Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 83402 times)

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #240 on: June 03, 2018, 12:08:35 AM »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline paulontheplane

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #241 on: June 03, 2018, 12:23:11 AM »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #242 on: June 03, 2018, 02:25:50 AM »
Not entirely sure why paulontheplane is posting these splendid images of Apollo astronauts at Taurus-Littrow, but let's go with the assumption that he is building towards making another point about the flag being wet and I'll ask him a question.

Here are two images of the flag taken as part of a sequence of tourist shots. They show the flag in roughly the same orientation, although one is slightly further away. They are AS17-134-20385 and AS17-134-20381. That numbering sequence should tell you that one of the images was taken later than the other. In one of these images, the flag shows what paulontheplane is claiming signs of moisture and drying at the creases. On the other, it does not. Which one do you suppose is the 'wettest', and therefore should have been taken first?



Psst: it's a trap.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #243 on: June 03, 2018, 02:27:50 AM »
Quote
“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”
Jesus. I have lost the will to continue with the nonsense

To be fair to cambo there, the 'handwaving' part was my response to him. It was his follow-on response that deserved your ire ;)

Offline nweber

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #244 on: June 03, 2018, 03:14:46 AM »
Psst: it's a trap.

The shadow in the one on the right looks like Stanley Kubrick giving the finger to someone.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #245 on: June 03, 2018, 03:48:49 AM »
Psst: it's a trap.

The shadow in the one on the right looks like Stanley Kubrick giving the finger to someone.

Pareidolia.

Offline nickrulercreator

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #246 on: June 03, 2018, 06:35:18 AM »
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #247 on: June 03, 2018, 06:51:32 AM »
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
Indeed!  Some of the ideas the HBs have about "whistle-blowers" is completely nonsensical.  Sneaking a hard to find clue into the photographs, film or even audio is one thing, but hanging a wet flag on a set with dozens of crew, director, DP, gaffer, camera, sound, etc. etc. present is ludicrous. Not one person on the set, including presumably the "NASA Special Forces" team making sure it was done properly ;D noticed it, or stopped filming so it could be dried out.

It takes a special kind of suspension of disbelief to rationalise something like that...  ::)
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #248 on: June 03, 2018, 07:20:20 AM »
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
Indeed!  Some of the ideas the HBs have about "whistle-blowers" is completely nonsensical.  Sneaking a hard to find clue into the photographs, film or even audio is one thing, but hanging a wet flag on a set with dozens of crew, director, DP, gaffer, camera, sound, etc. etc. present is ludicrous. Not one person on the set, including presumably the "NASA Special Forces" team making sure it was done properly ;D noticed it, or stopped filming so it could be dried out.

It takes a special kind of suspension of disbelief to rationalise something like that...  ::)

Like all those that preceded cambo and paulontheplane. Critical thinkers---BAH, More like dead from the neck up. 8)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline nweber

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #249 on: June 03, 2018, 08:52:34 AM »
Pareidolia.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up, because I thought it was actually Stanley Kubrick giving someone the finger.

Offline tikkitakki

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 30
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #250 on: June 03, 2018, 11:41:06 AM »
The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.
The Adler Universal 39 used in the movie does have a 1 key and number 1 is clearly differerent from lowercase L.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter


Conclusion: no "A-eleven work" there.


Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #251 on: June 03, 2018, 01:25:27 PM »
Quote
“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html
Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.

Not only that, but who filmed the other sequels?  You can tell, if you know directors, the difference in style between--for example--even for-hire Spielberg and, say, Joe Johnston (I can't think of any sequels to Kubrick films, much less any Kubrick sequels!), or even Spielberg-trying-to-Kubrick.  So suddenly, all a director is for is directing special effects, a huge waste of talent, but they took Kubrick's time for the first two Apollos and then let him go off and direct another movie instead of continuing with the series?

Quote
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.
What a load.

Indeed.  Definitely someone who knows nothing about Kubrick, either as a person or a director.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.
That is all in your head. It has no intersection with reality.wa

There's a frankly not-very-good documentary on the subject, and about several other possible things "proven" by The Shining.  I watched the documentary, and the only evidence I saw in that movie was that Kubrick doesn't know much about baking powder. 


Quote
“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?
Yeah, you missed that one.

Funny how these people know so much about Apollo without ever really doing research on the Apollo record, isn't it?

Quote
“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.
Wander along with a stupid notion and then complain that said stupid notion is mocked? You are somehow surprised?

I think this is another one of mine, and I'd use the word "charlatan" again.  While I do believe that a majority of the people who think Apollo was hoaxed was really do believe it, they flatly do not have the skill level they're claiming.  Once again, we've hit here on a topic I really do know about.  I know a lot about film, and a certain amount about Kubrick in particular.  (I'm not a huge fan, but you can't avoid discussion of him in film circles, you know?)  And it's become quite clear that Cambo knows nothing about filmmaking, very little about Kubrick, and nowhere near as much as he's claiming about special effects.  That means he fits the dictionary definition of a charlatan.  And that's before we get into the people who are just making Apollo claims to fleece the hoax believers.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 01:31:37 PM by gillianren »
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #252 on: June 03, 2018, 01:36:31 PM »
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?

Kubrick got upset it was dirty and ordered it washed right then and there.

Then everyone on the set conspired to keep him from noticing he was shooting a wet flag. Somehow.



(And it was really, really wet. So wet it hadn't dried yet after ten hours of re-takes under hot studio lights.)

Offline nickrulercreator

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #253 on: June 03, 2018, 01:37:16 PM »
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?

Kubrick got upset it was dirty and ordered it washed right then and there.

Then everyone on the set conspired to keep him from noticing he was shooting a wet flag. Somehow.



(And it was really, really wet. So wet it hadn't dried yet after ten hours of re-takes under hot studio lights.)
Somehow indeed
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #254 on: June 03, 2018, 01:43:55 PM »
Well, at least it is a single point, even if it isn't being coherently argued. Unlike the cambot and his Jackson Pollock performance art.