Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

Originally posted by r2d246
YOUR JOKING! YOU DON'T WATCH MOVIES???? You've never seen a movie have you? In the 70's they the special effects capability to do starwars. Imitating gravity is like 1920's hollywood special effects.

Of course I watch movies I also pay close attention to details. I have yet to see a movie portray low gravity or zero gravity and a vacuum environment convincingly. Apollo 13 being an exception since they used the "vomit comet" to film the weightless scenes inside the spacecraft.

Before the moon landings.... Released in 1968 they could do this....

I'm sorry, but 2001 is a horrible example. Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie and I have it on bluray, but as far as being realistic and convincing? It is most definitely not. When they show the astronauts walking around on the Moon near the monolith, they just walk slowly, but normally. They don't do the kangaroo hop or anything like that. Kubrick didn't even try to fake the 1/6th gravity on the Moon.

Also, earlier in the movie when the Aries Ib lands on the Moon. Its engines are blowing dust off the landing pad. You can clearly see the dust billow in the air (example). So Kubrick also didn't bother to try and film it in a vacuum environment either.

So I'm going to ask you again. How did they fake the 1/6th gravity and vacuum environment on the Apollo missions?

Also, to anyone who thinks you can simply slow down footage and make it simulate 1/6th gravity. Please watch this:

... thanks for the thread OP
couldnt help smiling while reading your first post

some state here, that ' the russians would have known if it were a hoax '
but
the whole 'cold war thing ' was nothing but controlled opposition, anyway
- including the 'space race '

In fact - it was exactly the controlled space race, what caused the populations to accept the credibility of 'going to the moon ' ..... like " conditioning" the masses already

so
..the real goal of the whole [faked] moon missions...was " to get humanity look up "
= to change their consciousness
to direct humanities subconsciousness to the Unlimited Empty Cosmos

why ?

- because in this Modern Unlimited Unpersonal Cosmos, no God can exist

that was the goal: to not have a Heaven encompassing Earth anymore - and therefore a close relationship of man with Creation - but to direct the Consciousness into an impersonal endless Void - Space

*only* this way, Entities could prepare their ExtraTerrestial Card

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by okyouwin
I'm with you. I think that moon thing was just too tough. I don't think we did it. I think we faked it. I think the environs of outer space are completely inhospitable to life. Ergo, no aliens. We are on a completely contained unit here. We might want to figure out how to keep this going for a while longer, instead of allowing the rapacious plunder, we've sucked ourselves into, cut short our marvelous reign here.

I don't know, a lot of people say we are wrong. and maybe they're right. I wonder if those aliens would rather rent by the month or year. I figure if there's a lot of them they are going to need housing. I got a spare room and all and could use a little cash.

Another person who seems to just adopt a stance on this subject based upon what? Ill informed opinion?

So do you think we got into space at all oh wise one?

Well I was pretty much just joking. But seems you true believers are adamant about your acceptance of the event. And why not. I was in high school during the first moon landing and news coverage and national focus was intense. So to pull off a hoax would be almost as problematic as the landing itself.

I'm not an expert on conspiracy theories, well I'm not an expert on anything really, but when the close examination of the facts, as they are reported to have occurred, have inconsistencies, improbabilities, and outright errors, this invites alternative explanations No don't ask me what those inconsistencies, improbabilities, and errors are. I am sure you are aware of most and have an answer to explain them away. These answers usually have some hardcore scientific rundown including but not limited to physics, geometry.fluid dynamics, behavior of particles in vacuums and kinda prove the point. Ain't proof a wonder thing, eye of the beholder and all. You would think you could really pin it down and remove all doubt. But in some cases the proof only adds to the confusion.

In the moon landing case a lot of the evidence and even the event's themselves are not only counter to common sense, but fly in the face of consequences and results expected from certain activities.

Did we really land humans on the moon? Probably. But it seems some realities,(in regards to spatial orientation, equipment durability and suitability, antics and occurrences not conforming to environmental constraints), held dear to most humans, changed out there.Of course the moon is other worldly, who knows?

One of my favorite sites for the hoax side is Dave McGowan and Wag the Moon Doggie. This account is humorous and I'm sure full of inaccuracies, but it does make you think.

Why is it those that debunk get angry? Proof will never be enough. The story was mishandled from the start. The improbability of a successful completion of the mission was never made clear, and explanations after it was done never extolled the extraordinary problem solving involved in overcoming the difficulties. The whole thing might have been completely legit But if they did I think they were mighty lucky.

Originally posted by r2d246
It's so obvious this was filmed in a studio.

Put's glasses on and reads:

Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey showed that convincing special effects were possible in 1968, and that accurate depictions of space travel could be produced on movie soundstages. It's up to individual preference whether to believe the effects in 2001 were credible and accurate. We don't believe they were actually created in outer space. Here's where the cat gets let out of the bag: 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. Stanley Kubrick's and Peter Hyams' budgets were very small compared to NASA'

Part 2

With $40 billion and professional physicists on hand to correct mistakes, these directors could have made the effects much more convincing. If so then the supposed genius of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Kubrick are irrelevant. The argument was that Kubrick was such a brilliant filmmaker he could have made a convincing hoax. But if Kubrick would have needed expert advisors, then those advisors (not Kubrick) would have been the real geniuses behind it. The conspiracists are just back to speculating about what might be done with supposedly limitless resources. The demonstrable state of the art in 1968 -- compelling but not convincing -- doesn't really have much to do with that. And it really didn't have much to do with budget. The problems in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Capricorn One had more to do with deciding what effects to attempt rather than attempting good ones and failing. Budget would have increased the quality of the effects, but not their faithfulness to real life. No matter how much money you spend making a realistic starfield, it doesn't compensate for the fact that you shouldn't see one -- much less a moving one. The glitches also deal with basic filmmaking techniques, something Kubrick should already have known, and physicists wouldn't necessarily be helpful. Consider also Silent Running. Kubrick budgeted $10 million for 2001: A Space Odyssey, while Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running was shot for about a tenth the cost. Trumbull produced the visual effects for both films. Silent Running is less ambitious than Kubrick's masterpiece, but achieves a greater level of consistency and credibility. Increasing the budget does not automatically increase the quality and seamlessness of the final product.

www.clavius.org/

Come on op, how can you shout studio when you clearly do not understand how it works..
Will you read this? i highly doubt it.I waste to much time posting the answers only to get ignored
like others on here.

Have you looked at the sites debunking the moon hoaxers questions ?
Have you actually looked at both sides?
Perhaps you can explain why you haven't?

Google the other side "And the truth shall set you free from these charlatans"
Would you like me to do it all for you while you get your head round the fact that it
was not filmed in a studio?

reply to post by Kang69




David percy has been debunked many times i could provide links evidence etc?.
Kang69 i emplore you to at least watch the lies of percy and how he has been caught out.

Here is a link to the debunking the moon hoax enjoy:
debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/.../what-happened-on-moon-debu..

Here are now shown the hammer and feather experiment on the Moon, where the idea is suggested that it is very easy to fake. Then David Percy gives us firstly his "ahaa!" moment by showing the clip of "From the Earth to the Moon" where there is an edit! Followed by a doctored experiment of his own on Earth.

This guy is a fraud and a proven one..

Summary:


1. The Apollo experiment corresponds to Lunar gravity.
2. The Earth experiment does not correspond to Earth gravity!
3. The Earth hammer hits the fround first.
4. The feather on the Earth experiment is weighted and bounces!
5. The hand holding the feather on Earth is lower.
6. The Earth feather drops predominantly vertically.
7. The slowed down Earth footage does not correspond to Lunar gravity.
8. Footage of "From the Earth to the Moon" has an edit in their depiction.
9. The speeded up Apollo footage, at 200% and 150% does not equate to Earth gravity.
10. The speeded up clip looks bizarre and does not show normal motion.

P.S

"Shun those charlatans, deny ignorance post in peace...

reply to post by r2d246


Here i have a little present for you to read it took me a long time to find so show some respect
and read it then you will be amazed or are you after little blue stars?



For those actually interested in the TV from the Moon, here is a PDF detailing the technology involved. Many people were involved in this, and the idea that they were all somehow hoodwinked is ridiculous. The idea also that they freely took part in a hoax is equally absurd:-
history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I never go to Infowars.

About Pearl Harbor. Like I said before, FDR crippled Japans economy by eliminating their oil supply. Why would he do that exactly? Because of China? No, he did it so the Japanese would attack us. Nobody before 1941 wanted a war.






You have to "swing" the populace. You have to make them angry and get them eager for the war effort.


The Gulf of Tonkin is undeniable proof of a FF.

First, It WAS the event that led us into the War. That's where your history is lacking.




LBJ talked about a 2nd attack on US naval ships. The second attack never happened. He talked about that the ships were hit by torpedoes. It was all a lie.


On Gulf of Tonkin-

reply to post by Kang69

About Pearl Harbor. Like I said before, FDR crippled Japans economy by eliminating their oil supply. Why would he do that exactly? Because of China? No, he did it so the Japanese would attack us. Nobody before 1941 wanted a war.

Why would FDR want Japan to attack us? He wanted Germany to sink one of our ships in the North Atlantic; a Pacific war would be a dangerous distraction.

reply to post by r2d246


Your credibility and debate skills are next to nothing.

reply to post by Lone12


Where is the proof?

Everything you have claimed is all speculation!

reply to post by Lone12


Where is the proof?

Everything you have claimed is all speculation!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by r2d246

 

They don't look up because they couldn't. Try leaning back and see how far you can go without falling. Now add quite a bit of weight to your back and try it. If they leaned too far back they risked falling, and either not being able to get up, or damaging their suits. They might have been considerably lighter on the moon, but they still had mass, and still could have caused quite a bit of damage to their backpacks.

Oh isn't that convenient.

Originally posted by samlf3rd
reply to post by r2d246

 

(this is really for EVERYONE as well! )

Thanks a lot butthole! Now I don't believe we ever landed on the moon, nor mars. It's funny I have a degree in multimedia and I kept looking at the mars photographs and I kept asking myself why is there this distinct line in every photo where it seems that you are always on a large hill and you can never see more than a few hundred yards away?

This is nuts, I am seeing someone promising the proper use of cash and have to make people believe that cash was used wisely. Why go all the way with the money when you can create a studio and make a movie instead for .0008 of the budget?

S&F

I'm not sure if you're serious, cuz I know there's so many idiots out there but if you've woken up then congrats! You can't blame anyone though because it's a regular phychological mechanism the mind goes into cognitive disonance. It can't accpet certain things because doing so would force it to confront a larger reality. But I'm thoroughly convinced that all the evidence I've seen points toward fakery.

The most important thing you have to understand is this. If a crime is committed, and you want to cover it up, what do you do? You get rid of the evidence right? So that's what they did, the got rid of the moon program. Saturn 5 was cut up. And the whole program was disposed of.

They have no plans to go back either. Even though today with all our technological advances one would think that it would be far easier to go back considering we alreardy went. Heck space tourism to the moon should be huge right now.

Prime example of this. They said no man could run the 4 minute mile. Then Roger Banister did it. And after one guy finally did it, today almost 1000 people have done it. Another example. MT Everest was thought impossible to climb. Sr Edmond Hillary did it, then after he did, today about 4000 people have climbed it. That shows that by today we should have went back many times, other countries should have gone by now many times. By now we should have a permanent base up there and be doing space tourism there. Like that makes logical sense. But with all our advancements we can't go back, nor can anyone else? Like get real. That's a full blown coverup.

reply to post by r2d246


www.space.com...

Second line.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by r2d246
YOUR JOKING! YOU DON'T WATCH MOVIES???? You've never seen a movie have you? In the 70's they the special effects capability to do starwars. Imitating gravity is like 1920's hollywood special effects.

Of course I watch movies

I also pay close attention to details. I have yet to see a movie portray low gravity or zero gravity and a vacuum environment convincingly. Apollo 13 being an exception since they used the "vomit comet" to film the weightless scenes inside the spacecraft.

Before the moon landings.... Released in 1968 they could do this....

I'm sorry, but 2001 is a horrible example. Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie and I have it on bluray, but as far as being realistic and convincing? It is most definitely not. When they show the astronauts walking around on the Moon near the monolith, they just walk slowly, but normally. They don't do the kangaroo hop or anything like that. Kubrick didn't even try to fake the 1/6th gravity on the Moon.

Also, earlier in the movie when the Aries Ib lands on the Moon. Its engines are blowing dust off the landing pad. You can clearly see the dust billow in the air (example). So Kubrick also didn't bother to try and film it in a vacuum environment either.

So I'm going to ask you again. How did they fake the 1/6th gravity and vacuum environment on the Apollo missions?

Also, to anyone who thinks you can simply slow down footage and make it simulate 1/6th gravity. Please watch this:

edit on 2-10-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)

They used some hollywood special effects. You actually think they need to fake real situations? They used special effects!!! ahhhh man. Because filming they knew they'd have to come up with many different scenes to simulate less gravity. This is easy for hollywood. Hollywood had already been doing this stuff for decades.

Already at the turn of the century they could do various strange things in a movie shoot. Funny how these videos actually closely resemble how the moon mission took place. No doubt they watched these for ideas on how to put the production together.



6:00+ doesn't this look familiar..... hmmmm where have I seen that before???? lets see what we can find....

HOLLY CRAP DID i HEAR THAT RIGHT..... Fake Rocket??? 0:36 (sets a presidences that they're willing to build fake rockets, what else are they okay with faking?)

Then by 1977 we see these types of hollywood special FX....



0:27

but special effects don't exist okay..... nothing to see here..... move along people!!!!

reply to post by r2d246


Oh, I'm so sorry that they weren't up there to be tourists walking around shooting pictures. It was the easiest way for them to carry a camera. That way they wouldn't have to develop a system for them to try to look through a viewfinder. It they were pointed towards what they wanted to take a picture of, so was the camera.

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
reply to post by Lone12

 

Where is the proof?

Everything you have claimed is all speculation!

...Uh...Singularities, gravity and about 90% of our science is speculation and "pliable probability". You can't even "prove" RED is RED to a color blind person so...Relax. Just enjoy the ride with this stuff.

Originally posted by r2d246


Thanks a lot butthole!

language timothy..

I'm not sure if you're serious, cuz I know there's so many idiots out there

Usually the ones that haven't not a clue about the apollo missions and how stuff works.

The most important thing you have to understand is this

The most important thing you have to understand is the word google.

Stop getting mad and take in what people are saying to you son.

Originally posted by r2d246
You actually think they need to fake real situations?

No but you do, i suppose to you
it's all special effects like the iss and the fact that a shuttle goes up where does that go?

Yeah ok if that's what you think, what have you been reading?.