| Page 1 of 2 |
ginge51
Banned
Posts: 1692
Location: England - Manchester
|
 Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 19:37 Post subject: the real moon landing |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 19:58 Post subject: |
|
|
tnx 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ginge51
Banned
Posts: 1692
Location: England - Manchester
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 20:11 Post subject: |
|
|
there wasnt any moon landing all fake.
if it was true we would saw lots of spaceships travling to resarch the moon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| ginge51 wrote: | | skidrow wrote: | | tnx |
what do u think then skidrow ???
are you convinced it was faked the moon landings or do you think that clip was bollox? |
i strongly believe its fake, i mean, if they did it with the equipment they had in 1970 they SURELY can do it with the equipment they have now. 
so why don't they do it again? Because its to dangerous? or is it because they've been "there" before?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 20:15 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ginge51
Banned
Posts: 1692
Location: England - Manchester
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigperm
Posts: 1908
Location: Alberta,Canada
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 21:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Well i find i appaling, and totally disrespectful to entertain the idea that the moon landing was fake.
And the argument if they can do it in the 70s, why not now. They can, but present space vehicles are not designed for moon landings. The Saturn V was designed for moon landings. You guys think the shuttle it just going to land on the moon?
The reason we are not landing on the moon presently, is becasue there is no need or driving force to do it.
We were in the middle of a space race with russia, that was the driving force back then. Whats the driving force now? Research?
If this was fake
Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969. First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.
I guess all these were faked as well?
Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969. First precise manned landing on the Moon.
Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971. Alan Shepard, the sole astronaut of the Mercury MR-3 mission, walks on the Moon.
Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971. First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.
Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972. First landing in the lunar highlands.
Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972. Final Apollo lunar mission, first night launch, only mission with a professional geologist.
| Jenni wrote: | | I drunk. I don't fucking care! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 21:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigperm wrote: |
And the argument if they can do it in the 70s, why not now. They can, but present space vehicles are not designed for moon landings. |
then they build one again. Nasa got plenty of $$. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Dec 2006 23:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigperm wrote: | | We were in the middle of a space race with russia, that was the driving force back then. Whats the driving force now? Research? |
Just gotta ask first. We? Your canadien aint you? Atleast what it says.
Well research is all nasa is about aint it? Spaceresearch, and what better place to do it then the moon?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 00:11 Post subject: |
|
|
The conclusions they make in that documentary are silly. With the right focal length of lens they wouldn't need to do any of those "tricks". The idea that they were shooting through one window into the spacecraft and out the other window is hilarious. If they wanted to fake it they wouldn't need to do that at all.
I love a good conspiracy video but this one was just plain silly and lacking any substance.
Do I think they could have pulled off the moon trips in the late 60s/ early 70's? Yes because they were willing to take MAJOR risks. You would never see Nasa taking such risks today but back then they were in a desperate bid to beat the Russians. Everyone was brainwashed into believing the USA had to win the space race or else the world would collapse and satan would rise from the ground.
Coming from someone who works in the film industry it would have been VERY difficult to shoot the scenes on the moon that all of us grew up watching. I would say it is impossible to fake it. We don't have lights available even today that could replicate the hard sunlight seen in the photos and video clips. Remember that film and television cameras back then were extremely slow so they would have had to use a single MASSIVE light for the moon shots that would have literally fried the actors and set pieces.
During that period the most powerful hollywood light would have been the carbon arc light and it had some terrible limitations. Basically the rods in the light had to be literally changed every 20-30 minutes.
http://www.mole.com/aboutus/history/asc/1946-12-438.html
The carbon arc light has since been replaced by modern HMI lights but you can't beat the hardness of the old style lights. The last time I saw them on set was with a Norman Jewison film called "Bogus" about 10 years ago and they shipped up old lights from LA that were stamped "Desilu productions" and "RKO films". These lights were the work horses of Hollywood yet even these heavy beasts could never do what was required to pull this off.
The moon footage could only have been achieved by a single hard light source and we don't have anything on the planet that could do it that I know of. The area they had to light was huge and it would be impossible to avoid multiple shadows even with the technology we have today.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23342
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 02:07 Post subject: |
|
|
I like this photo. Not gonna go into debate about this, as it's not gonna get anywhere as always.
 Spoiler: | |
More photos like this here, http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 02:56 Post subject: |
|
|
lol what a fucking hoax. They never where on the moon..
great link.
Squirrely: Now come on y'all. We can't waste time arguing. There could still be survivors out there. We need to hunt them down, and kill them.
Beary: How about we kill them, and then rape their bodies so we can use their blood as lubricant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 03:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Even a small film production needs a large crew. To do something like this would involve hundreds of people that all had to keep their silence. Where are the people coming forward saying that they worked on it? Were hundreds of people killed to keep their silence?!!
You can't make hundreds of film people suddenly disappear. We are all freelancers and/or union members and when our "competition" suddenly disappear we notice, lol.
Silly idea.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 03:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| KnightRider2006 wrote: | Even a small film production needs a large crew. To do something like this would involve hundreds of people that all had to keep their silence. Where are the people coming forward saying that they worked on it? Were hundreds of people killed to keep their silence?!!
You can't make hundreds of film people suddenly disappear. We are all freelancers and/or union members and when our "competition" suddenly disappear we notice, lol.
Silly idea. |
So what does the pictures say? Missing shadows, prop use and what not. Smells hoax a long way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 03:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| KnightRider2006 wrote: | Even a small film production needs a large crew. To do something like this would involve hundreds of people that all had to keep their silence. Where are the people coming forward saying that they worked on it? Were hundreds of people killed to keep their silence?!!
You can't make hundreds of film people suddenly disappear. We are all freelancers and/or union members and when our "competition" suddenly disappear we notice, lol.
Silly idea. |
i know it's very hard to believe that government can fuk u up like that lol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 06:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| ELIZ wrote: | | i know it's very hard to believe that government can fuk u up like that lol |
No what is hard to believe is that any government was smart enough to pull off a hoax like this. Lets face it government workers and politicians don't have the brains between them to open a can of Jessica Simpson tuna.
| Unauthorized wrote: | | So what does the pictures say? Missing shadows, prop use and what not. Smells hoax a long way. |
The photos were done for a Fox TV documentary. Need I continue?
Prop use? I assume you refer to the "C" rock? This again is total nonsense. We don't have letters on props. Never have.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 06:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| nerrd wrote: | I like this photo. Not gonna go into debate about this, as it's not gonna get anywhere as always.
| Spoiler: | |
|
The yellow lines drawn on the photo are completely misleading and wrong! The shadows are 100% correct and anyone who really knows photography and lighting has come across these concepts.
Below are some of the things that most people don't understand. You really need to play around with photography and lighting to really grasp it. Reading about it does not make it clear in your mind.
1) Perspective distortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(caused_by_camera_to_subject_distance)
2) Wide angle lens distortion
http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic03.htm
http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm
3) Shadows on uneven ground
The rocks in the foreground are on slight mounds of dirt. The shadows slope down the incline and that gives the appearance of going in the wrong direction. I have seen this on several photos that conspiracy folks give as examples and it was caused by a hill or incline.
4) Inverse Square law
http://www.geofflawrence.com/photography_tutorial_inverse_square_law.htm
There is no way that the light source could be where the lines are shown to connect. If this were so the right side of the photo would be extremely dark compared to near the alleged light source. The Inverse square law is a bitch to get your head around but is a major problem for people that work in lighting in film and television.
Everyone has experienced in their flash photography an object or person close to the camera being extremely bright but objects in the background are dark. This is the inverse square law biting you in the ass.
For someone like myself who works professionally with large powerful lights the lines drawn on that photo are hysterically funny. Unless the government has a way of warping the laws of physics then the yellow lines are IMPOSSIBLE.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 15:27 Post subject: |
|
|
What makes me think it was faked was the amount of documentation showing that it could have been a hoax, since we're not just talking 3 or 4 photo's, we're talking masses of information showing lighting/shadows, tiretracks, props, cameras etc. There's just that much of it showing a dodgy state around some of the moon landings that it always makes me think it was a hoax after all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poullou
Posts: 1746
Location: Internet Express
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 17:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 17:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 17:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 18:01 Post subject: |
|
|
I gotta agree with Knighrider2006. I just cant see how an entire film crew can keep something like this secret :S
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 18:10 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure the production crew of the whole moon landing forgery had to sign some sort of a confidentially contract making sure they would never, ever tell a soul what happened. Or, after everything was done, and the whole world was convinced, the government killed them all, except for the heroes who had to live in shame for the rest of their pathetic lives.
i don't care if it's fake or not. It's a significant moment in history, fake or not, it let us reach into the stars and feel space, even though it was possibly imaginary. But really, so fucking what if it's fake. Has it done anything?
You guys are missing the main picture here. If it is fake. And if that whole radiation bull shit is what's stopping us from exploring other planets and other 'verses then we're all stuck on this dying planet. And come 500 years your grand grand grand grand children are breathing through tubes ‘cause the air is filled with cell eating bacteria and they're just waiting for the sun to set so they can finally sleep in 200 degree shade.  Yaddi-yaddi-yadda
So yanks lied to the world. And? Just proved that they're smart enough to pull something like this off. heck, nasa approached kubrick and asked him to fake the moon landing if they'd happen not to succeed.  He obviously said no, and you see some poor sap tried his best.
Ps. Wasn’t there a coke bottle flying through the screen on the Australian airing?
flib, anyone can take any amount of information, flip it around, twist it as much as possible feed it to an audience who may know very little about a subject, make it sound believable... make them question some of the things. Release a few more pictures with more detail making it sound as legit as possible, even though it's not, and you got yourself millions of people believing you. And they’ll go to hell for you because they believe you. Look at loose change videos. Simple information. Simple. Everything is explained in detail, so those who know nothing about the subject feel that they’ve been taught something and they can educate others.
i bet you, if I studied history and knew some important dates, and studied religion, i could possibly twist the whole jesus story into some perverse bullshit and you'd believe it. heck, if I put a lot of time and effort into it i'm sure i'd be able to put the vatican out of business.
It's not hard to make people believe you. You just need enough 'evidence' to support your claim.
I wish the landing was real. I want us to explore other planets before I die. Not just with silly robots.
ps. there's also a rumour. old rumour. that the moon is made up of glass tunnels, and now they can't go back to the moon because alien beings have warned the american government that if they do ever return there will be chaos and anarchy on the streets moments before our planet will be destroyed
It'd be sick if moon was like a monitoring planet. watching us. It's always one side of the moon that looks down at us. i'm sure there are like 90000mp cameras recording everything we do. And alien beings don't want us finding out that we're just lab rats .
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 18:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th Dec 2006 18:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
