain were provided by jra.....you can go out, and re-create that same effect with similar topography on Earth....just scout a location, and DO IT!! Take your camera, take photos, and you will see the SAME parallax effects!

Well I have hills less than the 34klms away as listed on them pics..
I went and walked to the end of the street..
Nothing changed in the distance....

Originally posted by FoosM
JRA, if this was done correctly, we shouldnt see a shift of those hills being that they are so far away. What you basically are showing us is that these are models and they are closer than we are told they are. They are probably miniatures:

Prove it then. Go take some photos of some hills or mountains and see what happens. Or show some calculations that show those mountains are actually closer than they really are. Your choice.

And we've gone from flat backgrounds, to front screen projection to miniatures. You guys just can't make up your mind on how they did it eh?

Originally posted by backinblack
Well I have hills less than the 34klms away as listed on them pics..
I went and walked to the end of the street..
Nothing changed in the distance....

And did you take photos? If not, why? The change would be subtle (depending on how far you walked). With the two Apollo photos. I couldn't see a difference between them until I put them together, aligned them and flipped back and forth between the two.

Go take some photos of those hills. Keep track of how far apart your two photos are and how far away the hills are and lets see what happens.

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yes, it was a fairly good movie, if a bit shallow. Also, it was largely shot on green screen.

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Oh.....and that film or ANY HOLLYWOOD film???

Ever heard of editing??

Ever actually SEEN how a film is really produced??

When you go to the cinema, to see the "finished product" you have NO IDEA of the craft behind it.....apparently.

THAT is just one of the many, many reasons that the Apollo footage COULD NOT BE FAKED!!!

(no "cuts").....no editing......

reply to post by 000063


Dances with wolves in space. With big blue Indians who have tails. And nastier wolves and buffalo. And bigger guns.

reply to post by jra

And did you take photos? If not, why? The change would be subtle (depending on how far you walked). With the two Apollo photos. I couldn't see a difference between them until I put them together, aligned them and flipped back and forth between the two.

Go take some photos of those hills. Keep track of how far apart your two photos are and how far away the hills are and lets see what happens.

Only on my phone..
I'll use the camera and get some good pics in the next few days..
It's the Dandenong Ranges so should give a good comparison.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!
Oh.....and that film or ANY HOLLYWOOD film???
Ever heard of editing??
Ever actually SEEN how a film is really produced??
When you go to the cinema, to see the "finished product" you have NO IDEA of the craft behind it.....apparently.
THAT is just one of the many, many reasons that the Apollo footage COULD NOT BE FAKED!!!
(no "cuts").....no editing......

Script was fine..Showed corporate greed perfectly..

If the landings were a hoax then how the hell would you know it wasn't edited?
It could have been filmed weeks/months in advance...

Originally posted by backinblack
Only on my phone..
I'll use the camera and get some good pics in the next few days..
It's the Dandenong Ranges so should give a good comparison.

Ok great, thanks. It looks like a nice area too from the photos I saw on Google images. I live in an area called the Fraser Valley and I plan to take some of my own, since I'm surrounded by hills and mountains. It's just a matter of having some free time and good weather at this point.

Originally posted by backinblack
If the landings were a hoax then how the hell would you know it wasn't edited?
It could have been filmed weeks/months in advance...

Well with the live video, it would sometimes be going on for a few hours at a time without stopping. As for being filmed in advance, that would be hard since there were the odd references to current events, like sports games etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's something else I'd like to bring up in this thread and now seems like a good time. There is a thread on the Apollohoax forums, where a member has been comparing photos of Earth taken during the Apollo missions (any photo, from the Lunar surface, Lunar orbit or on the way to or back from the Moon) and comparing them to satellite imagery of Earth. Matching cloud patterns between the Apollo photos and satellite images that were taken around the same time. So if things were faked in advance like some HB's claim, I'd like to know how they could have pulled that off then.

Here's a link to the thread: Apollohoax.net It's only 4 pages, so it shouldn't be too hard to read through it.

reply to post by FoosM


OK....once again, this needs to be re-visited....and pointed out, since it is a re-curring theme in the "hoaxers" claims. Usually, every 50 to 75 pages or so.....but, let's NAIL this coffin closed, for good.

If a guy can pull this off in his garden, then what could NASA do with a few billion.
LOL.

To refresh memories from page 449 (yes, just one page back....I said it usually gets repeated every 50 or 75, but this is time to END the chain of repetition).


The above quote is yet another oblique and veiled reference to the often-used meme of "hoaxers".....the "Stanley Kubrick" claim of so-called Apollo footage "fakery".

What complete nonsense. Anyone with at least three neurons to rub together knows this, yet for some reason there is inevitably the same inane claim made....and, for some reason a few actually fall for it. Enough.

Now.....being a film buff, the work of Mr. Kubrick's is not to be criticized, usually....especially his epic (if flawed) "2001: A Space Odyssey". THAT is the iconic yardstick pointed to, by "hoaxers", in their futile (and puerile) claims. The film has long been a particular favorite of mine.....was ever since I first saw it back in 1968. It is painful, in a way, to realize it has so many technical flaws.....but really, since I have learned so much about the art of motion picture making, what film doesn't have mistakes in it?? ANY example of film, TV, etc will have errors, of various sorts. We overlook these, though, when the story, the art is sufficiently compelling.

Well.....about the idiotic claims that Kubrick was involved in "faking" the Apollo Moon footage.....will you indulge me in two videos, Parts 1 & 2 (approx. 10 minutes each)?? (I think you will find them very entertaining and informative......):

"Come on in, take yer shoes off, and sit a spell...."

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Actually, it's quite appropriate. It's an engineering term, not just a joke.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Actually, it's quite appropriate. It's an engineering term, not just a joke.
en.wikipedia.org...

Didn't know that, thanks..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Actually, it's quite appropriate. It's an engineering term, not just a joke.
en.wikipedia.org...

Didn't know that, thanks..

Veddy veddy interesting....

Since the late 1950s,[1][2] aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist. By the 1990s, the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]."[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined in the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.

I can imagine it was used extensively during the "Space race".

Originally posted by jra

There's something else I'd like to bring up in this thread and now seems like a good time. There is a thread on the Apollohoax forums, where a member has been comparing photos of Earth taken during the Apollo missions (any photo, from the Lunar surface, Lunar orbit or on the way to or back from the Moon) and comparing them to satellite imagery of Earth. Matching cloud patterns between the Apollo photos and satellite images that were taken around the same time. So if things were faked in advance like some HB's claim, I'd like to know how they could have pulled that off then.

Here's a link to the thread: Apollohoax.net It's only 4 pages, so it shouldn't be too hard to read through it.

Who says something or someone wasn't in space?
Many believe they were simply in LEO.
Or, they could have easily used a satellite to make those images in a higher orbit.
I mean, are you suggesting that we need people to make photos of the Earth from space?

Earth was first shown as a disk in color by the Department Of Defense Gravity Experiment satellite (DODGE) operating between July and November 1967. This image was captured on September 20. At the bottom can be seen a boom with a color target, a painted sphere. This historic image, perhaps shown here for the first time on the web,

www.donaldedavis.com...

(first time shown?)

High definition color television images of the Earth as a disk were first obtained by the U.S. Applications Technology Satellite, this early example taken on November 18, 1967.

www.donaldedavis.com...

On August 8, 1969 while on its way to the Moon, Zond 7 obtained excellent color photography of the Earth at a distance of about 70,000 km

www.donaldedavis.com...

Now we get Apollo:

During the first human journey to the Moon, Apollo 8, the three astronauts became the first to see Earth as a world in space. Among the photographs they obtained are this one showing South America nearly covered with clouds and the brown Sahara withdrawing into the night

.
www.donaldedavis.com...

So you see, plenty of hardware in Space to take photos of Earth.
And think about how many people back in the late 60's or 70's got to really
ever see satellite images of Earth until Apollo made it a big public bragging point worldwide?




So what makes this photo so special?
Only if you believe it was taken by a person on their way to the moon.

Originally posted by FoosM
Who says something or someone wasn't in space?

I don't think anyone did...

Many believe they were simply in LEO.

Yes, and it would be impossible to get whole Earth photos and video out of the windows of the CSM/LM in LEO.

Or, they could have easily used a satellite to make those images in a higher orbit.

I don't know of any satellites that used 70mm medium format film or had the resolution to match that kind of film.

I mean, are you suggesting that we need people to make photos of the Earth from space?

No, not at all. You seem to be missing the point of that thread I linked to.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well.....about the idiotic claims that Kubrick was involved in "faking" the Apollo Moon footage.....will you indulge me in two videos, Parts 1 & 2 (approx. 10 minutes each)?? (I think you will find them very entertaining and informative......):

"Come on in, take yer shoes off, and sit a spell...."

Making the comparison of an obvious cinematic film to the possibility of Kubrick
being involved in a faked moon landing is, frankly, stupid.

Just to play Devil's advocate:

Kubrick was told to make 2001 less than realistic so the Apollo stuff would look
better.

Addendum: The guy that made the vids is just pointing out continuity errors in
the production...

How would continuity errors in a film prove Kubrick was not involved in a moon
hoax ??

Specious reasoning, at best.

Originally posted by jra


I don't know of any satellites that used 70mm medium format film or had the resolution to match that kind of film.

The Corona satellite took images using 70mm film on a panoramic camera. The camera then dropped this film in buckets, which were retrieved midair by government planes.

I mean, are you suggesting that we need people to make photos of the Earth from space?

No, not at all. You seem to be missing the point of that thread I linked to.

Maybe so, can you clarify what the point was?



webcache.googleusercontent.com...:rRdd_RSykeEJ:www.lps.k12.co.us/schools/arapahoe/meyer/evolutionofcoldwarmilitary.pps+satellite+70 mm+film&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari&source=www.google.com

reply to post by FoosM

The Corona satellite took images using 70mm film on a panoramic camera. The camera then dropped this film in buckets, which were retrieved midair by government planes.

From a maximum altitude of 400-odd kilometers.

Originally posted by FoosM

The Corona satellite took images using 70mm film on a panoramic camera. The camera then dropped this film in buckets, which were retrieved midair by government planes.

I stand corrected. However, those were spy satellites. And the images from those would have been zoomed in on specific targets and not of whole Earth images.

Maybe so, can you clarify what the point was?

You could also take the time to read it.