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.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 22
67
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You don't have to be rude about what you have to say. No I have not combed every inch of the vast treasures and tricksters filling the forums here at ATS, So I sincerely thank you for contributing some piece of evidence instead of just bickering like denver22 wants to do.


ok just for you i have done this hundreds of times on other threads but here you are.





P.S feel free to debunk these vids .Ohh and also as you are a new comer do not judge that i have not presented evidence as i have on moon threads like these for months ..



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Oh yeah, and how high should an extremley fit man (like an astronaught) be able to jump in 1/6th gravity. I would of thought its a lot higher than we see them hop.
watch.....



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
Oh the film I am recommending is Jay Weidner's documentary Kubrick's Odyssey. The first part tells of kubrick's pioneering film techniques, showing the similarity between the shots of the movie 2001 and the pictures of the Apollo 11 mission, describing Hoagland's popular discovery of structural dots and odd prisms appearing in the background of the moon pictures and Weidner giving his interpretation of it, and showing how the movie The Shining was Kubrick's attempt to admit to the world what he had done. The second part describes the alchemy of his work 2001: A Space Odyssey and what it represents and the message it is attempting to convey.


So did mr kubric go to the moon to get his rocks for his film
fact is you cannot make a moon rock .
the rocks came from the moon fact.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 

Regarding kubrics 2001 .... There are too many goofs. In several scenes we can see evidence that this is a manufactured film. We can see the edges of scenery panels, fly wires, reflections of equipment, rear projections, etc. These imperfections appear in every feature film despite efforts from filmmakers. Kubrick had several months and a large budget to orchestrate what would eventually be only two and a half hours of final product, and there were still errors. The Apollo program produced ten times that much footage with no editing seams and with no obvious mistakes.
The astronomy is wrong. The views from earth to the moon, and of the earth from the lunar surface don't match. For example, the earth is high in the lunar sky as seen from Clavius; it should be low on the horizon. The phase of the earth changes radically between scenes.
The photography is wrong. As in every space movie, we see a moving starfield in all the space scenes in 2001, along with sunlit objects. You cannot photograph both with the same camera settings. And even if you had a magical camera that could do it, the starfield shouldn't move. The cinematic reason for the moving starfield is to provide a background against which the motion of the foreground can be reckoned; filmmakers acknowledge it doesn't really happen that way, but it needs to happen in a movie.
The propulsion is wrong. As Dr. Floyd's lunar transport lands, the dust billows as it would in an atmosphere, because it was filmed in an atmosphere. The dust would displace in a vacuum, but it would tend to form a flat sheet and would disperse quickly. When Dave Bowman blows the emergency hatch on the pod in order to re-enter the airlock, the pod stays right there. It should have been propelled away from the ship by the force of the escaping air.
The zero-gravity scenes are wrong. As Dr. Floyd ascends to orbit he sips through a straw, and the fluid level drops back down to the container when he lets go. Sure, it could be a vacuum effect, but it's not the way drinking happens currently in zero gravity. In several scenes you can see supposedly weightless people moving as if there were gravity -- "grip soles" notwithstanding:
The Pan-Am captain hunches over Dr. Floyd's seat as a man in normal gravity would have done in order to rest his body weight on the seat back. Such a "hunker" is intuitive in gravity, but uncomfortable and unnatural in weightlessness.
Dr. Floyd's tray rises up from his lap -- presumably because Dr. Floyd has forgotten to secure it. What made it spontaneously start floating upward? Why did it sway from side to side? And why did it stop floating upward for no visible reason a split-second before Dr. Floyd grabs it? Newton screams "fraud!" at this sort of cinematic license.
The low-gravity scenes are wrong. The space station floor curves upward correctly to indicate the inside of a torus that spins to provide artificial gravity. But as the characters move about the scene they remain vertical with respect to the frame. They should instead tilt perpendicular to the angle of the floor where they are standing. There are numerous scenes that supposedly take place on the lunar surface, but no evidence of lesser gravity can be seen. The characters move as they would have on earth.
The lunar landscape is wrong. Kubrick shows us sharp-pointed mountains even though high-definition close-range photographs from Lunar Orbiter 2 (1966) showed the rounded mountains familiar in Apollo photographs.

Again conspiracists claim to be able to identify obscure and minute anomalies in Apollo photos and video, but they can't seem to do it with their own evidence. Nevertheless the important point is the conspiracist argument that NASA could do it because Kubrick could do it. As we've seen, Kubrick can't do it. He can't establish and maintain a truly credible "hoax" for two hours. Nor are the special effects convincing enough to fool observant people into actually thinking they represent space or lunar environments.
But there's actual evidence -- historical accounts -- that Kubrick worked with NASA to fake the footage.

Many conspiracists, led by Clyde Lewis, point to an article circling around the Internet which purports to describe in detail the process Kubrick used to fake the moon landings. But the article is obviously intended as a joke, as a careful reading reveals.







posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


I am going to stop watching your videos if you continue to post pointless, irrelevant, and off-topic videos. If you think this video has relevancy please state with each. Because it looks like you searched for the first 3 videos you found on youtube and then typed some awe inspiring campaign slogan for yourself underneath, "I have proven people like you wrong hundreds of times before." sure...sure...


You listed an incredible amount of reasons why 2001 was unrealistic in the way it was shot (too many, please!), and are stating that you think that S K would have shot both films with the same degree of scientific accuracy. (It sucks that I have to decipher your argument, if you could please be more clear and to the point it would help!)

I think that this is the perfect opportunity for him to emphasize the differences in each project. You say yourself that he didn't have much from his work to assemble into 2001. I think that he likely spent much more time on the A11 footage as is evidenced by the "loose ends" in the movie. Again I think these aspects were either done on purpose or rushed so much that they didn't even worry about them. As noted by the original ending credits in 2001, SK had help from numerous government agencies that would have supplied him exactly how to and how not to depict those objects between the two projects.

Also you can find many similarly telling signs in the A11 moon pictures that you also find in 2001. Like how every shot has something in front of the background blocking you from seeing a smooth transition. And how that transition often show differences in the foreground and background that suggest they are not from the same place.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 
Ok i will explain it to you keep your shirt on, i have done this now for a few months trying to convince someone on another thread along with others on this thread . Here goes the the explanation with the hammer and feather drop

At the end of the last Apollo moon walk, Commander David Scott performed a live demonstration for the television cameras. He held out a geologic hammer and a feather and dropped them at the same time. Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. Mission Controller Joe Allen described the demonstration in the "Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report":

During the final minutes of the third extravehicular activity, a short demonstration experiment was conducted. A heavy object (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory, but a result nonetheless reassuring considering both the number of viewers that witnessed the experiment and the fact that the homeward journey was based critically on the validity of the particular theory being tested which proved to be true..

P.S try this at home with a hammer and feather then get back to me with your conclusion.


edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 
The mirror on the moon explanation just for you
Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," . Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," .



The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.

Targeting the mirrors and catching their faint reflections is a challenge, but astronomers have been doing it for 35 years. A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity. There's a set of mirrors there onboard the parked Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover--maybe the coolest-looking robot ever built.

In this way, for decades, researchers have carefully traced the moon's orbit, and they've learned some remarkable things, among them:

(1) The moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. Why? Earth's ocean tides are responsible.

(2) The moon probably has a liquid core.

(3) The universal force of gravity is very stable. Newton's gravitational constant G has changed less than 1 part in 100-billion since the laser experiments began.

see captionPhysicists have also used the laser results to check Einstein's theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. So far, so good: Einstein's equations predict the shape of the moon's orbit as well as laser ranging can measure it. But Einstein, constantly tested, isn't out of the woods yet. Some physicists i think alley Alley is one of them) believe his general theory of relativity is flawed. If there is a flaw, lunar laser ranging might yet find it.



NASA and the National Science Foundation are funding a new facility in New Mexico, the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation or, appropriately, "APOLLO" for short. Using a 3.5-meter telescope with good atmospheric "seeing," researchers there have examined the moon's orbit with millimeter precision, 10 times better than before.

P.S I hope this explains the mirror on the moon and i quote left by the Apollo 11 astronauts for you



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22 "I have proven people like you wrong hundreds of times before." sure...sure...

Sure try and experiment with dropping a feather and hammer at the same time,
then get back to me with the results you found. I can personally guarantee that the hammer falls first but hey if you feel that you can prove me wrong, then sir be my guest
Are you sure... sure ...you can "prove" people like me wrong! then post your vids that you make to prove otherwise



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 




You listed an incredible amount of reasons why 2001 was unrealistic in the way it was shot


THANX..



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 


Also you can find many similarly telling signs in the A11 moon pictures that you also find in 2001. Like how every shot has something in front of the background blocking you from seeing a smooth transition. And how that transition often show differences in the foreground and background that suggest they are not from the same place.
That is right as kubric filmed on earth and the astrounauts from space i.e the moon.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix

Heavy enough to leave tracks. the astronauts left footprints didnt they.as the song says....there are more questions than answers.

[Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle]

The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was an electric vehicle designed to operate in the low-gravity vacuum of the Moon and to be capable of traversing the lunar surface, allowing the Apollo astronauts to extend the range of their surface extravehicular activities. Three LRVs were driven on the Moon, one on Apollo 15 by astronauts David Scott and Jim Irwin, one on Apollo 16 by John Young and Charles Duke, and one on Apollo 17 by Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. Each rover was used on three traverses, one per day over the three day course of each mission. On Apollo 15 the LRV was driven a total of 27.8 km in 3 hours, 2 minutes of driving time. The longest single traverse was 12.5 km and the maximum range from the LM was 5.0 km. On Apollo 16 the vehicle traversed 26.7 km in 3 hours 26 minutes of driving. The longest traverse was 11.6 km and the LRV reached a distance of 4.5 km from the LM. On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.

[Apollo 15 Lunar Roving Vehicle]

The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface. The frame was 3.1 meters long with a wheelbase of 2.3 meters. The maximum height was 1.14 meters. The frame was made of aluminum alloy 2219 tubing welded assemblies and consisted of a 3 part chassis which was hinged in the center so it could be folded up and hung in the Lunar Module quad 1 bay. It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels. An armrest was mounted between the seats, and each seat had adjustable footrests and a velcro seatbelt. A large mesh dish antenna was mounted on a mast on the front center of the rover. The suspension consisted of a double horizontal wishbone with upper and lower torsion bars and a damper unit between the chassis and upper wishbone. Fully loaded the LRV had a ground clearance of 36 cm.

[Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle]

The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and an 81.8 cm diameter, 23 cm wide tire made of zinc coated woven 0.083 cm diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50% of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 64.8 cm diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust guards were mounted above the wheels. Each wheel had its own electric drive, a DC series wound 0.25 hp motor capable of 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit. Manuevering capability was provided through the use of front and rear steering motors. Each series wound DC steering motor was capable of 0.1 hp. Both sets of wheels would turn in opposite directions, giving a steering radius of 3.1 meters, or could be decoupled so only one set would be used for steering. Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr. These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36 volt utility outlet mounted on front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. Passive thermal controls kept the batteries within an optimal temperature range.

[Lunar Roving Vehicle Deployment]

A T-shaped hand controller situated between the two seats controlled the four drive motors, two steering motors and brakes. Moving the stick forward powered the LRV forward, left and right turned the vehicle left or right, pulling backwards activated the brakes. Activating a switch on the handle before pulling back would put the LRV into reverse. Pulling the handle all the way back activated a parking brake. The control and display modules were situated in front of the handle and gave information on the speed, heading, pitch, and power and temperature levels. Navigation was based on continuously recording direction and distance through use of a directional gyro and odometer and inputting this data to a computer which would keep track of the overall direction and distance back to the LM. There was also a Sun-shadow device which could give a manual heading based on the direction of the Sun, using the fact that the Sun moved very slowly in the sky. The image at left shows a diagram of the layout of the control and display module, the Sun-shadow device is at top center between the heading and speed readouts.

Hope this helps explain that is not just a go cart, as alot of people think of it that way.
The LRV lunar rover vehicle cost alot of money . I used to just look at it as a go cart then i stopped following the charlatans and saw the reality of it all that they just con you into thinking that way in order for attention and money.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



Also you can find many similarly telling signs in the A11 moon pictures that you also find in 2001. Like how every shot has something in front of the background blocking you from seeing a smooth transition. And how that transition often show differences in the foreground and background that suggest they are not from the same place.


I'm sorry. Please explain yourself more clearly and/or provide specific examples.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 
"I have proven people like you wrong hundreds of times before."
Fire away



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 


I am going to stop watching your videos if you continue to post pointless, irrelevant, and off-topic videos. If you think this video has relevancy please state with each.
Sure, here goes .....

1 The mirror is on the moon fact
2 The moon has 1/6th of the earths gravity and the hammer and feather experiment cannot be achieved with the same results as you, i or kubric can, once again try it for yourself sir..
3 The pendulum swings like that, due to no air wind resistance on the moon..



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 
"I have proven people like you wrong hundreds of times before."
Fire away


You are taking this quote completely out of context. i compared it to your "slogan" for yourself that you put as the only words with your off topic video posts. I mean seriously, am I arguing with a twelve-year old? Please ACTUALLY read what I posted before you start linking vast numbers of off topic resources. If you can't get back on topic with this, then we aren't even able to discuss it rationally.

Just because you can prove your point, doesn't mean you've actually made a point.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 




Also you can find many similarly telling signs in the A11 moon pictures that you also find in 2001. Like how every shot has something in front of the background blocking you from seeing a smooth transition. And how that transition often show differences in the foreground and background that suggest they are not from the same place.



Why dont you provide a link to these pictures then post a couple with your reasons why you think they are fake.

Quite a few photographers on here who would like to here what you have to say



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Show me your evidence horse master, and i shall show you mine...
Pics- you need to post to back up your claims .. Also please do not say that i do not provide any evidence on my posts as the people you are talking to on this page knows, i have posted along with them with evidence in another space thread.

Do not judge me a troll as i am not one, and will only bite if my friends get bitten voicing their views...
So once again please post your evidence, otherwise none of us can voice it can they sir..

Good day sir.....



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join