Planetarion Forums

xtrasyn · 4 Mar 2003, 23:36

I'm seeing a program on Belgian TV (documentary, Dark Side of the Moon) with Rumsfeld, haig and Kissinger and a lot of other people.

They openly admit the apollo 11 footage is all fake, produced by Stanley Kubrick, under direct order of Nixon...

I'm not kidding you poeple. They say that after 30 years or so it is enough. They were faked to blind the russians.

They also say that the guys did go to the moon. they were there, but were unable to create footage. They knew it in advance so thats why they made it.

Kubrick never really recovered and drew himself back from that moment on.

I'm not kidding you. Donald Rumsfeld said it's all fake footage.

I kid you not.

Bloomers III · 4 Mar 2003, 23:42

Proof please

pablissimo · 5 Mar 2003, 00:17

Do I start calling people fag now?

My 'Nodrog for Dummies' guide isn't too specific.

xtrasyn · 5 Mar 2003, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloomers III
Proof please

oh you will lose that smirk soon

MrPeach · 5 Mar 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
oh you will lose that smirk soon

Not soon enough, we're waiting for the proof!!!

Deffeh · 5 Mar 2003, 01:07

gold if true

so many peoples "favourite moment" a complete fake

If not, and your ****ting us, your gay, but i dont care so much

Nicole · 5 Mar 2003, 01:07

Everyone knows that Rumsfeld's a total commie.

Reck · 5 Mar 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
oh you will lose that smirk soon

the documentary you saw on doc.story was fake (check canvas' teletext for it)... the creator wanted to prove the power of manipulation and therefore decided to make a false documentary so viewers would experience first hand how easy it is to get fooled.

(it was all explained when the credits rolled)

pablissimo · 5 Mar 2003, 01:09

Well, that was a magical mystery ride into tediom wasn't it?

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
I'm not kidding you. Donald Rumsfeld said it's all fake footage.

Because we all know that darling Donald is the most reliable source ever...

queball · 5 Mar 2003, 01:34

Anyone who thinks the moon landing video was faked has a rather loose grip on reality, and is a complete idiot. I don't care if ****ing Neil Armstrong came to my house, gave me a blowjob, and told me it was fake. It's not ****ing fake you ****heads.

xtrasyn · 5 Mar 2003, 02:15

Hey, gimme a break. I really saw said persons actually saying what I said. It is in that case not really up to someone's imagination to believe it. I simply was like WTF if Kissinger and Haig and Nixon's PA himself says |yeah we faked it" it then must be... true?

I haven't got teletext and I missed the credits, and the start as well. How the hell should I know it was a fake program?

Searching the internet on this subject doesn't really help much, believer or not.

MrPeach · 5 Mar 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
How the hell should I know it was a fake program?

is intelligence too much to be expected these days?

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 02:23

with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

queball · 5 Mar 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

After they faked the moon landing, NASA sent a real manned mission to the moon to fake the evidence. True story.

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
After they faked the moon landing, NASA sent a real manned mission to the moon to fake the evidence. True story.

Now that I can believe.

xtrasyn · 5 Mar 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

To be precise, I only was made to believe the FOOTAGE was fake

didn't I say that three times or so?

W · 5 Mar 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

So they say, but that's a myth. Noone has ever spotted any mirrors up there, cause they aren't there!

Aryn · 5 Mar 2003, 03:09

THE FLAG WAS BLOWING IN THE WIND
AND THERE'S NO WIND ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!11122233

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by W
So they say, but that's a myth. Noone has ever spotted any mirrors up there, cause they aren't there!

I have, my friend has, my university has, NRAO has, and I could keep on going on, and on, and on, and on some more of who else has.

Just because you haven't, doesn't mean others haven't either.

xtrasyn · 5 Mar 2003, 03:12

The only thing I think about it is that NASA is being nervous about something. I think they went to the moon tho.

Aryn · 5 Mar 2003, 03:15

what's funny is years ago when they sent that robot to mars.. and then it 'dissapeared' and suddenly the media stopped talking about mars.
one day it was the BIG THING.. the next.. nothing :\

Nixjim · 5 Mar 2003, 03:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

Apollo 13 never landed, that's the mission that had the explosion in the oxygen tanks. (See movie of same name)
The mirrors are there though, scientist bounce laser beams off them to measure the distance between Earth and moon.

Nixjim · 5 Mar 2003, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Aryn
what's funny is years ago when they sent that robot to mars.. and then it 'dissapeared' and suddenly the media stopped talking about mars.
one day it was the BIG THING.. the next.. nothing :\

The Aliens got it, prepare for an invasion. :eek:

Apothos · 5 Mar 2003, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
The only thing I think about it is that NASA is being nervous about something. I think they went to the moon tho.

Maybe Saddam's alien buddies put the 'frighteners on 'em'?

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Aryn
what's funny is years ago when they sent that robot to mars.. and then it 'dissapeared' and suddenly the media stopped talking about mars.
one day it was the BIG THING.. the next.. nothing :\

Electronics don't work too well in 180 mph dustorms. And we lost a robot on mars. Right at the time we thought we were going to lose it on mars.

Take this into consideration:

Jose Padilla was caught trying to take a dirty bomb into an american airport. I haven't heard a damn thing about him since. All I know is he's being held in a military prision indefinately. News organizations won't go near that story until something develops. And why should they?

Tactitus · 5 Mar 2003, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
Electronics don't work too well in 180 mph dustorms. And we lost a robot on mars. Right at the time we thought we were going to lose it on mars.

A pretty convenient coincidence if you ask me.

Quote:

Take this into consideration:

Jose Padilla was caught trying to take a dirty bomb into an american airport.

Well no. Padilla was supposedly planning on building such a bomb.

Quote:

I haven't heard a damn thing about him since. All I know is he's being held in a military prision indefinately. News organizations won't go near that story until something develops. And why should they?

He's being held off-planet.

Nicole · 5 Mar 2003, 04:59

I hate the Discovery Channel for making a program about this. Ever since I've had to listen to about a hundred different stoners go on and on about it. One of those stupid stoners (who is going for a degree in lawn care btw and knows **** all about science) had the nerve to get into it with an astrophysicist (I believe that was the name of it anyways) who used to work at ****ing NASA about it. The NASA guy actually busted out drawings to show how mr. stoner was wrong. This is what people get for basing their information on cable.

also: How could you buy the part where Stanley Kubrick directed that?

xtrasyn · 5 Mar 2003, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicole
I hate the Discovery Channel for making a program about this. Ever since I've had to listen to about a hundred different stoners go on and on about it. One of those stupid stoners (who is going for a degree in lawn care btw and knows **** all about science) had the nerve to get into it with an astrophysicist (I believe that was the name of it anyways) who used to work at ****ing NASA about it. The NASA guy actually busted out drawings to show how mr. stoner was wrong. This is what people get for basing their information on cable.

also: How could you buy the part where Stanley Kubrick directed that?

Hey listen

if all you see is the middle of the show there is no telling if it is fake or not. I could not find anything on other sites so then thought, why would Kissinger et co do this?

I never doubted them actually going, the angle of the show was that a direct image feed from the moon was impossible for some reason. So to satisfy the needs of televised america they said they put this up for Nixon to decide on and he said letś do it.

There's loads of other sites on the internet saying silly stuff about moon landings that is just refuted time after time. I've been there and read that, iirc it was one of the first things I used the internet for; ie getting footage from the Dark Side, and seeing the face on Cydonia (wich is actually really weird).

Regarding Kubrick, I know he went weird all of a sudden, and I always blamed an enourmous appetite for many different drugs. Being extorted by the CIA as a reason had not sprung to my mind but seemed feasible (or, possible) as well.

Donṫ forget, that once the brain is in state of amazement, it can suddenly accept a lot of things.

pablissimo · 5 Mar 2003, 10:37

Comic gold, gentlemen, keep up the good work.

roidlover · 5 Mar 2003, 15:18

In all those photos of the moon, with or without the earth in the background, have u guys ever noticed that there are NO STARS in the blackness of the background. You would think that the sky would be FULL of stars or at the very least one or 2, and if u check out the reflection in the helmet visor in the upclose shots, NO STARS are to be seen either. Very strange.

djbass · 5 Mar 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by roidlover
In all those photos of the moon, with or without the earth in the background, have u guys ever noticed that there are NO STARS in the blackness of the background. You would think that the sky would be FULL of stars or at the very least one or 2, and if u check out the reflection in the helmet visor in the upclose shots, NO STARS are to be seen either. Very strange.

Have a squiz at most modern space footage and you wont see stars either.. point?

re: the subject, it lost all credibility once Kubrick was mentioned.

=[DJ Bass]=

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by roidlover
In all those photos of the moon, with or without the earth in the background, have u guys ever noticed that there are NO STARS in the blackness of the background. You would think that the sky would be FULL of stars or at the very least one or 2, and if u check out the reflection in the helmet visor in the upclose shots, NO STARS are to be seen either. Very strange.

TV Camera's do not have the definition of the human eye. A lot of our ability to see small points of contrast (ie. a tiny white dot on big black background) is down to edge finding enhancements our eyes and brain automatically do. TV screens are also relatively low resolution so small sharp points tend to be blurred out or 'smudged'.
Now think about the quality of image likely from a small 1960's mini battery operated TV camera transmiting an analogue image back over a very long distance to yet more analog receiving, processing and retransmitting equipment which is then eventually displayed on what passed for a TV back then (ie. hardly the clearest picture ever).

MrL_JaKiri · 5 Mar 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by roidlover

I propose we introduce banning-for-idiocy.

MrL_JaKiri · 5 Mar 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by meglamaniac

A better answer is that there is such a great contrast between the brightness of the light from the sun and from the stars that if the stars were visable, the rest of the picture would have been a nice uniform shade of white.

Nicole · 5 Mar 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
Hey listen

if all you see is the middle of the show there is no telling if it is fake or not. I could not find anything on other sites so then thought, why would Kissinger et co do this?

I never doubted them actually going, the angle of the show was that a direct image feed from the moon was impossible for some reason. So to satisfy the needs of televised america they said they put this up for Nixon to decide on and he said letś do it.

There's loads of other sites on the internet saying silly stuff about moon landings that is just refuted time after time. I've been there and read that, iirc it was one of the first things I used the internet for; ie getting footage from the Dark Side, and seeing the face on Cydonia (wich is actually really weird).

Regarding Kubrick, I know he went weird all of a sudden, and I always blamed an enourmous appetite for many different drugs. Being extorted by the CIA as a reason had not sprung to my mind but seemed feasible (or, possible) as well.

Donṫ forget, that once the brain is in state of amazement, it can suddenly accept a lot of things.

I'm aware you doubted the footage only, my comment was directed at the effect that a tv special has had on a group of people otherwise uninterested in science. If you lump yourself in with those people (which btw, I hadn't) than you have reason to be defensive.

The Kubrick comment was directed at you, and I still think that the idea that Kubrick directed any fake moonlanding footage is absurd.

Sub · 5 Mar 2003, 20:56

Yeah okay, "people went into space". Sure thing. Have you ever met anyone who has gone into space? Thought not.

Nixjim · 5 Mar 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
Yeah okay, "people went into space". Sure thing. Have you ever met anyone who has gone into space? Thought not.

I've never met anyone who went to England either, therefor it must not exist either.

Sub · 5 Mar 2003, 21:28

We both live in one country. It's just a communist plot to make us think the world is significantly bigger than we think.

Marilyn Manson · 5 Mar 2003, 21:28

It wasn't faked, because I've been to The Moon and I've seen the little flag. I stole it. It's in my cupboard now.

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
Yeah okay, "people went into space". Sure thing. Have you ever met anyone who has gone into space? Thought not.

I have.

Having parents that work at the country's premiere Radio Telescope has it's perks sometimes.

Bunga · 5 Mar 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
with a sufficiently powerful telescope, you can see the mirrors that apollo 13 put up there, you know..

So..

STFU

Unfortunatly, that telescope hasn't been built yet. Nor will it, within 80 or so years.

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 22:24

Come off it lad - I'm pretty sure hubble could.
There are also array telescopes more powerful than hubble on the ground.

MrL_JaKiri · 5 Mar 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by meglamaniac
Come off it lad - I'm pretty sure hubble could.
There are also array telescopes more powerful than hubble on the ground.

It might be hard to detect mirrors on the moon by looking at radiowaves.

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 22:54

Thought hubble had optical capabilites?
Oh well, there are optical array telescopes on the ground which wouldn't have a problem.

5 Mar 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
I'm seeing a program on Belgian TV (documentary, Dark Side of the Moon) with Rumsfeld, haig and Kissinger and a lot of other people.

They openly admit the apollo 11 footage is all fake, produced by Stanley Kubrick, under direct order of Nixon...

I'm not kidding you poeple. They say that after 30 years or so it is enough. They were faked to blind the russians.

They also say that the guys did go to the moon. they were there, but were unable to create footage. They knew it in advance so thats why they made it.

Kubrick never really recovered and drew himself back from that moment on.

I'm not kidding you. Donald Rumsfeld said it's all fake footage.

I kid you not.

I can't tell you how much I love that documantary man

-Valon

MrL_JaKiri · 5 Mar 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by meglamaniac
Thought hubble had optical capabilites?
Oh well, there are optical array telescopes on the ground which wouldn't have a problem.

Telescope arrays --> Radio Telescopes

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 23:11

You're so behind the times mark

There is an optical aray telescope somewhere (can't remember where).
It links 3 'standard' telescopes placed about 0.5km apart if i remember rightly, using fibre-optics and some nifty computer equipment to control the syncing of the visual feeds.
It is very very powerful indeed.

meglamaniac · 5 Mar 2003, 23:13

Update:
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlt/

That's not the one allready in existance - it's a more powerful version.

MrL_JaKiri · 5 Mar 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by meglamaniac

As opposed to the large telescope

Indeed; I forgot dem tings.