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

Originally posted by r2d246
They used some hollywood special effects.

Explain in detail what special effects precisely!

You actually think they need to fake real situations?

I don't understand the question as I don't think they faked anything.

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.

Hollywood takes short cuts whenever possible. The Apollo missions are not like movies, which are formed together by many different shots, from different angles etc. Apollo 11 is 2+ hours of uncut video. Later missions like Apollo 17 had long segments of video (~40+ mins usually) between driving to different geology stations. They aren't put together from multiple camera angles and short clips like you'd see in the movies.

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?)

No, you didn't hear it right at all. He said it was a "test model of the rocket".

Out of all of your examples, which ones depicted 1/6th gravity and a vacuum environment? None of them. Tell me how one could fake a scene using Hollywood special effects from the 1960's or even 70's, that shows some astronauts on the Moon. Doing things that clearly show they are in a 1/6th gravity environment with no atmosphere.

Kubrick couldn't do it. Michael Bay couldn't do it with today's tech. The guy who tried to simulate the Apollo 14 pendulum couldn't do it. So please enlighten me as to how you could do it.

Originally posted by buster2010
If we didn't go to the moon how do you explain the tracks that were left behind?

I do not say 'they' didn't go to the moon but considering these images as absolute proof and evidence is not "it" either.

just posting so I can find this thread later easily.
don't mind me, just carry on...

Originally posted by Lone12
... 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

Ya totally agree. That's the thing. Most people actually think there was this great cold war, that the Russians were our enemies etc etc. And the Russians were told the same by there g--v. But all the while the tptb at the top of both countries were working together on some level. They worked together with the space race as well. We didn't expose the Russian failures and hoaxes and they didn't expose ours. that was one level of collaboration they definitely had. Even when there imfamous sub k19 blew a gasket we were there to offer help, but no everyone thinks we are so diabolically opposed to each other. So much brainwashing out there, just insane.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by r2d246
They used some hollywood special effects.

Explain in detail what special effects precisely!

You actually think they need to fake real situations?

I don't understand the question as I don't think they faked anything.

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.

Hollywood takes short cuts whenever possible. The Apollo missions are not like movies, which are formed together by many different shots, from different angles etc. Apollo 11 is 2+ hours of uncut video. Later missions like Apollo 17 had long segments of video (~40+ mins usually) between driving to different geology stations. They aren't put together from multiple camera angles and short clips like you'd see in the movies.

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?)

No, you didn't hear it right at all. He said it was a "test model of the rocket".

Out of all of your examples, which ones depicted 1/6th gravity and a vacuum environment? None of them. Tell me how one could fake a scene using Hollywood special effects from the 1960's or even 70's, that shows some astronauts on the Moon. Doing things that clearly show they are in a 1/6th gravity environment with no atmosphere.

Kubrick couldn't do it. Michael Bay couldn't do it with today's tech. The guy who tried to simulate the Apollo 14 pendulum couldn't do it. So please enlighten me as to how you could do it.

Well being that I'm not only a NASA scientist and one of hollywoods leading special effects artists that's easy to explain to you in precision detail how it all worked. I mean it's childs play. Okay this is a hollywood studio where they film movie shoots. This is a prop. This is an actor. This is the film crew. Rats I would go on but I got a piece of hot apply pie staring me in the face so you'll have to wait for my book or movie to come out, which still is in my head at this time, so it might be a while.



special effects from the appollo era....watch...... but in light of all this, they still didn't have the technology to fake a moon landing did they? Wow like really think people.

Oh? What about when the Russians and Chinese confirmed the landing? The Russians were disappointed and pissed that they didn't get to the moon first. They would love nothing more than to claim it a hoax, but that would be a lie and only discredit them. The moon landing was real, and this "it was fake" it getting annoying and pointless, you have no actual proof but "it didn't happen" nothing you can say will make sense, because once again, Russians and Chinese already confirmed that America put men on the moon. I'll give you this though, damn good examples.

Hiya OP.

Just a nobody with an interest in this type of thing ... :

Originally posted by r2d246
5 Now when they got to the moon they started playing the movie they had filmed.

One of the longest films ever created with voice overs from live actors who referenced events that were happening on the day whilst watching footage of themselves? Logistically that's a nightmare. Not to mention they would have to fake the signals, as well as the reports and improvement to the TV workflow that occurred constantly and very well documented.

This includes changes to signal processing, equipment, and hardware between missions. Signal processing technology that was later replicated and used by other countries for their space missions. They're not just managing the narrative of the moon landing but the narrative on the ground as well. How does one reconcile this with a belief that they faked the whole thing?

Originally posted by r2d246
In the 60's they already could produce 2001 a space Oddassy in the 70's they could already do Starwars.
[sic]
This is easy for hollywood. Hollywood had already been doing this stuff for decades.

The history of visual effects is well documented, as are the personalities involved. Its been an area that is under constant scrutiny and research.

Yes, in the 70s they made Star Wars. Did you know when they dumped Star Wars onto VHS tape the matte lines of the Star Destroyers showed up due to the gamma adjustment caused by the new medium? The cockpit of the Snow Speeders in Hoth were also transparent due to the way they combined film. The film has been remastered so many times even before the 'super special edition' of the 90s to repair various screw ups made by artists coming up with new methods to produce the unreal. Star Wars wasn't even that long in comparison. The artists that made the Star Destroyer shots didn't notice their mistake initially.

These methods, the people involved ... they are not hard to find. The techniques they developed were documented and discussed at length in many books on the subject. Where is the list of well known and skilled visual and special effects artists that went missing for years to produce this mammoth project?

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

In summary here, you would have to dig up the original Star Wars VHS as a comparison to see all the issues and I mean the original version not the 16:9 wide screen remastered collectors edition released before/after the major CGI changes in the late 80s or early 90s.

The point is, there was mistakes the artists couldn't even see themselves. So the questions you find yourself facing is ...

How did a group of known and skilled artists go missing without being noticed?
How did they produce a set of films many times longer than Star Wars without error and then screw up moments in Star Wars less than a decade later?
Since all these developments in VFX are fairly well documented, what happened to the techniques developed for Apollo?
They replicated the survey data from the moon landing perfectly?
If they did not replicate the survey data perfectly, how do we propose they will explain this away the next time a country visits the moon? (oh woops! The 60s was a rather silly time anyway! ... I imagine the damage to Americas reputation would be massive. It would be a betrayal of all man kind)
How does one describe this type of work as child's play whilst simaltaneously using Oscar winning films as examples?
Why aren't professionals like John Dykstra just calmly pointing out the flaws in the footage? He's still alive, and should have the experience to do so.

And something I've always had an issue working out ... Atmosphere on the moon. How does one recreate the flat look on the moon caused by the lack of air and other gases? Sure, it's easy to say 'green screen' and discuss the budget of an indie flick filmed by VFX students now ... but then? My laptop is a super computer now and analog processes have plenty of flaws (as do digital actually).



Enjoy.

Originally posted by renegadeloser

ever hear of astrology.

Why in the heck would a scientific organization like NASA give a rats behind about astrology? "Hey Neil, while you're up there could you take some long exposures of the stars? I want to double check my horoscope" Did they also read their tea leaves in the LM? Maybe consult a crystal ball before they launched to make sure they'd be ok, maybe even a tarot reading? This is by far the worst argument I've ever heard from the HB camp, and I don't mean just on ATS, Kaysing, Renee, Percey, White, Sibrel . . . you've trumped them all in shear insanity, using up precious minutes of EVA to do some pseudo-science, that's just idiotic. I know the hoax crowd likes to invent their evidence/arguments, but come on now.

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Well, there's one thing I don't understand. I could be completely wrong. And it would be neat if I found out later I was. But here's the thing...

On both the moon landing and the mars rovers I've never ever seen the camera do a 360 degree video where it pans around in a 360. Nor have they ever pointed the camera up into the sky, into space. Why is that?

My guess is that if they did that it would expose the fakery, as astrophysicists and astronomers would be able to easily tell where certain stars are, and be able to figure out all the trajectories and know immediately if what they're seeing is actually footage coming from Mars or from the Moon. Why is why they never can pan up in a video, or take pictures of the sky, because the sun and the stars would tell the viewer where they really are. I could be wrong but at least to me that would make some sense. no different from how navigation is done using the stars when looking up from earth.

Your getting 360 mixed up with the fact that there is a civilization on mars and artifacts by the tons.

They have to be careful not to take a picture of something that might prove civilization because of the Brookings report.

I realized they were fakes a while back.

There is a simple test, you should all do this for yourselves and post your results.

Watch the footage of instances where objects fall from the astronauts. The speed at which objects fall are incorrect even if you allow for the fact the footage was slowed down to create the zero gravity effect.

There is no evidence of object falling at slower rate. When the fake feather hammer experiment was done



Compare the speed when objects fall by accident there is a better one out there, where a rock falls from a bag.

reply to post by rolfharriss


So why do the feather and hammer hit the ground at the same time?

If it was fake (and done in a movie studio on Earth), then the feather would have encountered greater air resistance than the hammer, and would have fallen more slowly than the hammer.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

So why do the feather and hammer hit the ground at the same time?

If it was fake (and done in a movie studio on Earth), then the feather would have encountered greater air resistance than the hammer, and would have fallen more slowly than the hammer.

Very simply, the footage is of such bad resolution you can't see the Kevlar threads (which were made by Dupont.)

In the first US spacewalk in 1965 high resolution footage is available

The feather hammer test can only be viewed in low resolution

Technology improves so unless optical imaging went backwards then there is no rational scientific reason that the quality of the footage is so poor for this test.

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

So why do the feather and hammer hit the ground at the same time?

If it was fake (and done in a movie studio on Earth), then the feather would have encountered greater air resistance than the hammer, and would have fallen more slowly than the hammer.

Very simply, the footage is of such bad resolution you can't see the Kevlar threads (which were made by Dupont.)

In the first US spacewalk in 1965 high resolution footage is available

The feather hammer test can only be viewed in low resolution

Technology improves so unless optical imaging went backwards then there is no rational scientific reason that the quality of the footage is so poor for this test.

Sure there is a reason. The feather/hammer was televised and filmed with a television camera. The spacewalk was filmed with a DAC.

There are plenty of high-resolution Apollo moon walk videos made with a DAC. But not everything they did was filmed with the DAC. Some of what was filmed was being streamed back to earth to be shown live (or semi-live) on TV. The DAC film is stored in the camera, and therefore is not able to be viewed until that film physically came back to earth.

Therefore, if the feather/hammer experiment was filmed with the 16mm DAC, then we would have needed to wait until the astronauts brought the film back to be able to view it. As it was, it was filmed by TV cameras and streamed back to earth, so the people watching at home could see it on TV.


...By the way, the Kevlar threads are an interesting hypothesis, but what do you have to back up that hypothesis? You need a bit more evidence than simply claiming "there were invisible string, but we didn't know about them because they are invisible".

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Technology improves so unless optical imaging went backwards then there is no rational scientific reason that the quality of the footage is so poor for this test.

Why does my webcam not give the same picture quality as IMAX? After all, a camera, is a camera, is a camera. You're under the false assumption that only one camera existed in the 60's. Due to size and bandwidth restraints, all Apollo video is low quality, simple physics.

Yeah you are right changed my mind.

We must be going back soon then? Nothing to see there lets just skip to Mars.

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Yeah you are right changed my mind.

We must be going back soon then? Nothing to see there lets just skip to Mars.

For the most part, yeah. Some people feel that if money is to be spent, it should be spent on going to Mars rather than going back to the moon.

Apollo was a relatively big chunk of the nation's budget in the 1960s (relative to NASA's much smaller budget today), and another trip to the moon (or even to Mars, for that matter) is possibly unattainable in the current economic climate.

That's why I think a Mars mission will be multinational. It would be too expensive for only one nation to undertake alone.

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by buster2010

 

Even I could make that in photoshop in an hour and I'm not a graphics designer. Come on get real ok.

An expert could tell wether the shot is genuine or photoshopped though. I am not sure, but I think the sattelite which corroborated the moonlandings wasnt even American. I think those images were from a Japanese sattelite if I am not mistaken. So Japan would have had to do NASA a favour.

reply to post by Merinda


Yes, but a large portion of the moon hoax crowd have ridiculous irrational fears of government and believe in the nwo/illuminati/reptilian etc. idea that there are no governmentS there is only one government for the entire planet which is why no other countries have called the USA out on the moon landing. In their defence though this delusion HAS to be true for the moon landing to be a hoax, there's no other way around it.

reply to post by DJW001


He did both. He did it because Germany never sank any US ships, so he had to gamble with Japan. I'm not just talking out of my ass, FDR did this, even then we knew about the Japanese fleet coming weeks if not months before they attacked.

reply to post by r2d246


Hello r2d246. I am new here and just want to say hello. I never knew about the Apollo fake until recently when I saw a thread about the cameras that sort of convinced me on common sense grounds more or less that this is fake. I really want to thank you for the posting. I read your posts and Sayonara's and decisively's and almost feel overwhelmed there is so much good stuff here. I hope to learn myself how to research this so i may become an active participant. Until then, I'll read your posts. SO GOOD YOU ARE! Thank YOU !