Pot Calling The Kettle Black ...

[hawkwind]

On the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 it may be appropriate to revisit this topic. I tend to think that people went to the moon but this video always bothers me ...

http://www.livevideo.com/video/MadScience/11AA19BEE464402EA1398F8DE6A59694/moon-hoax-video.aspx

Have at this one ... I can't seem to get off the fence ...

- Hawk

[Nuckelhedd]

Excellent find might I also suggest this.

[GaryGo]

Some of the Nasa pictures like this one are obvious fakes ,Firstly, despite the absence of an atmosphere, no stars can be seen in the sky.

Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules.

[Nuckelhedd]

Good Grief...
I thought that one was buried forever

[duane]

"first i just want to say that i think it's shocking the people wouldn't believe that we went to the moon. Nasa, an official government agency, says that we did. the government, at least the US government, would never lie to us. I don't know about those foreign ones, being un-American and all.

i think they're attacking us because they're jealous of our "can do" attitude and of our "having the right stuff"

--typical American response to moon hoax

here's a couple other views on the subject
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/01_sputnik-shock-ENGL.html


"Moon plays": The moon was the Earth - Lies and Truth in Space

http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
Alchemical Kubrick II

By
Jay Weidner

[SidVicious]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[GaryGo]

Sid I've a sore head after looking at that link you posted!

I was reading that one about no stars and the air on the moon and that and my head started to fucking hurt! .....so its way to complicated for someone as stupid as I - Is it meant to be??

My big problem is the 40 years!! - plain and simple???

Why have they not been back in 40 years?? I just don't buy that at all.
Story about the cold war etc! most guys on here know the cold war was bollocks...
The script seems to be they can't "afford" to go back?? or what's the point?
What's the point in going to space at all?

The main reason I'm not buying it is this....

Going to the moon is not like getting into your car and driving 400,000 miles or what ever it is to the moon and then getting out taking a few photos and then getting back in the car and driving home.......

For a model lets pretend you live about 1000 miles inland and you drive to the coast and get into a yacht - Once you get into the Yacht its wind powered so you can sale across the ocean in relative comfort at almost zero expense apart from food etc which you would eat anyway if you weren't on the Yacht - So you could argue that you either go thousands of miles or to a small island just off the coast and for not really much difference in cost relatively speaking....as 99.9% of the money for your trip is spent on the Petrol or diesel needed to get you the 1000 miles to the coast

In space travel almost all of the money etc is spent getting away from Earths gravitational pull so all the bullshit Nasa has been doing since the so called apollo missions like the shuttle etc are bound to be in the same ball park in financial terms as the apollo missions.
Once a rocket has been built it can be replicated much cheaper the next time but its the Fuel etc and the propulsion part of the rocket which costs the big money...

So from were Im standing theres not much difference between putting a few guys into orbit or sending them to the moon??

Any of this make sense - and don't forget I'm an aging buffoon
But I mean its not Rocket Science??

[bri]

[bri]

[GaryGo]

Nicely done bri....

Only problem is it sounds like the strawman again....
debunked the no stars in the Sky is like thermite in 9/11
the starless photos have never figured in my reasoning and to me are therefore irrelevant
if you prove there was no thermite at the world trade centre s you don't prover it wasn't an inside job..

With me its always been the 40 years without going back.

When you think their telling us they done it within just over twenty years after WW2 finished with a 3 dollar pocket calculator running the show -

Yet in twice that time since with all the leaps in science and computers they haven't been back??

Thats completely fucking absurd!!

and it seems absurd because it is absurd

[bri]

That's an interesting way of putting it.
But...was there a reason to go back? Wasn't it all a big show?
Wouldn't a moon landing be much easier to fake post 70s?
Is any of this relevant?
Did the Moon Landings kill all those people on 9/11?
I say let it lie. I have yet to see a moon-hoax issue that can't be debunked.
I fail to see any relevance in fake moon landings (often followed by or accompanied by "Holohoax" allegations or UFOS.

Very CIA-esque material. Let's not fake it and say we did, then associate the issue with more important ones for years to come.

[bri]

Apollo 11 Crew Share Regrets at Not Doing Michael Jackson style Moonwalk on Moon
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i56796

[hawkwind]

I get the points made so far ... as for most of the "evidence" for the hoax theory, my background in astronomy gives me enough information to debunk it all by myself and have often laughed at the leaps of logic applied by folks who have no knowledge of physics or photography.

The point of posting the video is ... if the footage shown is real and contiguous, regardless of what the narrator is telling you to see ... how do you explain the 5 seconds from 2:35 to 2:30

Even I can make up excuses for NASA to shoot the footage ... like they were practicing for possible unforeseen photographic challenges on the moon or they were concerned that the Van Allen belt radiation would expose the film carried on board and were hedging their bets ... but NASA or the professional de-bunkers won't touch this video or the others I've seen with variations of this footage ... (sound of crickets).

So, I am still bothered by this video and was just throwing it out there for us to ponder.

- Hawk

[James D]

I agree with you GaryGo - why haven't they been back?
Why haven't they set up a load of satelite communication etc. blah, blah, blahs? I mean a fixed, constant, reliable, satelite like the Moon - that's got to be useful for the ol' telecom-whatever industry - no?

And so now we're off to Mars?
What the f@ck for?

I think... deep down at the bottom of it all - I reckon we DO have the tech/knowledge/resources to do/have done it - but what really happened and why does it smell bad?

And WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN BACK???!!!
What's so scary on the "Dark side of the Moon"?

A classic -

Pink Floyd - 1973 - Dark Side Of The Moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d78K4rCEfAo&feature=related

I don't think we were ever meant to leave the Earth, at least not in this plane.

Anyway, it sure is the "Great gig in the sky" -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUVt6MqrWgk&feature=related

Skin up won'ch'all!

[duane]

hi Bri

this is from
http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIc.html

it is talking about the cameras used and how it was impossible to get everything in focus both the astronaut and the background mountains). he is also implying that the reason there are no stars in the pictures is that the projected background didn't have any on it.
you seem to have more of a grasp of cameras than i do. does this make any sense?



5). DEPTH OF FIELD: MORE EVIDENCE

Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to.

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place.

It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.

It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are on a small confined set.

According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.

The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.

When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer.

Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine.

Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.

Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.

Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.