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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 459
377
<< 456  457  458    460  461  462 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


ALSJ ... I may be mistaken but isn't NASA the sole source of ALSJ stuff? That would be my main reason why they might not be to be believed. I would like independant proof, not NASA 'proof'.
All the other nations (India, Japan, Russia) who have sent probes to the moon and their data backs NASA up.

The Australian observatories who back NASA up.

The Ham Radio operators who back NASA up.

The lack of any Soviet outing of the hypothetical NASA hoax.

The fact that NASA is willing to send samples of their moon rocks to just about anyone who asks.


Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 





NASA does not " lack the technology " to go to the moon - it lacks the hardware and most critically - FUNDING , who is going to pay for it any why ???????????


So NASA lacks the hardware to go to the moon.
Couldn't the shuttle make it with enough fuel?
If so that means NASA can't afford the petrol to get past the Van Allen belts perhaps?

Who will pay.. er... the same government that backs NASA and spends untold billions each year on Black Ops programs.
If it's "untold", how do you know its billions?

Just because the gov't has a lot of money doesn't mean they can spend it on whatever they want.

Why? Because going to the moon is uber cool.
Because hi-res photos of the moon would be great.
Because the moon might contain untold riches that will benefit hunmanity in the future and should be explored.
Because they CAN... according to NASA. (A bit like the fact the man strives endlessly to repeat its great feats of exploration.)
Kennedy, actually.


Surely the technology/ hardware of 1967 would be far cheaper and easier to build now than in 1967.
Argument from speculation.


NASA did all the hard work back then and had 100% success rate (getting men back alive) with every Apollo rocket that made it off the launch pad.
You're ignoring the massive amount of testing required. The test missions would cost billions.


Their track record with Apollo easily beats the sad shuttle history of fatalities.
Source.


So what are they doing wrong now that they got so right 30 years ago?
Who said they're doing something wrong? If you pull a car out of the garage after 30 years, you have to check it before you go for a drive. This would be more akin to building a new car from the plans of the old one.


And if they can get to the moon with a computer smaller than the processor in my mobile phone then I would have thought it was be relatively easy to send at least an unmanned hi-res Hasselblad camera with minimal sheilding back to the moon to snap some lovely pics for us at ATS to discuss.
Um, even unmanned moon missions are expensive. Ask a gov't scientist and they will tell you they would like to do a lot of things their funding won't let them.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Surely it wouldn't be too hard in the 21st century to get a satellite around the moon to take hi-res, like 50cm per pixel, photos... like classified spy satellites can do from earths orbit i believe.
Reasons why to: Map the terrain more accurately, take photos of Lunar Module to shut me up, that kind of thing.


The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera DOES take pictures with a resolution of 50cm per pixel. Here's one of the Apollo 14 landing site:




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I find it quite amusing that the conspiracy theories are often more complex and harder to achieve than actually putting those men on the moon. That video clip from some TV show posted earlier illustrated that perfectly
.
There's a nutjob on JREF who came up with the fairly reasonable, by comparison, theory that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the US gov't using Saudi criminals. Okay, that plan still wouldn't work, but at least it was sensible. He then went on to propose that there were explosives planted in the WTC with maximized damage, and in the Pentagon, except those were minimized damage. He claimed the Saudi's did hijack the planes, but were told to land them, not crash them, and were knocked out by secretly planted cyanide gas and the secretly planted remote controls steered the planes into their targets.

That was several days ago. He'd modified his theory several times over, and last time I checked it was up to explosives used to blow out the windows and knock out everyone.

Yes, the people on board aparently failed to notice C4 blocking their view.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



All the other nations (India, Japan, Russia) who have sent probes to the moon and their data backs NASA up.

Their data backs up that man landed on the moon? How so? Not the old grainy photographs again?


The Australian observatories who back NASA up.

Those observatories in league with NASA? As Jarrah goes on about, the observatories were affiliated with NASA during the Lunar program.


The Ham Radio operators who back NASA up.

You mean the ones who might have got false data from a satellite transmitting a false mission, perhaps a Lunar satellite?


The lack of any Soviet outing of the hypothetical NASA hoax.

If you rwead my post I think the USSR have been in cahoots with NASA since late 60's because they recieved a load of food aid and trade allowances from the USA in early 70's. Politically it made sense to tow the US GGovernments (NASA's) line.


The fact that NASA is willing to send samples of their moon rocks to just about anyone who asks.

Really? Have you asked and recieved? I think young Jarrah has a thing or more to say about so called 'moon' rocks in his upcoming series. I'm sure in the 8 hours there will be some points I can come back and ask you about.


If it's "untold", how do you know its billions? Just because the gov't has a lot of money doesn't mean they can spend it on whatever they want.

Oh come on... its a known fact that the US government spend billions on secret developments, if you really want me to provide a link then I will but by denying this fact shows your ignorance. And countless more billions on military projects.
Are you seriously saying the US government can't spend money on whatever it wants? Since when?


Kennedy, actually.

Kennedy what? If you are referring to me repeating another posters questions about where was Nixon at the take off then understood. No mention of Kennedy in the quote you pasted. And you were being so neat!


Argument from speculation.

So you are saying it would cost the same to build an Apollo rocket now as it did then? Bearing in mind we're not paying for the development process today... just the materials. My sentence was based on common sense.


You're ignoring the massive amount of testing required. The test missions would cost billions.

No I'm not. I am suggesting that they've done all the testing back in the 60's which resulted in a near perfect record of Lunar missions. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The astronauts are better trained these days... computers are better... and they have all the blueprints and so why more testing? Just build the same rocket and flimsy capsule and wrap it in silver foil and off you go.


Source.

I said there were way more fatalities during the shuttle missions than during the apollo missions that left the launch pad. Do you really need sources... no apollo astronaut died from missions that made it off the launch pad. The shuttle lost many people on Challenger and Columbia... 14 fatalities in total I believe. Do you still want a source for this?


Who said they're doing something wrong? If you pull a car out of the garage after 30 years, you have to check it before you go for a drive. This would be more akin to building a new car from the plans of the old one.

Correct... after 30 years in the garage the car is still capable of doing what it did before with a bit of a tune up and some TLC. You don't need to rebuild and redesign the car if it worked fine.


Um, even unmanned moon missions are expensive. Ask a gov't scientist and they will tell you they would like to do a lot of things their funding won't let them.

Um... who said they weren't? I like the phrase 'government scientist'. Are those the only ones you believe? How about any scientist, or must I ask a 'government scientist'?

Great reply though. Good to talk like human beings.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 




The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera DOES take pictures with a resolution of 50cm per pixel.


Oops... my bad. I meant to say 5cm per pixel.

Wish I hadn't said any measurement as I meant hi-res, easily identifiable, better than what we've got.

Apologies.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Oops... my bad. I meant to say 5cm per pixel.

Wish I hadn't said any measurement as I meant hi-res, easily identifiable, better than what we've got.

Apologies.
OK, so that's 10 times the resolution we get from the LRO's NAC. The NACs (there are two of them, so they can take stereo pairs of images), work like little telescopes. They each have a primary mirror with a diameter of 198mm (7.8 inches). To increase the resolution by a factor of 10, you have to increase the diameter of the mirrors by 10. So you go from something roughly the diameter of a cereal bowl to something the size of a backyard trampoline. That's huge. Each of the two mirrors would be almost the size of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble weighs 11,000 kg. The LRO only weighs a tenth of that, at 1,100 kg.

As we talked about earlier, you'd need a very large rocket to get even the Hubble to the moon, let alone something twice as big. The Delta IV Heavy, the most powerful unmanned launch vehicle the US currently operates, would not be up to the task. You'd need something almost the size of the Saturn V to do it. It would represent an astronomical increase in costs compared to the LRO's design and launch.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by 000063
 



All the other nations (India, Japan, Russia) who have sent probes to the moon and their data backs NASA up.

Their data backs up that man landed on the moon? How so? Not the old grainy photographs again?
Well, if I produce a photo that I say was taken at point X near the Grand Canyon, and decades later my kid goes, as best as he can to the same spot, and takes a picture, and it looks like he missed the spot by a short distance but was otherwise correct, it'd be corroberation.




The Australian observatories who back NASA up.

Those observatories in league with NASA? As Jarrah goes on about, the observatories were affiliated with NASA during the Lunar program.
There were also several Russian ones I forgot to mention.




The Ham Radio operators who back NASA up.

You mean the ones who might have got false data from a satellite transmitting a false mission, perhaps a Lunar satellite?
The signals were directional, not orbital, so that's right out.







The lack of any Soviet outing of the hypothetical NASA hoax.
If you rwead my post I think the USSR have been in cahoots with NASA since late 60's because they recieved a load of food aid and trade allowances from the USA in early 70's. Politically it made sense to tow the US GGovernments (NASA's) line.
Unsupported assertion. Politcally, it would make sense to pretend to agree, then backstab the US and crow to the world about how they tried to get the US to participate in their conspiracy.



The fact that NASA is willing to send samples of their moon rocks to just about anyone who asks.

Really? Have you asked and recieved? I think young Jarrah has a thing or more to say about so called 'moon' rocks in his upcoming series. I'm sure in the 8 hours there will be some points I can come back and ask you about.
No, I have not personally gotten ahold of moon rocks. I'm not sure if they're civilian, or limited to scientists, or what. My point was admittedly hyperbolic. But they frequently send 'em out. I think the last count some posted here was in the hundreds.



If it's "untold", how do you know its billions? Just because the gov't has a lot of money doesn't mean they can spend it on whatever they want.

Oh come on... its a known fact that the US government spend billions on secret developments, if you really want me to provide a link then I will but by denying this fact shows your ignorance. And countless more billions on military projects.
No, I'm asking how they could be "untold" if the public knows about it.


Are you seriously saying the US government can't spend money on whatever it wants? Since when?
Not actually refuting my point. Lots of money != infinite money != infinite spending.




Kennedy, actually.

Kennedy what? If you are referring to me repeating another posters questions about where was Nixon at the take off then understood. No mention of Kennedy in the quote you pasted. And you were being so neat!
Kennedy was the one who said something about "not because it is easy, but because it is hahd."



Argument from speculation.

So you are saying it would cost the same to build an Apollo rocket now as it did then?
No, I am not. I'm saying you're speculating without evidence.


Bearing in mind we're not paying for the development process today... just the materials. My sentence was based on common sense.
The production facilities for many of the components used don't even exist anymore. You would have to recreate the entire infrastructure. The factories, the parts so the factories could build the parts, the people, prototyping, testing to make sure it's working properly, prototyping again, etc. That's the "development process". My sentence was based on basic engineering and production knowledge.




You're ignoring the massive amount of testing required. The test missions would cost billions.

No I'm not. I am suggesting that they've done all the testing back in the 60's which resulted in a near perfect record of Lunar missions. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The astronauts are better trained these days... computers are better... and they have all the blueprints and so why more testing? Just build the same rocket and flimsy capsule and wrap it in silver foil and off you go.
If you take your car out of the garage after the winter, you have to make sure it's working properly, right? The Saturn V was a smidge more complicated than your average automobile.



Source.

I said there were way more fatalities during the shuttle missions than during the apollo missions that left the launch pad. Do you really need sources... no apollo astronaut died from missions that made it off the launch pad. The shuttle lost many people on Challenger and Columbia... 14 fatalities in total I believe. Do you still want a source for this?
That's because after Apollo 1, there were several careful unmanned test missions before they started using actual people again.




Who said they're doing something wrong? If you pull a car out of the garage after 30 years, you have to check it before you go for a drive. This would be more akin to building a new car from the plans of the old one.

Correct... after 30 years in the garage the car is still capable of doing what it did before with a bit of a tune up and some TLC.
Rusted parts, wheels gone flat, gas turned to shellac. I said "check", not that it would actually be working.


You don't need to rebuild and redesign the car if it worked fine.
Except in this case, you would be rebuilding a car, and from a production line that hasn't existed for 30 years.



Um, even unmanned moon missions are expensive. Ask a gov't scientist and they will tell you they would like to do a lot of things their funding won't let them.

Um... who said they weren't? I like the phrase 'government scientist'. Are those the only ones you believe? How about any scientist, or must I ask a 'government scientist'?
We are discussing gov't funding, aren't we? There are a ton of projects competing for limited budgets.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Any resemblance to actual living persons is purely coincidental.
"No goy was mistreated during filming"


Persons on both sides of the debate find it peculiar that I believe there is something to
this documentary Opération lune aka Darkside of the Moon. It might seem like I have just seen this film and was taken in by its trick. Well I saw this film awhile ago. And of course, when I first watched it I was flabbergasted that the moon hoax was being publicly revealed. Of course, when I saw the credits, I thought, like everyone else, oh it was just an elaborate joke and left it as that. But after watching the film, studying Stanley Kubrick, and pysops, it occurred to me that my initial reaction might have been premature. That actually this film was not a just a mockumentary, but there was something more to it.



Many issues concerning the facticity of the film cannot be resolved simply by recourse to textual analysis, but require extratextual (real-world) and intertextual (filmic) knowledge, and comparison with or research into factual sources. Hence it is interesting to see at what point individual viewers begin to distrust the narrative and realize they're being conned. Upon showing the film to an undergraduate audience in a sociology seminar on conspiracy theories, (5) without informing them they were going to see a mockumentary, I was fascinated to see how "gullible" some participants seemed to be, though of course this assessment is somewhat unfair since they weren't film students alert to the medium's more subtle powers of manipulation. In one case, a student believed the film's claims right up to the mock end credits; others were more sceptical and had seen through the scam earlier on.


But I could be wrong, so lets analyze and breakdown the film.
And from there, discern what are lies and what is truth.

A Look at the Dark Side of the Moon


part one of three




If this film is mocking someone or something who is it mocking?
The believers in the moon hoax, or those who believe in the Apollo moon landing?
At face value one would suspect the moon hoax believers, but if we read the intention of the film on the production house's website we get a different picture:


A documentary intrigue, a subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis, around an event that marked the 20th century: the landing on the moon.
What if it’s all been a big hoax triggered by the race of the two super-powers to be the first to conquer the moon ? What if there have been no “live transmissions” from the moon – as many claim? The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archive pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate very different “facts”. How can the spectator KNOW what he watches?


So basically we should doubt photo and video evidence of the moon landing because it could be faked.



This is not an ‘ordinary’ documentary… It’s intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that television can get it wrong (intentionally or not) .We want to achieve this aim by using a universally known event (the landing on the Moon) that is surrounded by question marks (which is a fact) and spin some tale around it, that sounds plausible but isn't a fact (although there are elements in it that are real!). Confused? It will all be revealed before the end of the film... once the viewer is hooked, strung along and starts really wondering.


This film is targeting the average person who believes in the moon landing.
Via this documentary they want to show how easy it is to manipulate the truth by mixing fact with fiction. In other words, just because 400 thousand persons worked in concert to actively try to find a way to land men on the moon, subsequent photo and video of this achievement can not be considered as proof that they managed to pull it off.

In a sense, I was not wrong, there was more to this documentary than I first realized.
The philosophy of the production company is: "Get to the heart of things"
And that is what I like to do.

The first thing that popped into my mind and what I want you all to ask yourselves is:
What "Hoax Theory" is this documentary based on? What was the main source for research for this documentary? Or was it all from the imagination of the filmmaker?



One such exception is William Karel's 52-minute Dark Side of the Moon (Operation lune, France 2002), a mockumentary co-produced by Point du Jour and the Franco-German tv channel ARTE about the fake moonlanding of the Apollo 11 mission on July 21, 1969. (1) Karel's highly entertaining and prize-winning (2) spoof first of all pays homage to the cinematic legend and myth surrounding the late Stanley Kubrick, and in particular to his cult film 2001--a Space Odyssey (1968). Karel set out to make a film about Kubrick, discovering in the latter's estate information about his collaboration with NASA during the making of 2001, and then started to ask "what if ...?" questions, forming hypotheses about one of the 20th-century's most dramatic events. (3) Beyond that, however, Dark Side of the Moon raises critical questions about documentary's generic conventions and viewers' assumptions regarding factual authority. It interrogates the complex relationship between images and sounds in film generally, raises questions of narrative unreliability, and is, last but not least, also about the nature of popular culture's fascination with conspiracy theories.



This author makes it sound that the first notion of Kubrick being behind the Apollo moon landing was actually brought up by William Karel himself. I dont know, I recall rumors of Kubrick being behind the Moon landing prior to this documentary. Here is what the production company said:


Starting with this true story, we came up with our own… What if…? What if Nixon - under pressure to put the first man onto the moon before the end of the decade – had asked for a film of the landing on the moon be produced just in case the Apollo 11 went wrong and no pictures would be available…


By the way, what do we know about William Karel?


After studying in Paris, Karel emigrated to Israel where he lived for about 10 years in a kibbutz. Returning to France in 1981, he turned tophotography and worked for more than ten years as a photo-reporter for several agencies like Gamma (1972–1976) and Sygma (1976–1983). Then he started to direct movies.
Since the end of the eighties, Karel has directed many historical and political documentaries dealing with sensitive subjects of the twentieth century, from the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver) to the Israeli-Arab conflict, while talking about the FMI policy in Jamaica or the extreme right wing in France. His documentaries are frequently broadcast by the Arte and France 3 channels. He has also done portraits of French and American politicians -- Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, François Mitterrand, Jean-Marie Le Pen, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush.

Studies of the United States are an important part of Karel's work. After The Men of the White House (2000), a film about presidents during periods of crisis, he explored the secrets of the CIA in CIA, Secret Wars (2003). This movie is based primarily on interviews of former CIA directors, former CIA agents such as Robert Baer, and historians. Inspired by Eric Laurent's books about George W. Bush, he released The World According to Bush (2004) which quickly became famous in France through television and theatres.

Refusing to stick to a single genre, he also directed the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon (2002). In The Empire State Building Murders (2008) he combines clips from film noir and recent interviews with actors to tell a narrative story. He likes to recall François Truffaut's words, "A documentary is one thousand times more of a lie than a fiction, where things are clear from the beginning".




Film begins
The narrator claims that many wondered why NASA & Werner v Braun allowed Kubrick to borrow a rare lens for his film Barry Lyndon.
The narrator further claims this lens, worth millions of dollars, was the only lens to capture spy satellites in pitch darkness.


Opération lune (2002)
A French documentary (aka "Dark Side of the Moon") which claims NASA only let Stanley Kubrick use the Zeiss lens because they owed him a favour for helping fake TV footage of the Apollo XI Moon Landing. Rather appropriately this program was first broadcast in Sydney on April 1st 2003…


I would say that similar lenses can cost you tens of thousands of dollars. But whether this particular lens was worth millions I cannot find any
information:




To be sure, Kubrick had shot Barry Lyndon's candlelight scenes using an ultrafast Zeiss lens made for NASA; but Zeiss had originally manufactured ten such lenses for NASA still-photography cameras, and Kubrick was able to purchase two of them through traditional channels and had them subsequently adapted for mounting on a film camera; their existence was certainly not, as Karel's film asserts, top secret, and obviously nowhere near the "million-dollar" price range; indeed, a photo insert accompanying the voice-over at the point in question shows a Zeiss lens which commercially sells for several hundred dollars. Thus, the film's initial claim is only partially, if significantly false. But to a lay person, the premise may sound quite convincing, requiring for its falsification extratextual specialist knowledge. To check details, I did a Google search, and then quickly came up with contrafactual evidence. But this kind of claim, based more on half-truths and exaggeration than on plain falsehood, is symptomatic of many of the assertions made in Dark Side of the Moon, especially in the sequences prior to the major conspiracy theory put forward just before the narrative's midpoint.



What we do know about the lens is that it was used by NASA and for Apollo.


There were were only 10 of these Zeiss lenses ever produced. Three are owned by Kubrick, six by NASA and one can be found at the German Movie Museum in Frankfurt.


&


The Zeiss 50mm and 36.5mm, f/0.7 lenses used to film candlelight sequences for "Barry Lyndon" without the addition of artificial light were originally still-camera lenses developed for use by NASA in the Apollo Moon-landing program,


&


As promised I looked up the F0.7 lenses used by Stanley Kubrick and John
Alcott for "Barry Lyndon". As Austin Burbridge said they were made by
Zeiss. They were developed for NASA for the Apollo moon landing program.
There were three, 50mm lenses, which were originally used for still
photography. They had internal leaf shutters which had to be removed in
order to mount the lenses in the modified Mitchell BNC cameras. The film
gate had to be machined because the rear lens element was only 4mm from the
film plane at infinity. These lenses were modified by Ed DiGiulio of Cinema
Products.

One of the lenses was fitted with a wide-angle adapter used for projection
lenses made by Kollmorgen. This made a lens with an effective focal length
of 36.5mm. Both of these lenses would have been moderate telephotos since
the cine frame size is half the size of the Leica format and masked for the
1:1.85 aspect ratio.


Now most sources state that the lenses were used for the Apollo space program.
The question is, why? During the Apollo space program I recall only 60mm, 80mm, 250mm and 500mm lenses were considered or used. And there was never a discussion of any special light sensitive lenses.

The documentary though actually states that the lenses were used for satellites.
It actually does not say it was for Apollo, which would be an easy connection to prove due to sources that state this was so, and in making the audience believe there was a direct connection between Kubrick and Apollo.

However, what did Kubrick say about the lenses?


Why do you prefer natural lighting?

Because it's the way we see things. I have always tried to light my films to simulate natural light; in the daytime using the windows actually to light the set, and in night scenes the practical lights you see in the set. This approach has its problems when you can use bright electric light sources, but when candelabras and oil lamps are the brightest light sources which can be in the set, the difficulties are vastly increased. Prior to Barry Lyndon, the problem has never been properly solved. Even if the director and cameraman had the desire to light with practical light sources, the film and the lenses were not fast enough to get an exposure. A 35mm movie camera shutter exposes at about 1/50 of a second, and a useable exposure was only possible with a lens at least 100% faster than any which had ever been used on a movie camera. Fortunately, I found just such a lens, one of a group of ten which Zeiss had specially manufactured for NASA satellite photography. The lens had a speed of fO.7, and it was 100% faster than the fastest movie lens. A lot of work still had to be done to it and to the camera to make it useable. For one thing, the rear element of the lens had to be 2.5mm away from the film plane, requiring special modification to the rotating camera shutter. But with this lens it was now possible to shoot in light conditions so dim that it was difficult to read.


Was this a lens made for NASA? Yes
Was this lens used for Apollo? Possibly
Was this lens used for Satellites? According to Kubrick
Was Apollo a spy satellite program?
Were these lenses expensive? Probably
Worth millions of dollars? Might be an exaggeration, but they were rare special function lenses sold to the Government.


The narrator claims that Kubrick's wife, went through Kubrick's things and discovered a top secret file that would answer that question.

Narrator goes through some historical info about the space race.

First talking head we see is Farouk Elbaz, NASA Technical Director, a real person:

Farouk El-Baz (born January 2, 1938) is an Egyptian American scientist who worked with NASA to assist in the planning of scientific exploration of the Moon, including the selection of landing sites for the Apollo missions and the training of astronauts in lunar observations and photography...
From 1967 to 1972, El-Baz participated in the Apollo Program as Supervisor of Lunar Science Planning at Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T that conducted systems analysis for NASA. During these six years, he was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee for the Apollo lunar landing missions, Principal Investigator of Visual Observations and Photography, and chairman of the Astronaut Training Group. His outstanding teaching abilities were confirmed by the Apollo astronauts. While orbiting the Moon for the first time during Apollo 15, Command Module Pilot Alfred Worden said, "After the King's [Farouk's nickname] training, I feel like I've been here before." Also during the Apollo program, El-Baz joined NASA officials in briefing members of the press on the results of the lunar missions. His ability to simplify scientific jargon made his remarks on the program's scientific accomplishments often quoted by the media.


Elbas basically states: There was a very important philosophy the Apollo program was not really designed to get men to land on the moon, or collect samples.

Now, here we either have a top NASA / Apollo official going on record stating the Apollo program was not about landing men on the moon. Did this man just lie for the sake of the documentary, or was he given an out, via this documentary, to state the facts?

But lets be clear here, he didn't say that the Apollo program did not land men on the moon, just that it wasn't the main objective. So he could be simply telling half-truths, for those who believe in the official man landing on the moon story (the lie being the purpose of the program). And half-truths for those who don't believe that man landed on the moon (the truth being the purpose of the program).

I didnt see any bloopers or outtakes of Farouk El-Baz that ran during the credits. So his testimony stated in this documentary is not directly contradicted by him.


The next talking head Jeffrey Hoffman, an Astronaut, a real person:

Selected by NASA in January 1978, Hoffman became an astronaut in August 1979. During preparations for the Shuttle Orbital Flight Tests, he worked in the Flight Simulation Laboratory at Downey, California, testing guidance, navigationand flight control systems. He worked with the orbital maneuvering and reaction control systems, with Shuttle navigation, with crew training, and with the development of satellite deployment procedures. Dr. Hoffman served as a support crewmember for STS-5 and as a CAPCOM (spacecraft communicator) for theSTS-8 and STS-82 missions. Hoffman left the astronaut program in July 1997 to become NASA's EuropeanRepresentative in Paris, where he served until August 2001. His principle duties were to keep NASA and NASA’s European partners informed about each other’s activities, try to resolve problems in US-European cooperative space projects, search for new areas of US-European space cooperation, and represent NASA in European media.


But what was he doing during the Apollo program:

in 1962, then received a Bachelor of Arts degree in astronomy (graduated summa cum laude) from Amherst College in 1966, a Doctor of Philosophy in astrophysics from Harvard University in 1971


At any rate, what is important is that this man represented NASA in European media. This being of course a European production.

What did he have to say? Well basically he says that it was the Cuban Fiasco that was the biggest factor. Of course the Cuban Missile crisis happened on Kennedy's watch. Elbas further explains that the US was concerned about the powerful rockets that the USSR could possess.

The Narrator than interjects, that one would have to be naive that all this money spent was simply to go and collect some moon rocks. That Apollo was the birth of "Star Wars", not the movie, but the program:



During the Cold War, the world's two great superpowers — the Soviet Union and the United States of America — spent large proportions of their GDP on developing military technologies. The drive to place objects in orbit stimulated space research and started the Space Race. In 1957, the USSR launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1.

By the end of the 1960s, both countries regularly deployed satellites. Spy satellites were used by militaries to take accurate pictures of their rivals' military installations. As time passed the resolution and accuracy of orbital reconnaissance alarmed both sides of the iron curtain. Both the United States and the Soviet Union began to develop anti-satellite weapons to blind or destroy each other's satellites. Laser weapons, kamikase style satellites, as well as orbital nuclear explosion were researched with varying levels of success. Spy satellites were, and continue to be, used to monitor the dismantling of military assets in accordance with arms control treaties signed between the two superpowers. To use spy satellites in such a manner is often referred to in treaties as "national technical means of verification".

The superpowers developed ballistic missiles to enable them to use nuclear weaponry across great distances. As rocket science developed, the range of missiles increased andintercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) were created, which could strike virtually any target on Earth in a timeframe measured in minutes rather than hours or days. In order to cover large distances ballistic missiles are usually launched into sub-orbital spaceflight. An intercontinental missile's altitude halfway through delivery is ca. 1200 km. As soon as intercontinental missiles were developed, military planners began programs and strategies to counter their effectiveness.

In the late 1950s United States Air Force considered dropping an atomic bomb on the Moon to display U.S. superiority to the Soviet Union and the rest of the world (Project A119). In 1959 feasibility study of a posible military base on the Moon (Project Horison) was conducted. in 1958 a plan for a 21-airman underground Air Force base on the Moon by 1968 was developed (Lunex Project).

The Safeguard Program was deployed in the mid 1970's and was based on the Sentinel Program. Since the ABM treaty only allowed for construction of a single ABM facility to protect either the nation's capital city or an ICBM field, the Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex was constructed near Nekoma, North Dakota to protect the Grand Forks ICBM facility. Though it was only operational as an ABM facility for less than a year, the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR), one of Safeguard's components, was still operational as of 2005. One major problem with the Safeguard Program, and past ABM systems, was that the interceptor missiles, though state of the art, required nuclear warheads to destroy incoming ICBMs. Future ABMs will likely be more accurate and utilise hit-to-kill or conventional warheads to knock down incoming warheads. The technology involved in such systems was shaky at best, and deployment was limited by the ABM treaty of 1972.
In 1983 American president Ronald Reagan proposed the "Strategic Defense Initiative" — a space-based system to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear missiles. The plan was ridiculed by some as unrealistic and expensive, and Dr. Carol Rosinnicknamed the policy "Star Wars", after the popular science-fiction movie franchise.


I guess you have a situation of, instead of bombing the moon, lets just send men there to prove our superiority.

The narrator states that the congress would have been hesitant to cough up so much money for "Star Wars" type programs. But to call it a "moonlanding program" would open their pocket books. Now Elbaz has a soundbite where he seems to confirm the statement made by the narrator.

Next the Narrator states that Von Braun knew that the Space Race would have to be entertaining. And here the plot hatched to make a dull rocket launch into something spectacular.

The narrator claims that the White House saw rushes of the film 2001. And that 2001 would prepare the public, who were already softened up by the Apollo program to greet the first landing with great enthusiasm. Now the narrator claims that NASA had seen rushes of 2001 and it influenced some of the designs of the space program.

And here we get to a possible truth between NASA and Kubrick. According to the production company behind the film:


Originally, in 2001, director William Karel wanted to make a film on Stanley Kubrick, one year after his death. While talking to his widow, he discovered the extent of the collaboration that existed between Kubrick and the NASA. It turns out that Kubrick and other Hollywood producers contributed largely to the popular success of the US space programme by turning it into a show (design of astronauts’ suits, colour fo the Apollo capsule, positioning of the rocket launcher in Cape Canaveral, etc…)
Starting with this true story, we came up with our own…



Now here is something interesting:


Spartacus became a big international hit, including the Soviet Union, in which the uprising of the slaves against the masters supported more or less official Marxist views. But also President Kennedy sneaked out of the White House to see the film right after the Hollywood premiere at the Warner Theater.


&


Stanley Borowski and Leonard Dudzinski, engineers at NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, were among the many inspired by 2001's vision of spaceflight. Real-life spaceflight events reinforced the film's exciting vision. In a July 1997 paper, they explained that

[f]or many of us this film brought to life the exciting possibilities awaiting humankind beyond the Apolloprogram - images of commercial spaceplanes, large orbiting space stations and commuter flights to sprawling settlements on the Moon. Less than six months after experiencing the thrill of Dr. Heywood Floyd's commuter flight to the Moon on the big screen, Apollo 8 would orbit our celestial neighbor ten times on Christmas Eve, followed seven months later by the historic lunar landing mission ofApollo 11. For [us], the images of the Apollo astronauts, their spacecraft, and the stunning alien landscapes of Hadley Rille, Descartes, and the Taurus-Littrow valley, all there for the taking, imprinted on our minds a future vision of lunar settlement no less dramatic than that portrayed in2001. After all, NASA would have nearly 30 years to develop the necessary technologies.


&


Not only did recordings of Strauss' music suddenly become very popular, but the music was also used in other films and TV shows, often as a comic or ironic homage to 2001. It was even played on the Apollo 8 mission around the moon.

But perhaps 2001's most profound cultural impact was its effect on how people visualize space exploration. As space historian Howard McCurdy has noted, 2001 established the popular image of what a space station should look like. When Americans are asked to draw a space station, they almost inevitably draw a giant spinning wheel in orbit, undoubtedly based upon their exposure to 2001. Perhaps more subtly, 2001 created expectations in the minds of people that the United States would continue to aggressively pursue space exploration after Apollo and would soon develop giant orbiting space stations and bases on the Moon. When Kubrick made 2001 in the midst of the Apollo program, his advisors did not think that bases on the moon and missions to Jupiter would be extremely far-fetched 30+ years in the future. When the actual year 2001 rolled around, however, various newspaper and magazine articles either lamented that the world had not lived up to their false expectations, or snorted that the movie had "gotten the future wrong." As at least one comic joked, "It's the twenty-first century; how come my car doesn't fly?"



It is clear that NASA and Kubrick worked closely together.
From 2001(1968) to Barry Lyndon (1975).

And we all know the Apollo reference in The Shining.
Whether or not you want it to mean that Kubrick was paying homage to his friends at NASA or
he was subtly telling the audience that he was behind the filming of the moon landing, there is no question they were put there intentionally:

The astronauts (ball) arrive at the launchpad (pattern on the ground)
Apollo 11 (sweater) launches and goes approx. 237 thousand miles (room 237) to the moon (room no... or moon room)

[yvid]yhCqefJ28ik[/yvid

Up to now what has the documentary actually claimed?
It claimed that the US wanted NASA to make the moon landing into a powerful propoganda event.
The documentary has not claimed that they weren't planning on going to the moon!

Next we see a shot of the statue of liberty and the documentary introduces us the absurd.


Gradually Karel's film ups the ante. In the following sequence we get to hear the memories of a middle-aged man walking his dog in New York, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, introduced as former Paramount producer "Jack Torrance" (Jack Nicholson's character in The Shining). Since the moon race was a war of images between the Soviets and the US, and NASA's Cape Canaveral installations were "laughable," it was decided to pep up the space program and turn it into a Hollywood show. Interlaced with shots of the launch site, "Torrance" recalls how "all Hollywood" interrupted their regular work to descend on Cape Canaveral with seven hundred technicians, designing new space suits, altering the rockets, relocating the launch site to line up with the sun, and, last but not least, decorating the rocket engine with gold leaf "of absolutely no use." In return, Hollywood was promised that in one of the next elections, one of theirs would become President. And indeed, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States!



Next another fictional character appears David Bowman. He states that a script was given to the astronauts so they knew what to say.


To stock footage in color of the launch of Apollo 11, the soundtrack features the upbeat folksy song "We guard our American border, we guard the American dream" taken straight from Barry Levinson's political conspiracy satire Wag the Dog (1997), another hint of unreliability and media-savvy manipulation of the public not all viewers will understand as such. In the following sequence, we encounter ostensible NASA ground crew member "Dave Bowman" (the protagonist's name in 2001), recollecting Neil Armstrong's reaction to having to speak the pre-scripted historical line "One small step for man..." ("Who wrote this crap?"), as well as the jokes Armstrong made before entiring the capsule (where the duty-free shop was?), and his sex-talk on the moon ("With Betty it's safe, but with Samantha it's the unknown, an adventure"), apparently unaware that two hundred staff in mission control were listening in, as we are shown black-and-white images of astronauts skipping and stumbling on the moon and of laughing ground crew members. Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.


Now pay close attention because the narrator states that the astronauts left for the moon and returned to Earth. What is the conspiracy here?

US used Apollo as propaganda? Of course.
Apollo astronauts used scripts: Possibly


When all three were finally up and around, they rehearsed what they would say. NASA hadn't written the script, having simply told the crew to come up with something appropriate. They didn't have much time to prepare a script of their own with the intense launch preparations, but a contact with the US Information Agency gave them a suggestion that they adopted.


&



There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronauts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronauts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out.



Google Video Link


The Astronaut says at :14 "Wait a minute, I've got the most beautiful thing here, I've got to pick this up before I lose it." At :37 you see and hear the Astronaut blow on the rock through the hidden breathing hole in his helmet. Tony at Houston Jokingly says at :41 "Blow on it" and he says it again at :46 "Blow on it". The Astronaut hearing what Tony said as an acting Cue, tells Tony that he had already as an intention, according to the predetermined Apollo 16 movie script, to deliberately blow on the rock, and says at :50 "Yea I was going too." This video as you hear it, is located for download at NASA site: history.nasa.gov... Apollo 16 Video Library Drilling the Deep Core Journal Text: 121:52:04 RealVideo Clip: (3 minutes 4 seconds)


&


NASA higher-ups decided which astronauts would make which missions, and any of the astronauts could have been chosen. When the crew for Apollo 11 was named, NASA decided weeks in advance that Armstrong, not Aldrin, would be the first to step out of the landing vehicle, and thus forever be the correct answer on history and science quizzes.

Even Armstrong's famous words when he stepped onto the moon ("That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind") were scripted for him -- and either flubbed or garbled in transmission. It was supposed to be "one small step for a man", which makes much more sense.


more to come in parttwo



www.centennialofflight.gov...
beyondapollo.blogspot.com...
www.nndb.com...
www.vectorsite.net...
www.uaff.us...
goliath.ecnext.com...
www.pointdujour-international.fr...
www.visual-memory.co.uk...
leica-users.org...
blog.glassquarterly.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.kirjasto.sci.fi...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Six stars for a post censored for 'manners and decorum'.

That says a lot about Weed and his NASA lovers.

edit: make that 7 stars... I just starred it!

edit on 19-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos... I think you might have officially lost the plot.
I'm personally struggling with your post.
Why bring that documentary/mockumentary into this debate.
Start another thread.

Do you think Jarrah White, whom this thread is about, endorses that film as 'fact' or believes, as you seem to, that that documentary contains hidden clues that prove the conspiracy theories it mentions?

If not then why bang on about it here, thus be-littling Jarrah's message?

You are now doing Jarrah an injustice as well as yourself.

I didn't get to see Weed's post that got censored but i hate to say it, you probably deserved it.
edit on 19-5-2011 by manmental because: loling too much



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 





more to come in parttwo


NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Start another thread dude... way off topic.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Six stars for a post censored for 'manners and decorum'.

That says a lot about Weed and his NASA lovers.


It was Worf slapping his head - I thought it was funny!


IMO if it had to be censored then it should have been "censored" for being OT, a "oneliner" or somethign along those lines - I didn't think it was indecorous or bad mannered at all.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
J.W. vindicated?

One of JW's first videos are Moonfaker: Exhibit A:





Where he has a visual arts teacher discuss perspective using
Apollo photo: AS17-136-20744

Now Youtube member AWE130 has come up with the following video on that same
subject:



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.


thats from your own source - has it sunk in yet ?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by FoosM
 

Foos... I think you might have officially lost the plot.
I'm personally struggling with your post.
Why bring that documentary/mockumentary into this debate.
Start another thread.
The answer to your rhetorical question is that FoosM has great difficulty admitting he's wrong about even the most minor matter. Jarrah was unquestionably wrong, and he refuses to admit it, or explain why that one point is so critical to Jarrah's argument.
edit on 2011/5/20 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 



Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.


thats from your own source - has it sunk in yet ?


Has what sunk in?
Either learn how to comprehend what you read or be clear with your comments.


edit on 20-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

edit on 20-5-2011 by FoosM because: dbl post



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FFS - your OWN source states clearly that the mockumentary that you insist is real is actually a spoof

it could not be clearer

SPOOF !!!!!!!!!!

your blinkered dogmatism is truely asstounding



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


FFS - your OWN source states clearly that the mockumentary that you insist is real is actually a spoof

it could not be clearer

SPOOF !!!!!!!!!!

your blinkered dogmatism is truely asstounding


What did I say in my last post ignorant_ape ?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 456  457  458    460  461  462 >>

log in

join