Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to:

The line of Apollo is broken, the fallacy is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. Its became a relic of propagandists, who've taken it deep within the recesses of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and there it has consumed them, poisoning there minds.
It awaits for its perceived time to effectively abandon the propagandists and be inevitably exposed ...
For the time will soon come when moon hoax theorists will shape the fortunes of Apollo ...

Almost poetic

And yes, apollogists are fighting a losing battle..... ;-).

a reply to: webstra

It isn't poetic, it's meaningless gibberish, another pseudo-intellectual word salad intended to sound full of gravitas and meaning but actually devoid of substance.

Provide your evidence that Apollo did not happen.

vimeo.com...

Kubrick admits it!!!

originally posted by: BROADCASTREAM


vimeo.com...

Kubrick admits it!!!

This one is finally with the right audio !!

Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

No.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

No.

I think that is the shortest answer you ever gave...why is that ?

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

Prove 100% that it's real. (Now the shoe is on the other foot!)

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

Prove 100% that it's real. (Now the shoe is on the other foot!)

What do you think djw001, does this interview with Stanley Kubrick deserves his own thread ?

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

Prove 100% that it's real. (Now the shoe is on the other foot!)

What do you think djw001, does this interview with Stanley Kubrick deserves his own thread ?

Absolutely! I would love to see the Moon Hoax theorists prove that this video:

1. Is authentic.
2. Has not been edited.
3. Was not faked by using CGI.
4. Was not faked by using over dubbing.
5. Was not faked by using a professional Kubrick impersonator (there actually is one).

Icould go on, but you get the general idea. That thread could become epic! (And all the flags will be yours. )

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
Is this real ?????

Stanley Kubrick admits that the moonlandings were faked ?

Prove 100% that it's real. (Now the shoe is on the other foot!)

What do you think djw001, does this interview with Stanley Kubrick deserves his own thread ?

i would recommend that you start the thread about this video immediately!!

the entire board needs to know about it not just people in these moon/space related threads.

a reply to: webstra

Because it's the answer to your question.

Also, if you read through the comments there are links to the original unedited sections of the fake Kubrick. One of them has the interviewer coaching him as to what answers to give to certain questions.

The video also uses snippets of audio from the Onion's spoof moon landing video.

i would recommend that you start the thread about this video immediately!! the entire board needs to know about it

Absolutely!

Undoubtedly, that Kubrick video was perpetrated by an adjunct of the propagandist consortium and intentionally revealed too manipulate the moon hoax theorists who become discredited if they disclose the deliberately absurd deception...

originally posted by: Misinformation

i would recommend that you start the thread about this video immediately!! the entire board needs to know about it

Absolutely!

Undoubtedly, that Kubrick video was perpetrated by an adjunct of the propagandist consortium and intentionally revealed too manipulate the moon hoax theorists who become discredited if they disclose the deliberately absurd deception...

even if that was the case, it is interesting seeing moon hoax believers jumping all over it given how they like to parade themselves as smarter than the rest of the world with their exclusive insights to detail..

im thinking that it got debunked too quickly.. need to give it more time to really let the gullible standout more.

a reply to: Misinformation

the problem is - that too many HBs fall for EVERY claim of hoax - no matter how insane

the most ergergious = " wrong shadows " - a peice of idiocy perpetrated by allmost all the key players in the " hoax " camp - but one that is falsified by a 10 minuite trip outside

a reply to: Misinformation

Undoubtedly, that Kubrick video was perpetrated by an adjunct of the propagandist consortium and intentionally revealed too manipulate the moon hoax theorists who become discredited if they disclose the deliberately absurd deception...

Indubitably, the scions of the Apollo Truth Movement shall betray their occluded complicity in the veracity of the historical record by their tacit acknowledgement of the nearly tautological impossibility of presenting incontestable proof of any assertion that can be falsified by simple verbal negation or production of counter examples not grounded in any verifiable experience. Or is there one willing to rise to such a challenge?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Misinformation

Undoubtedly, that Kubrick video was perpetrated by an adjunct of the propagandist consortium and intentionally revealed too manipulate the moon hoax theorists who become discredited if they disclose the deliberately absurd deception...

Indubitably, the scions of the Apollo Truth Movement shall betray their occluded complicity in the veracity of the historical record by their tacit acknowledgement of the nearly tautological impossibility of presenting incontestable proof of any assertion that can be falsified by simple verbal negation or production of counter examples not grounded in any verifiable experience. Or is there one willing to rise to such a challenge?

Touché

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1


The technology to slow footage to 66.66% existed before Apollo 11 came along...

They did not have the technology to do it for hours at a time on live TV.

How can you say it's 'live' on the moon, when there is no proof they even landed on the moon, in the first place!?!

originally posted by: choos

so what you are saying now is that they were 100% capable of having Apollo 11 at 66% speed but chose instead to do it at 50% speed and all the other missions at 66% speed because they felt like it?


tupid reasoning.. how long would one length of film be for a feature length movie if it was played back at 50% as opposed to 100% speed??

dont understand?? ok then..

assume one hour of film at 100% is 100m long, 100% speed being 24fps..

if this film was slowed 50% (12fps) how long will the film be? (not the time but the length in metres)
if this film was slowed 66% (16fps) how long will it be now? (again not the time but the length in metres)

how long is andy warhol's film?? 6 hours or so?? how long was apollo 12 EVA?? under 4 hours... so how does your argument make sense?? Apollo 12 was at 50% also??

No, only Apollo 11 was at 50% speed. The others were at 66.66% speed.

We know that 66.66% speed already existed before Apollo 11, and they could have used it, of course...

You assume they would have used it. Because it makes no sense they'd use 50% instead....

Like many things don't seem to make sense, that people do - they still happen, no matter how senseless they are, or appear to be, at least.

We call them mistakes, that make no sense, yet they happen, regardless.


And using 50% speed, instead of 66.66% speed, doesn't need to make sense. They still used 50% speed, period.

You can't change speeds of our movement, that's the whole problem here...

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, only Apollo 11 was at 50% speed. The others were at 66.66% speed.

We know that 66.66% speed already existed before Apollo 11, and they could have used it, of course...

You assume they would have used it. Because it makes no sense they'd use 50% instead....

Like many things don't seem to make sense, that people do - they still happen, no matter how senseless they are, or appear to be, at least.

We call them mistakes, that make no sense, yet they happen, regardless.

so now it was just a mistake?

from deliberately due to technological limitations to mistake without reason?

this coming from the organisation that was capable of using a harness system that is still more technologically advanced than what can be found today?
this coming from the organisation capable of representing lunar gravity so accurately? where even the smallest detail represents lunar gravity..

And using 50% speed, instead of 66.66% speed, doesn't need to make sense. They still used 50% speed, period.

You can't change speeds of our movement, that's the whole problem here...

all because you say so.. you still have not proven it, the only thing you have proven is that you have an opinion and that is your problem.