Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 30722 times)

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #135 on: May 09, 2018, 10:36:04 AM »
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?

Of course!  That was to make the black hole less dangerous if it escaped.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #136 on: May 09, 2018, 10:58:12 AM »
You want a precise figure? Ok, I downloaded the file and played around with different frame rates and came to this figure. 1.84135784213333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333.

So, not the 2x  Dave Percy proposes, or indeed the 1.67x Jarrah White proposes, but a a completely different number? Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies.

How does the process below warrant proof of the film speed claim?

1) Speed up film A to 1.5 x original speed.
2) Render the sped up film and call this B.
3) Slow down B by 2/3.
4) Compare A and 2/3 x B side by side.
5) Say compared films look the same
6) Conclude the film was slowed down by 2/3

Quote
Ask a silly question aye!

You initially arrived at this board claiming we were dealing with the serious accusation of a hoax. OK, you want to be dealt with in a serious manner, then we'll do that. I'm fine with that. That also means we get the chance to ask serious questions. The question was not silly, as explained above, it's central to the claim. If you cannot be consistent between claimants, then you have no claim. I'm going to ask more questions, and I want answer to all of them.

1   The radiation claim is central to the hoax, why was travel through the VABs prohibitive? Please cite integrated flux and discuss
      the issues of secondary radiation in your answer.
2   How problematic were SPEs for the Apollo missions?
3   What is the difference between an H-alpha flare and SPEs events?
4   What do the H-alpha indexes quantify?
5   Why was GCR prohibitive to the Apollo missions? Again, cite integrated fluxes.
6   Why do you think the LM was a cardboard box? Do you understand how foils, insulation and tapes are used in the aerospace
      industry?
7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?
8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?
9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition.
10 What radiation shielding did the CM offer?
11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?
12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?
13 Is the C-rock evidence of props, and explain how this can be the case.
14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away.
15 Do you believe the waving flag is evidence of fakery?
16 Are all shadows parallel in nature?
17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 11:08:02 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #137 on: May 09, 2018, 11:02:36 AM »
Maybe... snip

Maybe my mother was the grip for the shoot. Maybe my father ran the wire wig. Maybe if my grandma had male genitals, she would have been my grandfather. Maybe doesn't cut the mustard. It's called speculation. Proof dear boy, proof. We demand proof, not maybes.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 11:05:00 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #138 on: May 09, 2018, 12:08:55 PM »
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

No.  Just...no. 

Yes, g is not constant over the Earth's surface; however, it varies by less than 1%.  Not enough to account for your "discrepancies". 

And, as I pointed out in your comment about Mauna Kea, even places like Los Alamos have plants growing all over the place, which you don't see in any of the Apollo footage. 

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1830
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #139 on: May 09, 2018, 12:58:26 PM »
You obviously think the gantries would be side by side, pointing in the direction of the camera. The gantries would be on either side, and coupled with some well-rehearsed choreography from the wire men, I can’t really see a problem. If Stanley Kubrick were alive, he could probably have explained it better, but he died only hours after submitting his final print for his final film “Eyes Wide Shut” which was released on the 16th of July 1999. Does the 16th of July ring any bells?

Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick.

Quote
And you know that for a fact? Ever heard of multitasking?

Actually, yes, I do know that for a fact.  You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.  Anyone who knows even very little about filmmaking knows that, so your insistence that "multitasking," ye Gods, is sufficient to resolve that is merely proof that you don't know anything about filmmaking, either.

Quote
That would be true if it were filmed live.

Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.  Seriously, watch the footage.  Not just clips of Apollo 11 but the full footage of multiple missions.

Quote
I definitely wouldn’t, from that poor quality black and white footage. The footage from Apollo 11 is deliberately very low quality and yet still looks fake. If they could have involved more people, they may have done a better job.

Which merely proves you haven't done anything worth recognizing.
"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 AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #140 on: May 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM »
I love 2001:A Space Odyssey, but it is so full of technical inaccuracies that they pull me out of the movie. For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer.



If you told me that image was supposed to be taken at Grimaldi, I might believe it. Clavius? No way.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 01:27:07 PM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2018, 04:01:16 PM »
That's a lot of deathsquadders, when you take 8-hour shifts and weekends and holidays into account. You'd need around 8 deathsquadders for each scientist, to ensure total coverage.
  You'd also need supervisory and management teams, and an entire infrastructure (ordnance, training and skills upgrading, HR, payroll, pension administration, etc.)

  I would put USMC Lt. Col. Oliver North (ret'd) in charge of it all, or maybe G. Gordon "I am not subject to coercion" Liddy.

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2018, 11:54:35 PM »
I love 2001:A Space Odyssey, but it is so full of technical inaccuracies that they pull me out of the movie. For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer.



If you told me that image was supposed to be taken at Grimaldi, I might believe it. Clavius? No way.

Sorry about the poor quality of the photo. Here's a better one:

"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1830
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #143 on: May 10, 2018, 12:59:38 PM »
And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict.  All other considerations aside.  (And there are a lot of other considerations.)  Kubrick's directorial style would have driven Aldrin up the wall.  At about take seventy-five, he would have lost it.
"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 Ranb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #144 on: May 10, 2018, 02:39:38 PM »
Well maybe when he was younger.  :)  Didn't Buzz lose it on take two when director/producer Bart Sibrel was trying to tell him (you're a fraud....) how to act?

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1830
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #145 on: May 11, 2018, 12:15:38 PM »
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.
"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 bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #146 on: May 11, 2018, 12:40:32 PM »
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.

When did this happen?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1830
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #147 on: May 11, 2018, 01:55:09 PM »
A Clockwork Orange.  Alex doesn't have a snake in the book, but he does in the movie because Kubrick found out somehow that McDowell's scared of them.
"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 Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #148 on: May 11, 2018, 02:00:53 PM »
A Clockwork Orange.  Alex doesn't have a snake in the book, but he does in the movie because Kubrick found out somehow that McDowell's scared of them.

He would have had a field day with my lepidopterophobia. I was once persuaded to go in a butterfly house. The results were hilarious. The worst moment? Lowering my camera after taking a photo... to find a butterfly nestled on the lens.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #149 on: May 11, 2018, 02:08:04 PM »
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.

All those retakes where he makes him say "No Neil, after you..."