Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 24
37
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


The Earth may be 4.5 million years old, but our species (Homo sapiens) have only been around for about 200,000 years.

Here's and interesting fact: for 80% of the time that life has been on the Earth (about 3.8 billion years), that life had been single-cell organisms. Us multi-celled organisms (such as earthworms, goldfish, dinosaurs, pine trees, humans, woolly mammoths, birds and mice) have only been around for a very short time in the history of life on Earth. Even the dinosaurs didn't show up until very late in Earth's history.

Humans are more closely related to dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to the early life on Earth.




posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


you ment 4.5 billions years old i believe



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


you ment 4.5 billions years old i believe

Yes -- Thank you.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
My studied answer? No trips to the Moon at any time! First faked images were by Stanley Kubrick who did them so he could later film his space movies. He was haunted by doing this and so filmed them so we could tell that they were faked. I believe that he died suddenly at the age of 70 on an anniversary of this filming.There is (or was) an article on the Web telling how he showed images in his movie, "The Shining" that pointed to his moon work. This U.S. Government has been lieing to us for a very long time! Are you going to believe them now??


jra

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Yahshua
First faked images were by Stanley Kubrick who did them so he could later film his space movies.


Then why does the Lunar landscape in the movie "2001" look nothing like the actual Lunar landscape in the Apollo photos and videos? Why does "2001" have so many mistakes and other errors? Not even Kubrick himself, could overcome the limitations of filming on Earth. He wasn't able to accurately simulate a 0G environment, or a 1/6G for the Moon, nor was he able to simulate the Vacuum of space either.


There is (or was) an article on the Web telling how he showed images in his movie, "The Shining" that pointed to his moon work.


Could you find that please? So we can all judge the authenticity of that claim.


This U.S. Government has been lieing to us for a very long time! Are you going to believe them now??


Thankfully I don't need to rely on the Government to tell me what is and what isn't real. Science along with some knowledge and common sense tells me it was real. There were 400,000 people who were apart of making Apollo successful. No one with any science or engineering background, anywhere in the world, has claimed Apollo to be a hoax in the past 40 years.

Please show us the slightest shred of evidence that Stanley Kubrick had anything to do with Apollo.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



No one with any science or engineering background, anywhere in the world, has claimed Apollo to be a hoax in the past 40 years.


Pretty big call..
I'll have to look into that..


I'll start with that "no crater" vid...
Pretty sure some engineers were involved..



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 



No one with any science or engineering background, anywhere in the world, has claimed Apollo to be a hoax in the past 40 years.


Pretty big call..
I'll have to look into that..


I'll start with that "no crater" vid...
Pretty sure some engineers were involved..

If you are asking why there was no crater made by the LEM when it landed, that's because the engine was fully throttle-able (i.e., the force coming form the thrusters was not that great at that point), and -- more importantly -- the Moon is hard and solid under a relatively thin layer of surface dust -- it's not made of loose dust all the way down.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 4Yahshua
 


Rubbish.


My studied answer?


NO, you simply "read" that somewhere, probably on the Web, and bought it hook, line and sinker....without proper comprehension, nor critical thinking applied.


Now, this was covered already above but--- Look again at this, and spot the lack of logic, and sheer mistakes:


First faked images were by Stanley Kubrick who did them so he could later film his space movies.


What Kubrick "space movies"?? He did ONE -- "2001: A Space Odyssey" As mentioned, loaded with many, many mistakes that true fans of the film, and of science can spot (and, most overlook, allowing for the time and era of the film).

BTW....principle photography for "2001" was underway in 1966!! And, 1967! Release date for the film, to the public? 1968! (In April of that year....).... Tell us, when did Apollo 11 land, again???


Principal photography began December 29, 1965, in Stage H at Shepperton Studios, Shepperton, England. {skip}...... Filming of actors was completed in September 1967...


Source

Ergo, in your comment, "...so he could later film his space movies...." it shows a completely illogical and misinformed timeline of actual, historical events.

Kubrick directed (made) 13 films total....only one "space" related:

1950s: Fear and Desire; Killer's Kiss; The Killing and Paths of Glory
1960s: Spartacus; Lolita; Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey
1970s: A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon
1980s: The Shining and Full Metal Jacket
1990s: Eyes Wide Shut


Look see all the mistakes, just in this short clip. (Pivotal sequence for the storyline):



Look how terribly, terribly fake the "Lunar landscape" looks. The way the lunar-scape is lit, as (critical point in film) they are just at the terminator line, as "morning" is approaching. The location of the Earth, in the background, and the way IT is illuminated, is inconsistent. (Also, they are supposed to be at the crater Tycho....the general area called "Tycho" is between about 40° and 45° South latitude. From there, on the Lunar surface, I would have to check, but I don't think the Earth would be so low to the horizon. That would be more appropriate for a much further South location, looking North, back towards the Moon's equator.

LOOK at the actors!! See how they are walking? It is obviously on Earth, in 1G. And, the suits? Obviously not pressurized, in a vacuum!!! (They have "camel toes", for gosh sakes!!)



In 1966 no one (outside, possibly, of NASA) would have had any idea what the REAL thing would, and should have looked like. Up to then, the only actual EVA suit experience in real space, real vacuum were in "space walks", outside the capsule EVAs. No locomotion under 1/6th G, in reality....UNTIL Apollo 11....



He was haunted by doing this and so filmed them so we could tell that they were faked.


Totally made up nonsense....



No trips to the Moon at any time!


You are utterly mistaken. I have to wonder: Is your screen name choice a clue to a tendency to embrace these "hoax beliefs" regarding the Apollo program? It is good enough for Bart Sibrel....some religious fervor that he possesses, and that drives him. Misguided, though it is......


edit on 12 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker you know I am a huge fan and your depiction of the timeline in refuting 4Yahshua is SPOT ON. (Weedwhacker AND the Devil are in the details.) I whole heartedly agree that those who draw parallels to 2001 or use it as a prop (oh look a pun, just for you) to support their Moon Hoax claims are absurd and unfounded.

HOWEVER, as a huge fan of Kubrick and as someone who is versed in film making, I'd hate for the consternation and scrutiny of the film "2001" as it relates to NASA and the APOLLO program diminish the remarkable feat and EPIC nature of the film. In a pre CGI world the film is nothing short of extraordinary both from a technical achievement and cinema perspective. (All of the effects were a combination of organic film optical effects and principle in-camera photography. I equate it to the construction of the pyramids on the scale of fantastic engineering marvels) A a minor note, all of the "telemetry" on the monitors were pre-produced film opticals rear projected to emulate CRT's which were in their infancy. In short: Kubrick was a genius.

I don't suggest or infer that is what you are doing, but just wanted to point that out.
edit on 12-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I won't claim your moon landings never happened, but quite a lot of stuff in moon footage points towards it being staged (the footage I mean, not per se the landing itself).

For example, the wires used to stage walking around in a lower gravity environment that you see blinking above the astronauts. I've always found that odd. Around 1:10 in the video:



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Movhisattva
 

Those "wires" are the antenna on the top of the astronauts' backpacks.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



If you are asking why there was no crater made by the LEM when it landed, that's because the engine was fully throttle-able (i.e., the force coming form the thrusters was not that great at that point), and -- more importantly -- the Moon is hard and solid under a relatively thin layer of surface dust -- it's not made of loose dust all the way down.


No I wasn't..
I was saying there may have been engineers in that vid that disagree with the landings..
JRA said mo engineers or scientists have EVER questioned the moon landings..



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

Thank you for that perfectly sane explanation. Obvious, really.
One enigma less for my mind.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I completely agree with jra's sentiment, but I think it may be a stretch to claim that NO engineer anywhere in the world believes in the Apollo hoax.

I've always said the there are people of all sorts in every walk of life. Just because someone is an engineer does not mean that they can't be of the personal opinion that the Moon landings were a hoax.

However, for every engineer who thinks the landings were a hoax, or for every engineer who says the Apollo missions could not happen for one or another technical reasons, there are many many more engineers who would disagree. Therefore, the fact that there are a few engineers who say the Moon landings are a hoax is as meaningful as when non-engineers say so.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Please excuse me if this was already brought up, I tried to look through all the pages but might have missed it-
I thought the controversy or conspiracy theory wasn't about whether or not we actually walked on the moon, but simply about whether the film and photos of it were faked because they were pressed for time to get up there, but hadn't worked out the technological problems with cameras (the big changes in temperature and protecting the film..). So the story was they went up, they did it, but they had Kubrick fake the film.

Have you seen this documentary?



It is pretty interesting... I wonder how they got people like Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleberger, Al Haig and Donald Rumsfeld to make these claims? Or what?
I don't have any firm belief myself that this is true, but I did find that compelling and would like to see the criticism for debunking?
edit on 12-4-2011 by coquine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Yup....perhaps missed in the text above:


As mentioned, loaded with many, many mistakes that true fans of the film...


Of which, I am one. Point was, despite Kubrick's famed attention to detail, and zealous attempts at authenticity, they just did NOT know enough, yet back then, to be accurate to the extent that we know now. They were, at the time of the film's production, still stabbing in the dark, as to "how" things "should" have looked....

....(AND, I am an aficionado of sorts, a film buff. Long ago studied the ground-breaking techniques, tricks and innovations that Kubrick and SFX virtuoso Douglas Trumbull used. Too bad they never thought to access the "Vomit Comet" --- or it wasn't in budget, or available --- as has been done in later films. Of course, the camera equipment back then may not have been as versatile, so....no "SteadiCams", and such....).....
edit on 12 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by coquine
 



Have you seen this documentary?

It is pretty interesting... I wonder how they got people like Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleberger, Al Haig and Donald Rumsfeld to make these claims? Or what?
I don't have any firm belief myself that this is true, but I did find that compelling and would like to see the criticism for debunking?


It's not a documentary, it's a mockumentary! Those aren't really Kissinger and company, they are actors:


It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality....

Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke...

Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman, Jack Torrance, and Dimitri Muffley are named after characters from movies directed by Kubrick. There are also references to films by Alfred Hitchcock, as both Eve Kendall and George Kaplan are character names in North by Northwest, and Ambrose Chapel is a location in the 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Wikipedia [Edits mine. --DJW001



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by coquine
 


You have to understand most of the equipment that got us to the moon was made by private contractors, not NASA and they proudly will give you all the technical information you could ask for on their own websites. From me about 8 pages ago.

I suggest you go to the HASSELBLAD website, they explain in detail how their moon cameras were modified, but

www.hasselbladusa.com...

history.nasa.gov...

www.myspacemuseum.com...

history.nasa.gov...

Now these are just the large still images, the live TV is a whole other field, but it's the still images that conspiracists point to the most. They had to be returned to earth, developed and processed, (the cameras were left on the moon to save weight, every detail added up).



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


LOL!!! Yes....



Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman....



"Dave Bowman"!
From the movie we were just discussing, above! Kubrick's "2001!. (An intentional homage, perhaps?)

The "Bowman" character was, of course, played by Keir Dullea. Reprised (briefly) in the film version of the 'sequel'...2010.


"Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

....Dave. Stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?.....I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave.
" (HAL 9000).




posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK, we're good.
I keep forgetting you're old like me.

Douglas Trumbull....amazing guy. Cray 1...amazing super computer. First computer to employ Integrated Circuits and like all computers generated a lot of heat.
Cooling System of Cray 1 computer

Those WERE the days my friend.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join