Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Soylent Green Is People

Your information is wrong and untrue. Stanley Kubric (the director of 2001: A Space Odyssey) did in fact leave his house after the time of the Apollo landing -- which would be the time he made any alleged secret film of the landing.

Kubric not only left his house after that, but he directed several films between the time of the Apollo landings and his death in 1999. During that time, he directed the following:

A Clockwork Orange in 1971, Barry Lyndon in 1975, The Shining in 1980, Full Metal Jacket in 1987, and Eyes Wide Shut in 1999.


This is one of the problems with many Moon Hoax believers. You make statements such as "the director never left his home again until his natural death" as if they are facts (you even finished that sentence by writing the word "Facts", as if that makes it true), but these are completely untrue statements that are easily verifiable as being completely untrue.

Maybe you are just repeating something you heard or read before, but try a little of your own verification first before repeating things you've read. Do a little fact-checking.

edit on 10/5/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

The problem is - if NASA was working towards a genuine moon landing, they would have no reason to get in contact with a film director!! It's utterly absurd

But to contact a film director who just happens to be making a movie about manned space travel? There couldn't be a more obvious red flag.

You think NASA liked his movies so much, they found time to fly off to England, and visited his movie studio?? Several times? And they gave him very expensive film lenses because he was such a nice guy??

I'm sure......

turbonium1

The problem is - if NASA was working towards a genuine moon landing, they would have no reason to get in contact with a film director!! It's utterly absurd

But to contact a film director who just happens to be making a movie about manned space travel? There couldn't be a more obvious red flag.

NASA contacted kubrick?? got evidence of that?? im aware that kubrick used NASA's knowledge on how objects would react in space, thus him needing them for his films for the knowledge.. but NASA contacting kubrick??

but anyway.. how did you suppose kubrick found time between 2001 and clockwork orange to film apollo 11-17?? and keeping in mind if you agree with sayonara than Nixon got the idea for apollo 13 after watch marooned in december 1969 so thats less than 4 months to prepare apollo 13..

but im more concerned with the technology of the film industry in 1969..





wait wait wait.. let me guess howard hughes built a time machine for nixon right?

turbonium1
The problem is - if NASA was working towards a genuine moon landing, they would have no reason to get in contact with a film director!! It's utterly absurd

But to contact a film director who just happens to be making a movie about manned space travel? There couldn't be a more obvious red flag.

You think NASA liked his movies so much, they found time to fly off to England, and visited his movie studio?? Several times? And they gave him very expensive film lenses because he was such a nice guy??

I'm sure......

There are several factual and logical errors with your post. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you should stop blindly believing every Moon hoax evidence you hear about and begin investigating that evidence in an attempt to confirm it. Like I said above, I don't blindly believe NASA's information nor should anyone blindly believe information from Moon Hoax proponents. Confirm, confirm, confirm.

First off, there is no evidence that NASA contracted Kubrick. The only source that I know of this comes from the mockumentary The Dark Side of the Moon, which was meant to be a parody of a conspiracy theory -- not a real conspiracy theory. So you can't really count that as evidence.

Secondly, NASA did not give the Zeiss lenses to him. Kubrick bought the Zeiss lenses used in shooting the famous candlelit scenes in the movie Barry Lyndon. And he didn't even buy them from NASA -- he bought them from Zeiss. Granted, the lenses were designed and manufactured by Zeiss for NASA, but NASA did not own all of them. Ten lenses in all were made: Six went to NASA, Zeiss kept one, and three were purchased by Kubrick.

Source: Carl Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses

And thirdly, so what if Kubrick was making a film about manned space travel? He was certainly not the only person doing so during the late 1960s -- neither for cinema nor for TV. On TV, there was Star Trek in the U.S. and Doctor Who (which included space travel) in the UK. In 1970, there was the Gerry Anderson-produced TV show UFO. In cinema, there were 1960s classics such as Robinson Crusoe on Mars, HG Well's First Men in the Moon, and a couple dozen other films about space exploration.

In addition, Kubrick's vision of what the Moon looked like in 2001: A Space Odyssey looked nothing like the Moon we saw from the Apollo program. You would think that if he faked the images of the Moon for Apollo in 1969, then his vision pf what the moon looked like in A Space Odyssey would at least be similar -- and they are not.

Here are some scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey which would give an idea what Kubrick though the Moon would look. These are very much UNlike the Apollo images:







Again, as is often the case, the facts here have been misrepresented in order to falsely bolster the claims made by Moon hoax proponents. Perhaps you are unaware that these facts have been misrepresented, but it is not hard to do some fact-checking...

...rather than blindly believing and repeating every piece of evidence that you hear supporting a Moon hoax, simply because it also supports your pre-conceived notions that the hoax is true. People who can't see past their pre-conceived notions are stuck inside the "closed-minded" box, and will never be able to learn new things.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I don't blindly believe NASA's information nor should anyone blindly believe information from Moon Hoax proponents. Confirm, confirm, confirm.

We have confirmations. Lot's of them.

Confirmed. Moon rock audits were the cause of "extreme disagreements."
Confirmed. CIA and NPIC have physical control of Apollo film negatives.
Confirmed. No humans outside of low earth orbit since Richard Nixon was president.
Confirmed. Howard Hughes was building mobots with TV cameras as early as 1959.
Confirmed. Richard Nixon's brother hired 2,000 Bellcomm engineers and scientists for NASA contracts.
Confirmed. All Hasselblad cameras dumped on the "moon" to save weight.
Confirmed. NASA/ASU contract agreement to erase the cross-hairs from Apollo images.
Confirmed. Howard Hughes owned and operated a satellite network with as many as (some sources say) 30.
Confirmed. The Apollo program will fail by 1970 without one man, Werner von Braun, rocket salesman.
Confirmed. Keep Out Zones at Apollo landing sites.
Confirmed. "preserve and protect" language in House Bill 2617.

Confirmed. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, former fighter pilot, former astronaut, former Marine general in charge of No-fly-zone operations in the Middle East.
Confirmed. Howard Hughes $365,000,000 Surveyor contract was originally $50,000,000.
Confirmed. Frank Borman in Russia one month before Apollo 11 launched.
Confirmed. Frank Borman with Richard Nixon during the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 launch.
Confirmed. Michael Collins put in charge of National Air and Space Museum and Smithsonian Institute.
Confirmed. Alan Shepard's miracle ear surgery 100% cured his l a b y r i n t h i t i s .
Confirmed. Deke Slayton's miracle vitamin regime 100% cured his heart "murmur" problem.
Confirmed. Michael Collins' miracle 100% recovery in 6 months from "bone spur" surgery in his neck.
Confirmed. Missing Apollo modules, Apollo 11 Eagle and Apollo 16 Orion.
Confirmed. Apollo 15 postage stamp incident tracks back to Al Bishop, employee of Hughes.
Confirmed. Money flow between Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon during the Nixon first term.
Confirmed. Howard Hughes, a master film maker by 1930. "Hell's Angels" cited by Stanley Kubrick.
Confirmed. Deke Slayton, George Mueller, Fred Ordway and Stanley Kubrick connected via A.C. Clarke.
Confirmed. Jim Irwin's 1961 miracle recovery from plane crash and cover assignment to Hughes projects.
Confirmed. Richard Nixon's epic drunk conversation with the Apollo 17 crew prior to launch.
Confirmed. Dr. Charles Berry incompetent last minute crew switch on Apollo 13.
Confirmed. Only orbiters and impactors. No moon landings, manned or unmanned, since 1976, Luna 24.
Confirmed. 1976 is Howard Hughes official "corporate" date of expiration.
Confirmed. 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes missing.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Here are some scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey which would give an idea what Kubrick though the Moon would look. These are very much UNlike the Apollo images:

If NASA and Kubrick had used the same photographic techniques then Kubrick's images from the movie 2001 would look alike the Apollo images, won't they? That's only your conclusion.



Hughes was in London, December 1972, the same month that Apollo 17 was on the moon. Where was Kubrick in December 1972?

I don't know the answer to that... I'm not an expert on Kubrick, so it's just an open question.

Clockwork Orange was released in Jan 1972.
Barry Lyndon didn't get released until Dec 1975.

If Hughes was in London Dec 1972, according to some sources, he was well enough to fly airplanes, is it plausible that he had the opportunity to meet, or talk, or communicate, with Kubrick, during that time?

According to source, Hughes was in London at least until August 1973, when he broke his hip, according to sources*

SayonaraJupiter

If NASA and Kubrick had used the same photographic techniques then Kubrick's images from the movie 2001 would look alike the Apollo images, won't they? That's only your conclusion.

as previously shown kubricks techniques for wide panoramic video pans for the apollo landings were not possible..



in summary, kubricks front screen projection method could only work for very small camera pans.. the pans from the apollo videos pans several ten degrees.. kubrick had no method to fake an apollo video pan such was shown..

kubrick also did not have the equipment to fake the moon landing, they didnt have the equipment to feasibly slow down hours of footage..

suspension ropes and slow motion (assuming slow motion was possible for such lengths) will not give the same effect as filming on the lunar surface because the hang time will not be the same. heres a video that compares john youngs jumping salute to the mythbusters attempt to use ropes with slow motion.. notice the difference in hang time.



also not to mention how on earth were they able to predict global weather patterns several months or several years in advance??

as you suggest apollo 13 was conceived after nixon watched marooned 4 months prior.. so they had 4 months to script film and edit, also collect weather patterns... super humans maybe? its not man power because HB suggest only a handful of people were part of the hoax not thousands, but then again this is howard hughes/nixon/cia we are talking about and they have a time machine and powers of GOD himself right?

choos
as you suggest apollo 13 was conceived after nixon watched marooned 4 months prior.. so they had 4 months to script film and edit, also collect weather patterns... super humans maybe? its not man power because HB suggest only a handful of people were part of the hoax not thousands, but then again this is howard hughes/nixon/cia we are talking about and they have a time machine and powers of GOD himself right?

turbonium1
And they gave him very expensive film lenses because he was such a nice guy??

They didn't.

Kubrick bought the lenses from Zeiss, who designed the original lenses at NASA's request. NASA didn't use them.

The lenses were for still cameras and needed to be modified for use in Kubrick's work.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


so you really suggest it took them less than 4 months to write, plan, film, edit and train the actors for apollo 13?

thats quite the incredible human effort.

choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

so you really suggest it took them less than 4 months to write, plan, film, edit and train the actors for apollo 13?

thats quite the incredible human effort.

edit on 7-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Not to mention head out into space and take photographs of the Earth from an ever increasing distance:

www.youtube.com...

And then take some more photos after they'd gone round the far side of the moon:

choos
reply to post by ppk55

 

regardless of where they move to, the only thing that matters is the suns location relative to the camera. if the sun remains in the same position relative to the camera the same lens flare will be shown.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Thanks for your lens flare 101 lesson.

However, the chances of anyone photographing the above and replicating the lens flare exactly 27 frames apart is astronomical. Considering ...

1. You walk down into a crater wearing your big bulky suit.
2. During that time the sun moves 2 degrees.
3. You don't have a viewfinder to try and align images.
4. Yet magically you capture the sun and lens flare identically to a photo you took 27 frames before. It's a one in a million.

Professional photographers without a viewfinder wouldn't be able to do this given the 4 points above.

ppk55

choos
reply to post by ppk55

 

regardless of where they move to, the only thing that matters is the suns location relative to the camera. if the sun remains in the same position relative to the camera the same lens flare will be shown.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Thanks for your lens flare 101 lesson.

However, the chances of anyone photographing the above and replicating the lens flare exactly 27 frames apart is astronomical. Considering ...

1. You walk down into a crater wearing your big bulky suit.
2. During that time the sun moves 2 degrees.
3. You don't have a viewfinder to try and align images.
4. Yet magically you capture the sun and lens flare identically to a photo you took 27 frames before. It's a one in a million.

Professional photographers without a viewfinder wouldn't be able to do this given the 4 points above.

One of the 4 'points' isn't a point, it's a conclusion.

Again, the flare is not exactly the same size in both images, as you can tell from your gif, and it's only in the same place because you fiddled with the photos. You don't have a viewfinder but you have spent hours in training - if you find a professional photographer who can't point a camera without a viewfinder he or she isn't worth the fee.

E2A: The 2nd photo is not taken from within a crater, it was taken on Surveyor crater rim, not that far from the first photo.

reply to post by ppk55


so really your complaint is that it is absolutely 100% impossible to take two photos at different positions with the sun in a similar location..

ppk55

choos
reply to post by ppk55

 

regardless of where they move to, the only thing that matters is the suns location relative to the camera. if the sun remains in the same position relative to the camera the same lens flare will be shown.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Thanks for your lens flare 101 lesson.

However, the chances of anyone photographing the above and replicating the lens flare exactly 27 frames apart is astronomical. Considering ...

1. You walk down into a crater wearing your big bulky suit.
2. During that time the sun moves 2 degrees.
3. You don't have a viewfinder to try and align images.
4. Yet magically you capture the sun and lens flare identically to a photo you took 27 frames before. It's a one in a million.

Professional photographers without a viewfinder wouldn't be able to do this given the 4 points above.

Lens flare has nothing to do with the location of the light source. What it requires is the light source be bright. Doesnt matter what its location is if the light is the same brightness and the camera is the same you get the same lens flare. Lens flare is simple light over whelming the camera lens and you see the internal parts of the lens on film.So if there using the same camera and the light is the same brightness you will get the same exact lens flare. Notice its called lens flare because where does it occur in the lens.

Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens. These mechanisms differ from the intended image formation mechanism that depends on refraction of the image rays. Flare manifests itself in two ways: as visible artifacts, and as a haze across the image. The haze makes the image look "washed out" by reducing contrast and color saturation (adding light to dark image regions, and adding white to saturated regions, reducing their saturation). Visible artifacts, usually in the shape of the lens iris, are formed when light follows a pathway through the lens than contains one or more reflections from the lens surfaces.

onebigmonkey
it's only in the same place because you fiddled with the photos.

I didn't do anything to the photos.
Anyone is welcome to download them and test it for themselves.

The numbers are AS12-46-6739 and AS12-46-6766.

The fact that in every shot ever reportedly taken from or on the moon features an extremely
short distance to the horizon alone tells me that we are dealing with a movie set.
That's outside of the myriad of other indications for fraud.

'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing was the first to blow the lie clear out of the water.

reply to post by UpEndedWorld


So the fact that they were on a much smaller planetary body wouldn't play into the horizon being closer? It could only be a movie set?

ppk55

onebigmonkey
it's only in the same place because you fiddled with the photos.

I didn't do anything to the photos.
Anyone is welcome to download them and test it for themselves.

The numbers are AS12-46-6739 and AS12-46-6766.

and I quote:

Each photo had to be repositioned vertically to align the images.

So in order for your images to have 'exactly the same lens flare in exactly the same place', you had to position the photos so that that is what happened.

I did download the images, that's how I posted one showing you where the flares did not, in fact, occupy the same area of the photograph, and neither are they exactly the same shape and size (which you can see from your own animation).

Your claim about the flares is incorrect, just as your claim that the photographer descended into a crater is incorrect.

UpEndedWorld
The fact that in every shot ever reportedly taken from or on the moon features an extremely
short distance to the horizon alone tells me that we are dealing with a movie set.
That's outside of the myriad of other indications for fraud.

'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing was the first to blow the lie clear out of the water.

In this photo

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The horizon, as shown by the summit ridge of a mountain across a valley floor, is about 12 km away. You can tell it's a long way by how long it took them to get to the base of that hill.

If I look out of my window to the horizon, across a valley floor to the hills in the distance, it is 1.5 km away.

I'm guessing this means any photograph I take of that horizon is going to be faked.

UpEndedWorld
The fact that in every shot ever reportedly taken from or on the moon features an extremely
short distance to the horizon alone tells me that we are dealing with a movie set.
That's outside of the myriad of other indications for fraud.

'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing was the first to blow the lie clear out of the water.

First of all, there are images showing a horizon line that is far away. Here is one example (of many). In this image from Apollo 15 (which is actually a mosaic of images), the distance to the mountains beyond Hadley Rille are a few milometers away:


Judging distance on the moon can be difficult due the the virtual lack of an atmosphere. On Earth, the atmospheric haze associated with viewing a distant object helps us judge distance (the reason distant mountains look blue-ish) . On the moon, distant mountains would appear to look crystal clear because there is virtually no atmosphere to look through.