yiddo2786
Steed Malbranque
This; there are just far, far too many people to force to keep quiet.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon
- Thread starter Gifter
- Start date
This; there are just far, far too many people to force to keep quiet.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
yiddo2786
Steed Malbranque
Be careful what you say Mick, they're watching you
Not saying it's true or not - playing devil's advocate
Out of interest - how many do you think could have been involved in the alleged 'fake' shooting apart from the austronauts? A camera man or 2 setting up lights, props (who could have been made 'disposable' upon completion), etc. and a dozen high-end suits from the very top. 20 odd people is hardly an unreasonable amount of people to committ to a cause as big as the cold war at the time.
The Russians perhaps lacked all the intel to conclusively state 'it was impossible' and instead chose to avoid risking unnecessary confrontation during a tense period - after all they were the first into space. But even if they knew it was staged - how could they have proven it? Casually pop in at the desert and dig out the sets and bunkers while the Yanks sit and watch them? They were always going to sound like sour losers smearing dirt on their cold war capitalist opponents - no one in the West would have taken them seriously apart from the tin-foil hats. It's not what you know - it's what you can prove.
There is only one way to end this - go back and see.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Willie Hall
20? There were 12 astronauts who walked on the moon. There were a total of 24 astronauts who orbited the moon (including those that walked on it). Already your number is too low. Then you add the NASA ground staff, the people making the films, and there is a lot of footage so it would be more than a handful of people, then you have the people planning all of this.
One day someone will go back to the moon and see, but I don't think for a second it will "end this". Another hand waving excuse will be made up.
If it was 'staged' the ground staff would have obviosuly been watching live feed from the set?
I think you might be underestimating what the cold war meant to these two nations and the extents to which some of them went to establish 'dominance'
It would take 1-2 cameramen max. to shoot something like this btw.
I think you might be underestimating what the cold war meant to these two nations and the extents to which some of them went to establish 'dominance'
It would take 1-2 cameramen max. to shoot something like this btw.
Here's a good link to show why camera experts may question it validity, this is from someone who believes they've been, but believes Kubrick filmed the Apollo 11 footage, excerpt;
There is another telltale fingerprint that comes with front screen projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The bigger the format of the film the less depth of field there is. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a small depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.
While watching the ape scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the front project screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the desert scene and the Scotchlite screen are right behind the actors. So whatever is projected onto that screen will be in the same plane of focus as the actor ape. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.
The very same tell-take evidence in on every lunar surface Apollo photograph that has a background.
The Apollo astronauts were using Hassleblad cameras with 2 - 1/4' by 3- ??' with Ektachrome film. This is large format film with all of the same depth of field problems that would come with shooting 70mm film. The plane of focus on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We could expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider that they did not even have the ability to see thought the viewfinder of their cameras, this would only increase the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.
I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.
When the photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer- astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders.
Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.
Unfortunately though for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of front screen projection.
http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/263.cfm
The article is a bit muddled though, it refers to looking up at Apollo pictures when they are below etc. Interesting though.
There is another telltale fingerprint that comes with front screen projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The bigger the format of the film the less depth of field there is. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a small depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.
While watching the ape scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the front project screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the desert scene and the Scotchlite screen are right behind the actors. So whatever is projected onto that screen will be in the same plane of focus as the actor ape. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.
The very same tell-take evidence in on every lunar surface Apollo photograph that has a background.
The Apollo astronauts were using Hassleblad cameras with 2 - 1/4' by 3- ??' with Ektachrome film. This is large format film with all of the same depth of field problems that would come with shooting 70mm film. The plane of focus on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We could expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider that they did not even have the ability to see thought the viewfinder of their cameras, this would only increase the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.
I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.
When the photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer- astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders.
Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.
Unfortunately though for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of front screen projection.
http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/263.cfm
The article is a bit muddled though, it refers to looking up at Apollo pictures when they are below etc. Interesting though.
Interesting link - this is an extract from the end
In the film 'Wag the Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to 'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie 'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.
Stanley Kubrick died a few hours after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw on French television outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw several scenes that were never in the finished film.
Warner Brothers has even come out and said that they re-edited the film slightly. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.
One has to wonder what was cut out.
Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th 1999.
Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.
July 16th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.
In the film 'Wag the Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to 'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie 'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.
Stanley Kubrick died a few hours after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw on French television outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw several scenes that were never in the finished film.
Warner Brothers has even come out and said that they re-edited the film slightly. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.
One has to wonder what was cut out.
Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th 1999.
Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.
July 16th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Ground staff do a lot more than just watch the video feed...
I'm not underestimating what the cold war meant to these two nations, in fact that very thing is probably the answer to "why haven't we gone back?".
Whatever it is they do - it all happens from a single building via headphones, mics and screens - i.e. they are 'fed' data from an external source.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Here's a good link to show why camera experts may question it validity, this is from someone who believes they've been, but believes Kubrick filmed the Apollo 11 footage, excerpt;
There is another telltale fingerprint that comes with front screen projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The bigger the format of the film the less depth of field there is. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a small depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.
While watching the ape scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the front project screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the desert scene and the Scotchlite screen are right behind the actors. So whatever is projected onto that screen will be in the same plane of focus as the actor ape. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.
The very same tell-take evidence in on every lunar surface Apollo photograph that has a background.
The Apollo astronauts were using Hassleblad cameras with 2 - 1/4' by 3- ??' with Ektachrome film. This is large format film with all of the same depth of field problems that would come with shooting 70mm film. The plane of focus on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We could expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider that they did not even have the ability to see thought the viewfinder of their cameras, this would only increase the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.
I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.
When the photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer- astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders.
Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.
Unfortunately though for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of front screen projection.
http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/263.cfm
The article is a bit muddled though, it refers to looking up at Apollo pictures when they are below etc. Interesting though.
Does bringing up a new point of argument mean that you concede the previous point?
I did a google search for: front screen projection apollo explained
The first result was the following youtube video that seems to me to explain the points being brought up by the article you copy-pasted very well and even explain why front screen projection like in 2001 couldn't have been used for these shots.
[video=youtube;nVFjBU7zIEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVFjBU7zIEU[/video]
Again, this was the first result from a google search. I'm in no way an expert on this. If the conspiracy theorists have countered these points already, then feel free to link to them. If these points haven't been countered I struggle to see how what you posted can be thought of as a "good link" since counter arguments were so easily available.
I'm not really interested in discussing points of evidence if the counter arguments I find and post are only going to be followed by a new point of discussion. This jumping from one point to another whenever counter arguments are brought up seems to me typical for conspiracy theorists and is one of the reason I struggle so hard to respect the conspiracy opinion. So, the main question is still, Does bringing up a new point of argument mean that you concede the previous point?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
To feed valid looking fake data to the control room and ground crew at NASA for over a week would probably take a team of experts not much smaller than the ground crew, if not bigger.
There was also international radar tracking of the missions, not only done by NASA. Of course the organizations doing that would have had to be in on it as well.
In fact, have a look at this overview of 3rd party evidence for the moon landing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#cite_note-24
Pretty much all of these people would have to be in on it in some way or another.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
What part of what I said made you think that this is what I think?
I have no problem with a counterargument, or argument. Bring any argument you would like, in fact I would urge both you, Gifter and anyone else to bring the very best arguments you have. All I'm asking for is a willingness to actually discuss it honestly.
What I have a problem with is what seems like a Gish gallop. We discussed the argument brought up in the documentary posted in the OP, myself and others then posted readily available counter arguments. Then either bring an argument to counter that again, concede the point or say that this point will have to wait. Don't just move on to another point of discussion bringing up a new topic and new evidence (using the word very lightly). It's just not a serious or honest way to discuss anything. I've seen this before a bit too often for me to just accept it.
The number of (in my opinion poor) arguments or points of (in my opinion poor) evidence that can be provided by a conspiracy theorists about something like the moon landing is probably in the thousands, if not then at least in the hundreds. I have no interest in someone listing them one by one while I or someone else list the readily available counter argument only for the conspiracy theorist to jump to the next point each time. That's not a discussion, that's not a debate, that's hardly even communication and it's just not worthwhile.
The other thing I would like the conspiracy theorists to do is to actually look for the readily available counter arguments themselves. When coming across an article like the latest one Gifter posted, why not google one of the key terms and see if a counter argument is available? If it is, have a look at it and see what the counter argument is. Then go back to the source or conspiracy theorists and have a look for their counter argument for that again. That would be something.
The problem is - the latest counter-argument you were very quick to discover offers absolutely zero conclusive proof - at least not any more or less than the 'conspiracy' in Gifter's latest post. They simply offer 'alternative' answers to the theories and questions being raised, nothing more. You however obviously chose to accept that as 'truth' and the other one as a lie? How come - because someone with a weird English accent says 'it couldn't work' - isn't that as good as tin-foil?
I enjoy both sides of the argument on this one as it brings very interesting evidence and perspective into an extremely rich topic. Whereas you appear to react aggressively to the word 'conspiracy' alone and automatically assume a mission to discredit any opinion since in your vocabulary it clearly stands as a synonym for 'flimflam'. Forget about the 'conspiracy' for a second and look at the arguments being presented - both offer an interesting angle and both sides have massive agendas to fulfil.
Dude, you did exactly what you are claiming invalidates debate to begin with, I highlighted what looks to be staging of shots taken from one window (round) then to counter this you posted shots from a different window entirely as proof that the first shots weren't staged, that is not a counter at all, it is saying 'well this one is not fake so the other must not be as well' would that hold in scientific study, or a court of law? of course not. All it does is suggest (to those who are sceptical) that they got better at staging, or, switched to plan B (which may have been to use footage from unmanned missions which recorded data, there was no atomic date stamp on the film you posted).
This is a key to why these kind os debates almost always get heated, or one side looses interest, because there is an emotion involvement which distorts the mind (on both sides - cognitive dissonance).
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Quickly looked at those two wiki links, seems to support my point of view. Feel free to point me to the examples in there that aren't refuted in the very same article.
You're right to be sceptical of wiki links of course, however you don't seem to take what sources they use and list into account.
This link is from the document I linked to.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html
This is from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency. This explains how they during their SELENE mission made 3D images of the surface of the moon, then showing how the images from the Apollo landing site looks pretty much exactly like in the photos in their 3D model.
This is of course absolute evidence that the moon landings happened. Unless you want to state that this is just part of the conspiracy, this then would again adds even more people to the list of conspirators.
Seeing as this is from 2008 that would not only invalidate your claim that that this was done because of the cold war and of course mean that your estimate of "20 people" would have to be added to, to say the least.
That was looking at the sources of just one of the points in that wiki article...