[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Back on topic:
Interesting to know, whether the moon landing is a fake or not (I don't think it was, but if you want to believe it was faked, go ahead):
Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.[/QUOTE]
He would have to have done it several more times though to accommodate the other landings.
Besides, as I wrote earlier in the thread before it was derailed, there are easy ways to counter pretty much any 'theory' about the landing being faked.
At least - I have had this conspiracy crap explained to me to my satisfaction, easily, and I don't believe *anything* usually. People landed on the moon.
Ordinarily I'd say "it's not rocket science", but in this case it was, and it worked, and people who don't believe in it have to invent better reasoning because the current theories don't work.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, I do believe that it is possible the footage got messed up in the process of being sent here (remember, the signal was so weak that it had to be received using radio-telescopes, which could mean static with some slight movement in it is your image), and Kubrick's version COULD have been aired. I don't know. I just know there are some oddities on the film, but there are also oddities on PICTURES from the moon, so that could just Luna being odd.
We actually had to study that documentary in my media class from the Conspiracy Theory point of view. There are definitely oddities. i don't know what the truth is, maybe i'll find out when i go to the Moon. The truth is out there. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I just know there are some oddities on the film, but there are also oddities on PICTURES from the moon, so that could just Luna being odd.[/QUOTE]
and...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen are the Champions wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There are definitely oddities.[/QUOTE]
As far as the Moon landings are concerned, there really aren't any 'oddities' on either the live television transmissions or the Hasselblad lunar photography. People consistently make mistakes when it comes to analyzing these photographs. Things that don't seem right, appear that way simply because you don't completely understand the distortions that can occur when a 3D scene is projected onto a flat surface (the film) via a lens.
If there are any particular 'oddities' that you have in mind, please bring them up and I'll endeavour to address them. I studied this subject in depth for five or six years, so I should be able to elucidate you!
Ironically, the TV footage is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Apollo missions were genuine. The behaviour exhibited by the astronauts and the lunar dust is impossible to recreate in a 1G, air-filled environment.
Ian.
and...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen are the Champions wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There are definitely oddities.[/QUOTE]
As far as the Moon landings are concerned, there really aren't any 'oddities' on either the live television transmissions or the Hasselblad lunar photography. People consistently make mistakes when it comes to analyzing these photographs. Things that don't seem right, appear that way simply because you don't completely understand the distortions that can occur when a 3D scene is projected onto a flat surface (the film) via a lens.
If there are any particular 'oddities' that you have in mind, please bring them up and I'll endeavour to address them. I studied this subject in depth for five or six years, so I should be able to elucidate you!
Ironically, the TV footage is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Apollo missions were genuine. The behaviour exhibited by the astronauts and the lunar dust is impossible to recreate in a 1G, air-filled environment.
Ian.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere.
Ian.
Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere.
Ian.
Yah I tried saying that before the racism discussion started - the flight pattern of the dust is a give-away that it was shot on the moon.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ian R wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere.
Ian.[/QUOTE]
Kubrick HIMSELF stated in (I think) 3 different interviews (could be 2, but I thought 3) that he was asked to film it and did so, but refused to go into details regarding this.
Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere.
Ian.[/QUOTE]
Kubrick HIMSELF stated in (I think) 3 different interviews (could be 2, but I thought 3) that he was asked to film it and did so, but refused to go into details regarding this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't have to insult you. The unchallenged genius at making you look stupid is you.[/QUOTE]yay!
^^
^^
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........[/QUOTE]
Rather a communist than a nazi...or you.[/QUOTE]
Rather a communist or me than a nazi or fundamentalist liars like you.[/QUOTE]
I'm a fundamentalist and a liar now? Too bad you can't back EITHER of them up, seeing as you're talking from your ass (granted, the part of you with the highest IQ).[/QUOTE]
You're back!!!
Rough as always
can I be the next in being insulted by you??
CAN I?
CAN I??
PLEAAAAASE[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't even bother, Matias...
Caspar was generated through anal sex.[/QUOTE]LMAOO
xDDDD
Rather a communist than a nazi...or you.[/QUOTE]
Rather a communist or me than a nazi or fundamentalist liars like you.[/QUOTE]
I'm a fundamentalist and a liar now? Too bad you can't back EITHER of them up, seeing as you're talking from your ass (granted, the part of you with the highest IQ).[/QUOTE]
You're back!!!
Rough as always
can I be the next in being insulted by you??
CAN I?
CAN I??
PLEAAAAASE[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't even bother, Matias...
Caspar was generated through anal sex.[/QUOTE]LMAOO
xDDDD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Kubrick HIMSELF stated in (I think) 3 different interviews (could be 2, but I thought 3) that he was asked to film it and did so, but refused to go into details regarding this.[/QUOTE]
Can you go into more details about these interviews?
Thomas - this is almost DEFINITELY an Urban Myth. Many individuals have looked into this issue over the years and found not one iota of evidence linking Kubrick to any aupposed effort to produce faked lunar TV transmissions.
Can you go into more details about these interviews?
Thomas - this is almost DEFINITELY an Urban Myth. Many individuals have looked into this issue over the years and found not one iota of evidence linking Kubrick to any aupposed effort to produce faked lunar TV transmissions.
I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed.[/QUOTE]
Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited
Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited
It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed.[/QUOTE]
Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited[/QUOTE]
Can you read? There is no suggestion that the moon LANDINGS were fake, but that an 'alternative version' was shot in the studio, in case the FOOTAGE was unusable.
Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited[/QUOTE]
Can you read? There is no suggestion that the moon LANDINGS were fake, but that an 'alternative version' was shot in the studio, in case the FOOTAGE was unusable.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon.[/QUOTE]
And did I deny that? No.
And did I deny that? No.