Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

reply to post by Helious

DJ, I would be interested to know if you have watched the film, "Kubrick's Odyssey". If so, I would be even more interested on your thoughts about what facts the film presents and about how plausible the things it only suggests are, in your mind.

I have too much respect for Kubrick's life and work to watch a film made by someone trying to exploit and defame him. Sorry. Nobody ever told Kubrick what to do, or had to pay to shut him up.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

DJ, I would be interested to know if you have watched the film, "Kubrick's Odyssey". If so, I would be even more interested on your thoughts about what facts the film presents and about how plausible the things it only suggests are, in your mind.

I have too much respect for Kubrick's life and work to watch a film made by someone trying to exploit and defame him. Sorry. Nobody ever told Kubrick what to do, or had to pay to shut him up.

but dude. the little kid in the shining was wearing an apollo 11 sweater. what more proof do you need ?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

On front screen projection: If you have a big enough, nonreflective, screen, you should be able to get the illusion to work. You would just need to project the colors that, when combined, will be close enough to black to create the illusion.

I'm afraid you don't know how light mixes. When you combine primary colors, they mix to form white. You cannot mix light to form black. Black is the absence of light. A non-reflective screen defeats the point of being a projection screen, doesn't it? The foreground would reflect the plates better than the background! In planetariums, a dark neutral grey is used to minimize "spill" from the projected stars. If you stand between the dome and the projector, the stars or scenery will appear brighter on your shirt than on the projection surface!

On the radiation: There is no way anyone can argue with numbers that come from the very people who perpetrate the "hoax".

There is no need to resort to using NASA's figures. This paper, written by a Czech, is based on the pioneering research of a pioneering Russian space scientist, E. E. Kovalev:

w3.tue.nl...



In simple English, 2 millimeters of aluminium will provide adequate shielding for human beings for a few hours, especially if the trajectory is at an angle of greater than 30 degrees to the equator. I emphasize that this is based on Russian research.

I put hoax in quotes, because I do not know if it is a hoax or a fact, and, tbh, I don't really care if it was a hoax or not. Thus, explaining my lack of effort in the other posts. My original post was just to give you some ideas to play with.

Thank you; you have given me an opportunity to explore the "radiation issue."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

DJ, I would be interested to know if you have watched the film, "Kubrick's Odyssey". If so, I would be even more interested on your thoughts about what facts the film presents and about how plausible the things it only suggests are, in your mind.

I have too much respect for Kubrick's life and work to watch a film made by someone trying to exploit and defame him. Sorry. Nobody ever told Kubrick what to do, or had to pay to shut him up.

How very pretentious of you! Kubrick was a free spirit, that is ultimately what most likely led to his death no doubt. That said, you can not ignore his underlying and obvious need to convey secret messages through film. Those messages ultimately were depicting that of "Illuminati" symbolism and if there was an organization who could try to control Kubrick s hand, it would be them and that would be why he was trying to expose the society.

He was a little too bold in the symbolism with Eyes Wide Shut and that I feel was going to be the end of his story telling. Those are my opinions and my opinions alone but what I can not figure out is how somebody like you who would defend to the death your position on NASA,TPTB, and there integrity in such a matter you can't be bothered to watch such an eye opening film on the subject matter because you surmise it to be whimsical and offensive prematurely.

Originally posted by Helious
... Kubrick was a free spirit, that is ultimately what most likely led to his death no doubt. ...

What? How do the two even relate? Please explain this statement, it's very mysterious.

reply to post by delusion


Read HERE or just search out the circumstances and time of Kubrick's death.

"On March 7, 1999, four days after screening a final cut of Eyes Wide Shut for his family and the stars, Kubrick died in his sleep from a heart attack at the age of 70."

Ya, I don get it?
The idea being that his last movie so exposed the practices of the Illuminati they killed him for it? But they let the film be released?
I guess if you think it's suspicious that's fine, but if you're going to use it as evidence in the moon hoax debate, can you present some compelling evidence?
Otherwise, you don't have to convince me.

reply to post by DJW001


On radiation: I concede. The entire argument is a fallacy, since one cannot argue against numbers they cannot produce themselves. No amount of logic and critical thinking can dispute whether or not "those who can get the numbers" are telling the truth.

On front screen projection: Are you purposely obfuscating void of light(black) with illusion of black (the color black), in order to deny the possible use of front screen projectors? You know that colors can be combined to create the color black, because you see it all the time when you look at your tv, computer, pictures, etc. See the color that surrounds the moon in your avatar? That's black.

Moreover, I was not referring to the nonreflective qualities of things like black holes. When I said nonreflective, I meant something that did not reflect a strong enough light back onto the astronauts as to saturate or discolor their suits, create washout, and be reflected upon by their suits. It was in direct context to what you had previously said, but I'm sure you know that.

Brief explanation of filming with front screen projection: An image is cast behind an actor and onto a screen that is less reflective than a typical movie screen, as it uses beads that are angled towards their intended light source. By angling the beads, it blocks a lot of light from unwanted sources, thus, causing less saturation, washout, discoloration, reflections, etc.

If it helps, picture an enormous Light Bright with bulbs that are less translucent, on their side that facing you, and more translucent, on their side facing their light source(from above).

Please note: I am not arguing that they did use front screen projection, only that it is possible, AND any more deliberate obfuscation will be ignored.

reply to post by Helious

Kubrick was a free spirit,

if you believe the HB delusions - kubrik " sold out " just to get his hands o the only F0.7 camera lens in existance [ at the time ]

that is ultimately what most likely led to his death no doubt.

over 30 years later ? - PS as you are so obseesed with the notion he was killed because of EWS - have you bothered to read the 100 year old novella its based on ?

reply to post by DJW001

Now-- give it your best shot.

Apollo is far too big a subject and I can't really do it justice in one thread. It's like JFK. There are numerous theories and not all of them can co-exist in one reality.
But some of these theories can co-exist. Like the theory that says they went, they landed, they found something, so they had to cover it up by fabricating any number of x,y,z things, such as charts, maps, flight transcripts, read outs, photographs, films, ad nauseum nauseum.

For instance, you can look at this chart all day long but this chart will never tell you that at least some of the Apollo personal radiation dosimeters didn't function properly! At least 3 of them failed on Apollo missions.


In some theories the conspiracy is nefarious; while others maintain they are covering up certain facts to protect us from something that they considered (at the time) to be a very dangerous secret. There are so many viewpoints. NASA's official Apollo story is just one viewpoint among many. Like the Warren Commission report is just a view point.

Some of the astronauts themselves have made provocative statements over the years about things as Roswell and UFO's. NASA's 1970's film studio seem to be rubbing it in our faces with the movie titles, too?


And how about Jim Irwin's camera that jammed up at Dune Crater. He brought it back to Earth, it was examined by experts and then it seems to have disappeared from history. Kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes that magically disappeared somewhere between the National Archives and Goddard Space Flight Center.

43 years later NASA has requested a Keep Out Zone around the lunar landing sites. Not suspicious at all. NASA still can't get one single human or test animal out of LEO. NASA is galloping around the country trying to find all of Richard Nixon's gift rocks and why? Could it be simulated regolith encased in plastic? I don't know. And nobody knows for sure.

At some point in time we have to face all these various questions and come to the conclusion that we aren't getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth from NASA. We could be getting a fantasy story based on science fact or a propaganda tv show based on a Howard Hughes production of Richard Nixon's Apollo.


A lot of things can be discovered by looking closely at the Apollo narratives, in the public records, in the databases and catalogues, in the reports, the images, the films, the personal testimonies, etc. What do we believe? That's up to the individual reader to decide. These Apollo threads will continue to thrive here on ATS thats for sure.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Apollo is far too big a subject and I can't really do it justice in one thread. It's like JFK. There are numerous theories and not all of them can co-exist in one reality.

This is a typical rhetorical trick used by conspiracy theorists: if you invoke the assassination of JFK or 911, it instantly validates any conspiracy you can dream up. Aliens at Roswell? JFK! The Loch Ness Monster? 911! There have been conspiracies throughout history, and are no doubt conspiracies unfolding now, but the existence of one conspiracy does not automatically validate the existence of another.

But some of these theories can co-exist. Like the theory that says they went, they landed, they found something, so they had to cover it up by fabricating any number of x,y,z things, such as charts, maps, flight transcripts, read outs, photographs, films, ad nauseum nauseum.

Fabricating all those records requires a great deal of work. What's more, they all need to be consistent and verifiable by other researchers. This would require large numbers of experts consciously forging the material. The more people who are involved, the greater the risk of exposure. Throughout history, successful conspiracies have always been small.

For instance, you can look at this chart all day long but this chart will never tell you that at least some of the Apollo personal radiation dosimeters didn't function properly! At least 3 of them failed on Apollo missions.

How can a piece of film fail? Which three dosimeters failed? Where's your source for this?

In some theories the conspiracy is nefarious; while others maintain they are covering up certain facts to protect us from something that they considered (at the time) to be a very dangerous secret. There are so many viewpoints. NASA's official Apollo story is just one viewpoint among many. Like the Warren Commission report is just a view point.

In other words, everyone can have their own fantasy because once you dismiss the facts, there is nothing to hinder your imagination.

Some of the astronauts themselves have made provocative statements over the years about things as Roswell and UFO's. NASA's 1970's film studio seem to be rubbing it in our faces with the movie titles, too?

The fact that the astronauts are free to say anything they want is strong evidence that they are not mind controlled zombies.

And how about Jim Irwin's camera that jammed up at Dune Crater. He brought it back to Earth, it was examined by experts and then it seems to have disappeared from history.

It helps if you don't actually look for something, doesn't it? Have you at least sent e-mails to various curators? No.

Kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes that magically disappeared somewhere between the National Archives and Goddard Space Flight Center.

They didn't magically disappear, they were taped over:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Be thankful that government workers know how to scrounge. You have never explained what you expect to find on these tapes. How would playing them back differ from reviewing the data on the charts made from them?

43 years later NASA has requested a Keep Out Zone around the lunar landing sites. Not suspicious at all.

No, it's no more suspicious than putting cordons around things in a museum. You don't want souvenir hunters stripping the place bare. If you've ever been to Rome, you would understand. In any event, it is only the Apollo 11 and 17 sites that have been singled out for landmark status. The other sites will be systematically excavated to determine the viability of the various materials in the lunar environment.

NASA still can't get one single human or test animal out of LEO.

Don't confuse "not interested in" with can't.

NASA is galloping around the country trying to find all of Richard Nixon's gift rocks and why? Could it be simulated regolith encased in plastic? I don't know. And nobody knows for sure.

NASA is not galloping around the country looking for the samples that were given as gifts. They are looking for samples that were stolen.

At some point in time we have to face all these various questions and come to the conclusion that we aren't getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth from NASA. We could be getting a fantasy story based on science fact or a propaganda tv show based on a Howard Hughes production of Richard Nixon's Apollo.

Or not.

How about the fact that lets say an astronaut weighed approx 185 pound give or take, and his suit and gear weighed 185 pound, so 370 pound in total. In the supposed 1/6 gravity of the moon that would make his total weight around 60 ish pounds right? So these guys were in athletic condition, strong and fit right? so they should have been able to jump around six feet straight up.but how high do we see them jump? No higher than we can on earth..............................................

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

How about the fact that lets say an astronaut weighed approx 185 pound give or take, and his suit and gear weighed 185 pound, so 370 pound in total. In the supposed 1/6 gravity of the moon that would make his total weight around 60 ish pounds right? So these guys were in athletic condition, strong and fit right? so they should have been able to jump around six feet straight up.but how high do we see them jump? No higher than we can on earth..............................................

The astronauts would need to be able to fully bend their knees in order to high jump. The suits were pressurized and limited their mobility. Watch any video of astronauts bouncing on the lunar surface and notice how high they bounce with very little effort-- or bending of knees.

reply to post by DJW001


Hahaha ... I'll say they bounce with very little effort/bending of the knee.



It's probably because in this example the astronaut is being dragged/pulled by some kind of unseen mechanism. There is NO WAY to jump, on the moon or anywhere else and kick up globs of dust IN FRONT OF YOU. The astronaut in this video is being "pulled" by something. Physics doesn't lie. There is your HOAX proof you shill.

Go to the beach try to jump in the sand and kick sand up in front of you while you do. You can't do it.

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix


The problem becomes that their center of gravity is to their back, because of the PLSS they're wearing. If you jump really high, and tip backwards, and land on that, you can damage it. Or if you don't, you end up like a turtle and can't get up. Damage the PLSS, and you're really in trouble.

What I would recommend, is that we gather all the pieces of "evidence" together for the landing being a hoax, and then conduct a poll where hoax-believers vote for which are the most convincing. At the end of the poll, we should gather the 3-5 most "smoking gun" pieces of evidence, and have the moon-landing believers address them.

The reason this will be effective, is that hoax-believers think quantity is more important than quality. They think that having 100 pieces of poor, unconvincing evidence adds up to a convincing case, but it doesn't. Evidence doesn't work that way, it's fallacious reasoning of the "no smoke without fire" form.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a hoax-believer have a piece of "evidence" completely debunked only to smugly say "so what, there's 100 more pieces of evidence I can throw at you". I sincerely believe that the 3-5 "smoking guns" will be easily explainable, or at the very best completely unconvincing, and the case for a hoax will be proved beyond doubt to be without any real basis in reality.

Hoax-believers shouldn't be allowed to muddy the waters like this any more, and should be made to produce only the small number of evidences they find truly compelling, rather than trying to win the argument by the sheer quantity of evidences, however poor, they are able to throw at the skeptics.

The same goes for 9/11, actually, and conspiracy theories in general.

Just look at the first few responses in this thread, there is no attempt to pick out a single piece of convincing evidence, they prefer to link to youtube videos that throw out accusations and claims like grains of sand on a beach, making proper refutation close to impossible - if the skeptic even were to go through the painstaking trouble of addressing each point individually, there will always be another youtube video the believer will link to.

Originally posted by JayDub113

Go to the beach try to jump in the sand and kick sand up in front of you while you do. You can't do it.

edit on 29-11-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

Sure you can. I used to do it all the time, especially with shoes on, and I wasn't even jumping. The toe of your shoe tends to dig a little bit into the sand, so when you swing your leg forward, you kick sand ahead of you.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Bull s&^% you can not. You did not jump on the beach for the sole purpose of trying to recreate the effect in the video bull%^$&, and NO you can not.

You don't "swing your legs forward" when you jump you PUSH, off the balls of your feet, upwards and forwards. You don't dig your feet in the sand and TRY to kick it up. Sure you could, and you'd kick up sand but you would jump backwards. Come on.

Now.. if you jumped and landed in some nice fine powder, and were then pulled up back up, well then you would kick up a ton of dust.. just like the video. And you wouldn't bend your knees too much or expend that much effort either...

reply to post by JayDub113

Bull s&^% you can not. You did not jump on the beach for the sole purpose of trying to recreate the effect in the video bull%^$&, and NO you can not

Have you ever been to a beach? Also, why do you think the astronaut was being pulled on a wire? What purpose would that serve? Also, if he were being pulled forward by a wire, why does he turn to face the camera at the end of the sequence?