Evil Academy

Full Version: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(08-08-2018 02:32 PM)MrOctober77 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-08-2018 01:47 PM)Chaos Reigns Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-08-2018 12:54 PM)MrOctober77 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-05-2018 10:03 PM)pug-thug Wrote: [ -> ]^ is the translation incorrect?

to me he if the translation is correct he clearly talks about kubrick staging parts of it

what is your take on the moon landing?

I have no idea if the translation is correct or not, but the video of his supposed admission is edited. To me, that puts doubt in that video.

Sure, have doubts about the video. But do you have doubts about the Apollo Program itself, or not?

No, people so want to believe it was fake. But like just about every other conspiracy, the points have been debunked. The Moon landing truthers just do not want to accept it.

perhaps they did go.. however every year that goes by where mankind is still stuck in Low earth orbit and fiddling with moon orbiters.. it makes the whole thing look more and more ridiculous. technology does not go backwards.

Moon exploration also yields military applications, it would make no sense to abandon superior tech to hang out in low earth orbit for the past several decades.
The points have been debunked?

My primary point was that the creation of this thread marked the 49th anniversary and the feat has not been replicated for 46+ years (counting from Apollo 17)! And that no other country has ever managed it!


^ this guy is only tackling the easy to debunk claims
For example, the dude in that video would not dare touch this:

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
(08-09-2018 02:54 AM)pug-thug Wrote: [ -> ]For example, the dude in that video would not dare touch this:

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

https://www.metabunk.org/moon-stuff-ster...tos.t2987/

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.0
^ i'm not seeing clear rebuttals.. they cherrypick a few examples to debunk but imo it wasn't successful

for example why is there a horizontal line separating foreground and background in nearly every pic?

[Image: Mh2an.gif]
Like i said, things get debunked but they just won't accept it.

Post at Metabunk or Hoax Theory and see what response you get.
So neil armstrong handing out fake moon rocks got debunked?

Also it has never really been fully explained why nearly every pic has that clear dividing line between foreground and background

i usually don't focus on the technical arguments as the "debunkers" usually engage in curve fitting to support their argument.

the fact is no human technology is not better, faster, cheaper, safer in 2018 than in 1969.
He is one of those "it was easier to go than to fake it" hacks.

[Image: cia%20logo%20meier%20text.png]

Hughes owned this building since 1930, more than big enough to store ALL the film required. Remember what I said about all the footage that Hell's Angels had, about what, 30 times more than was used?

[Image: 2678918710_d55b4d30e5.jpg]

7000 Romaine Street

"Some idea of the significance of this total footage can be obtained from this comparison : Normally, a typical feature film lasting 90 minutes will have 8,000 feet of film. The average producer would shoot ten times as much film as he is going to need and make a selection from it. The director of Doctor Zhivago used 20 times as much as he needed. Hughes shot almost 300 times as much as was required. Source Albert Gerber, "Bashful Billionaire" 1967 pg. 129 "

300 times more than needed???

I think Kubrick deserves a lot of credit, and props to Walt Disney, whose company provided some of the technology required. As did the CIA and specifically this place, Lookout Mountain Air Force station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookout_Mo...ce_Station

"In June, 1968, the 1352d Photographic Group at Lookout Mountain Air Force Station was discontinued and all personnel and equipment was relocated to Norton Air Force Base, "

LOL, yep, the year before Apollo 11 everyone is transferred and the base is 'deactivated'. We promise.

Wag the Moon-doggie
One of the Hoax Theory members has some good videos about the "hoax"

https://www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2/videos
(08-09-2018 03:56 AM)MrOctober77 Wrote: [ -> ]One of the Hoax Theory members has some good videos about the "hoax"

https://www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2/videos

thanks for sharing your POV. this forum needs more people taking the so-called orthodox view.

I will say that the best evidence for the moon landing is the lunar traverse video:



It looks like it is time to give credit to a few more of the people involved.

Namely, Ken Adam, Wally Veevers, and Douglas Trumbull.

Ken Adam was Kubrick's favorite set designer. He worked on Dr Strangelove with Kubrick, which is alleged to be the film that resulted in Kubrick getting the offer he couldn't refuse, filming the Apollo Program. Dr Strangelove was actually the state of the art in special effects at the time (1963), although the airplane (seen from outside) scenes look very corny and fake today.

[Image: Dr._Strangelove_-_The_War_Room.png]

[Image: tumblr_m4zyitrxm91qkcj94o1_1280-e1347804049229.jpg]

He also worked on the 'largest sound stage at the time', the submarine base from "The Spy Who Loved Me"
[Image: the-spy-who-loved-me-submarines.jpeg]

Well, Ken Adam loved working with Kubrick and vice versa, but Ken Adam didn't work on 2001! Why not, you ask?

"He turned down the opportunity to work on Kubrick's next project, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), after he found out that Kubrick had been working with NASA for a year on space exploration, and that would put him at a disadvantage in developing his art.[1]"

Yes, that or he was working on the Apollo Program sets, it being the higher priority, and although they wanted the two to look similar, they definitely wouldn't have wanted it to be identical!
let's not forget the missing telemetry

the telemetry could not be faked as it would show every little detail of the trip

nasa admitted they threw this stuff away
Next up, Wally Veevers. He was more of a SFX wizard, a genius at the use of models and mattes:
[Image: cap002.jpg]
(skip this if you know what a matte shot is)
"Mattes are used in photography and special effects filmmaking to combine two or more image elements into a single, final image. Usually, mattes are used to combine a foreground image (such as actors on a set, or a spaceship) with a background image (a scenic vista, a field of stars and planets). In this case, the matte is the background painting. In film and stage, mattes can be physically huge sections of painted canvas, portraying large scenic expanses of landscapes.

[Image: img390.png]

In film, the principle of a matte requires masking certain areas of the film emulsion to selectively control which areas are exposed. However, many complex special-effects scenes have included dozens of discrete image elements, requiring very complex use of mattes, and layering mattes on top of one another. For an example of a simple matte, we may wish to depict a group of actors in front of a store, with a massive city and sky visible above the store's roof. We would have two images—the actors on the set, and the image of the city—to combine onto a third. This would require two masks/mattes. One would mask everything above the store's roof, and the other would mask everything below it. By using these masks/mattes when copying these images onto the third, we can combine the images without creating ghostly double-exposures. In film, this is an example of a static matte, where the shape of the mask does not change from frame to frame. Other shots may require mattes that change, to mask the shapes of moving objects, such as human beings or spaceships. These are known as traveling mattes. Traveling mattes enable greater freedom of composition and movement, but they are also more difficult to accomplish.

Compositing techniques known as chroma keying that remove all areas of a certain color from a recording - colloquially known as "bluescreen" or "greenscreen" after the most popular colors used - are probably the best-known and most widely used modern techniques for creating traveling mattes, although rotoscoping and multiple motion control passes have also been used in the past. Computer-generated imagery, either static or animated, is also often rendered with a transparent background and digitally overlaid on top of modern film recordings using the same principle as a matte - a digital image mask. "

Veevers with a small budget:
[Image: Lunar%2B2-%2BMoon%2BTwo%2BZero%2B%25281969%2529.jpg]

Veevers with unlimited budget?
[Image: as12-49-7318.jpg]

What you will find with these guys is... Well, they seem to have done 'uncredited' work quite a lot. But also there seems to be a BIG OLE GAP in their resumes from 1965-1969! As if they were very busy... With something? That they weren't credited with?

Veevers Visual fx credits:
1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey (special photographic effects supervisor)
1963: Heavens Above! (model photography - uncredited) / (travelling matte - uncredited)

Veevers SFX credits:
1969: Battle of Britain (special effects) and Moon Zero Two
1965: Sands of the Kalahari (special effects)

Whereas before this period these guys were working on 3 or 4 films A YEAR!

Oh yeah, and both Veevers and Adam worked on a certain film we will mention again later: Diamonds are Forever!
[Image: diamonds+are+forever+2.PNG]
Reference URL's