Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

Originally posted by denver22
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.....

I did not say you don't provide any evidence, I said that you don't provide any relevant evidence to the argument and don't read my posts, which seems to have happened again.

reply to post by vv3vv3vv

This shows the pioneering use of a :glass curtain" that was able to display a picture that is projected upon it, this was a technique developed before "green screen" CG effects. In nearly all the A11 pictures the floor in the background is hidden from view just as in the film 2001. As well background and foreground have different textures suggesting they are not from the same location.
behindmoviescenes.com...
Do you see how the rocky outcropping blocks the camera's view of the lights and stage, while the rocky ground blocks your view of the bottom of the curtain that he is projecting the background on.

Front projection only works if the background is brighter than the foreground. Kubrick used it on the "Dawn of Man" sequence, not the space sequences. You cannot project black onto a screen. The screen picks up ambient light and turns gray. Please provide examples of the foreground "masking" the background in the Apollo photographs.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by vv3vv3vv

 

This shows the pioneering use of a :glass curtain" that was able to display a picture that is projected upon it, this was a technique developed before "green screen" CG effects. In nearly all the A11 pictures the floor in the background is hidden from view just as in the film 2001. As well background and foreground have different textures suggesting they are not from the same location.
behindmoviescenes.com...
Do you see how the rocky outcropping blocks the camera's view of the lights and stage, while the rocky ground blocks your view of the bottom of the curtain that he is projecting the background on.

Front projection only works if the background is brighter than the foreground. Kubrick used it on the "Dawn of Man" sequence, not the space sequences. You cannot project black onto a screen. The screen picks up ambient light and turns gray. Please provide examples of the foreground "masking" the background in the Apollo photographs.

How about you try watching the film ? It's only 654 MB to download and you can delete it afterwards if you think it is rubbish. I'm not going to do ALL the work for you.

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22

 

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
reply to post by denver22

 

Greetings:

Not to steal anyone's thunder, but what the hell did we just watch?

A new low on ATS.

But you're right, we did not have to click... however, sometimes gems can be found here and there sometimes with purposely confusing titles - sadly, this is not the case.

As an ex-Denverite (Colorado & Colfax), we hereby respectfully request you reconsider what you post, as it is attached to your name forever and the tripe

you wasted bandwidth with is not consistent with the high-quality of the general, run-of-the-mill posts here on ATS, the best learning experience on the Internet.

Good thing your 'post' is so far below the curve to be off-scale so as to be an automatic toss-out and does not affect the (IMO) high median.

Anyway, this is really not intended to flame, but is an attempt at a gentle nudge towards awareness and how precious time and interaction with fellow travelers is and there is no time or space to waste.

See? Everyone thinks you are a troll that can't contribute a worthy piece of evidence or even a logically based opinion.

Mate quite a few have posts like that pretty much everyone will get someone dissagreeing with someone . P.S How is that everyone that is someones reply , mate you are new here and you have thrown accusations when you do not even know me . I could be here all century if i was to post everyones bad comments towards 100% of the ATS members on here as everyone will have experianced it.

I post evidence when i can be bothered on most threads when my daughter is not awake ..
May i add in great detail ..
Chill out do not post something like that as you will get your fare share of these as well you will get people calling you a troll also that vid i posted that got critisism is a common thing which you will learn on here buddy. P.S if you have it in for me, then meet up with me because you are now really pi****g me off big time and lets meet up to sort it out we will talk over a drink like men
Or shall we carry on with this thread then . like men .

reply to post by vv3vv3vv

How about you try watching the film ? It's only 654 MB to download and you can delete it afterwards if you think it is rubbish. I'm not going to do ALL the work for you.

No, why don't you provide one single example of an Apollo photograph that was obviously done using front projection? I'm not going to do all the work for you.

armstrong gave a very rare interview recently and I had to lol at this


Armstrong laughed off the conspiracy theorists who believe the 1969 moon landing was faked, telling CPA Australia's Malley that "800,000 staff at NASA couldn't possibly keep a secret."

"People love conspiracy theories, but it was never a concern to me -- because I know one day someone's going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left," he said

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by vv3vv3vv

 

Also i will not answer to your link as it has malware on it! my malware bytes picked up on it ..

I am not going to do a you, and accuse you, just saying .

It was the first relevant picture that I found on google search. I doubt that it has malware or anything that is a danger to you (especially if you have any kind of protection). You just accused me of leading people to a malicious site to infect them somehow, how is that not accusing and defamation?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


thanks for adding a comment! Personally I think that the astronauts are under deep mind control, and were chosen because they could be affected by it. Also I think that we have been to the moon, but not as a result of our rocket science. I think that there are government ships, possibly with anti-gravity capabilities that could travel to other planets in a more safe and effective manner.

In response to him saying all the people working at nasa couldn't keep a conspiracy secret. Well anybody working on a highly classified project doesn't usually have the ability to ask to see what his small work will contribute to the end product. Compartmentalization is how you keep them ignorant and yet still use them for work.

p.s. I will post some pictures and stuff soon, i need to go over it and get it in order first.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
armstrong gave a very rare interview recently and I had to lol at this


Armstrong laughed off the conspiracy theorists who believe the 1969 moon landing was faked, telling CPA Australia's Malley that "800,000 staff at NASA couldn't possibly keep a secret."

"People love conspiracy theories, but it was never a concern to me -- because I know one day someone's going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left," he said

This is why they do not want to believe it is real, "conspiracy theorists " .
.

Why do people believe this stuff? I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore. The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real. The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile. The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it. Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

I think that there are government ships, possibly with anti-gravity capabilities that could travel to other planets in a more safe and effective manner.


p.s. I will post some pictures and stuff soon, i need to go over it and get it in order first.

please do, provide some proof of these claims once you have your proof in order then get back to me..

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
armstrong gave a very rare interview recently and I had to lol at this


Armstrong laughed off the conspiracy theorists who believe the 1969 moon landing was faked, telling CPA Australia's Malley that "800,000 staff at NASA couldn't possibly keep a secret."

"People love conspiracy theories, but it was never a concern to me -- because I know one day someone's going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left," he said

This is why they do not want to believe it is real, "conspiracy theorists " .
.

Why do people believe this stuff? I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore. The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real. The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile. The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it. Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

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

This is a whole lot of personal opinion, completely off-topic, and an attempt at discrediting the person instead of their argument. Again, please stop posting with malicious intent and start considering the actual topic of debate instead of trolling or playing a popularity contest.

Originally posted by denver22
This is why they do not want to believe it is real.

See? You claim that your opponent's view is "fake" and yours is "real." If you can't do more than preach your dogma, and won't even consider any other view, then you don't belong here (as you have shown over and over). Please stop attacking a group of people and start arguing a valid point...if you actually have one.

reply to post by vv3vv3vv

p.s. I will post some pictures and stuff soon, i need to go over it and get it in order first.

Here's a typical Apollo 11 photograph. Please us it to explain how the foreground objects are used to mask the front projection of the background:



AS11-40-5873

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

Originally posted by denver22
This is why they do not want to believe it is real.

See? You claim that your opponent's view is "fake" and yours is "real.".

why yes of course as in the case of the moon missions i have presented evidence .. P.S where is yours? ..
Can you prove kubric filmed the moon apollo 11 mission , then show me some proof is all i am asking..
After you have answered his question of course that he posted..
So far you have not produced one shred of evidence have you my friend , while claiming i have none..

reply to post by DJW001




I would say that this picture is harder to prove wrong than some others, but I still think it could be fake, I have put in my editing remarks on how it would be set up in a studio. And just because there isn't a lot of evidence in some pictures, doesn't discount the fact that there are many more inconsistencies in other photos.