The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?  (Read 56198 times)

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #50 on: 12/11/2013 22:13:27 »
...and I've had Hollywood special effects people from the 60's and 70's who were front screen projection experts tell me that I absolutely have nailed the Apollo footage as being the result of front screen projection. Just go to any Apollo site and look and you will see they have to hide the bottom of the screen....
- Jay Weidner, renowned author, filmmaker, Kubrick authority


Source:
[cue to 3:08 mark]
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 13:52:36 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #51 on: 12/11/2013 22:26:46 »
Where is the "Kubrick-line" hiding the bottom of the scotchlite-screen in this moon image ? ...


http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001289.html

No Kubrick-line in this apollo image , nor this one either.

The real scandal about putting men on the moon was the cost : about 1% of  America’s GDP per trip.

That huge sum of money could have been spent more wisely, e.g. like building additional secure mental health facilities‡ to house paranoid conspiracy-theorists.

[ ‡ preferably without internet access ]
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 00:20:48 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #52 on: 13/11/2013 03:22:02 »
RD,

Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos? Did you know Hasselblad crosshairs are ETCHED into the glass and its impossible for it to be underneath a photo? All 3 Apollo 16 photos you posted are fake. (Your last photo also has missing crosshairs.) These photos have been tampered with.

Lets hear your explanation and excuse for this.





                         ^WTF?
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 03:43:26 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #53 on: 13/11/2013 13:09:33 »
Quote
Did you know Hasselblad crosshairs are ETCHED into the glass and its impossible for it to be underneath a photo?
Which glass?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #54 on: 13/11/2013 13:20:50 »
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?

See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm


[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 13:33:38 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #55 on: 13/11/2013 13:34:01 »
Which glass?

The Apollo surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials".

"Fiducials" are always on top of the film.

Despite the tampering and editing of the photo #2, there is the Kubrick Horizontal right where it should be exposing the fake set....

« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 13:36:14 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #56 on: 13/11/2013 13:45:11 »
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?

See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm


[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].

Thats actually a Jay Weidner quote, I'll fix that.

Weidner is a cinematographer and the sleuth who has uncovered all this fakery and that Kubrick was behind all this fake moon footage using front screen projection to do it.

Also it doesnt matter much about the crosshairs, they still cant hide the fake set. There is the Kubrick Horizontal on your photo #3...



« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 13:53:56 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #57 on: 13/11/2013 14:00:49 »
I think you have drawn it in the wrong place!

You need to find the boundary between the local plain and the distant feature. This should be quite sharp if the camera is low enough bcause there is no atmospheric haze. Unfortuntately in this shot the camera is quite a bit higher than the middle-distance detail so there is no distinct local horizon for you to draw.

You have made the same mistake in the previous posting too.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #58 on: 13/11/2013 14:11:51 »
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?

See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

The thread in front of the lens in the experiment shown on that badastronomy page,
 (analogous to opaque cross-hairs in front of the film),
 can be made to disappear completely in front of white objects if the contrast is increased ...


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm ["crosshair knockout"]
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 14:15:49 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #59 on: 13/11/2013 14:34:07 »
Here is the Hi-Res on photo #1....the crosshair is washed out but visible...I'll give you the crosshair anomalies...

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-82-11121.jpg


Found something very interesting about a process called Stereoscopic Parallax....and it exposes the Kubrick sets in a graphic fashion...bringing the Kubrick Horizontals to life...

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




« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 22:58:08 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #60 on: 13/11/2013 14:41:41 »
I think you have drawn it in the wrong place!


It's possible. I'll need to learn this process called stereoscopic parallax which UNVEILS the fake set.

In case RD missed it here it is again.....





RD are you seeing any light yet? Or are you still a diehard Apollo apologist in denial.....

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #61 on: 13/11/2013 15:15:52 »
Quote
Found something very interesting about a process called Stereoscopic Parallax....and it exposes the Kubrick sets in a graphic fashion...bringing the Kubrick Horizontals to life!

So what rotated the flat projected image of the mountains, and why?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #62 on: 13/11/2013 15:19:59 »
[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].

Thats actually a Jay Weidner quote, I'll fix that.

Thanks for adding the attribution* [to Mr Weidner].
Apparently Mr Weidner's "authority" on the works of Mr Kubrick is not sufficient for him to have obtained the approval of Mr Kubrick's estate for his film, i.e. Mr Weidner is not an official spokesperson for the late Mr Kubrick ...



[ * I don't suppose you could do the same for the unnamed Hollywood "experts" who told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].

... it doesnt matter much about the crosshairs …

Then why did you introduce the subject ?

There is the Kubrick Horizontal on your photo #3...

If such a screen existed it would have to extend across the entirety of the frame , not stop short as you have indicated (on LHS), [ BTW can you give us an insight into your deranged mind by drawing the “Kubrick Horizontal ” on image #1  [?] ]


Re : parallax effects

First you say absence of parallax effects , (when they actually exist ), is proof of fakery,

now you say the effects of parallax do exist and are proof of fakery.

i.e. the presence or absence of the same phenomenon is proof of fraud,
i.e. no matter what evidence is produced it will be interpreted by you as evidence of fraud, 
i.e. you are insane.


RD are you seeing any light yet? Or are you still a diehard Apollo apologist …

I have not said anything remotely apologetic about the Apollo program in this thread,
quite the reverse : I have criticized the Apollo program as a waste of money.

So you must be mistaking me for some other contributor to this discourse , (one of the voices in your head perhaps ?).   
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 18:05:03 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #63 on: 13/11/2013 23:29:32 »

So what rotated the flat projected image of the mountains, and why?

Looking closer at these, everything looks like part of a scaled down artificial panorama....

For example this Mt Hadley summit should be 22 miles away with a 1.5 mile horizon, but when you freeze the foreground and view in stereo parallax the summit looks only 40-50 meters away and the horizon 20 meters. Source of Mt Hadley gif here

When you give a 200+ I.Q. Stanley Kubrick a blank check, he's going to produce some genius and brilliance....and filming of 2001 Space Odyssey (in collaboration with NASA East in England) was a 5+ year R&D vehicle for these cinematic techniques and the fakery we are seeing....

« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 00:08:34 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #64 on: 14/11/2013 00:19:04 »
Scaled down "artificial panorama" then explains the reason RD doesnt see a Kubrick Horizontal on his first photo. (I didnt see one either at first)

Kubrick Horizontal for RD photo #1 is located at the TOP of the scaled down mountain.

According to NASA this peak should be 1500+ kilometers away, but stereo parallax reveals its only 50 meters....
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 00:21:47 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #65 on: 14/11/2013 01:15:54 »
Looking closer at these, everything looks like part of a scaled down artificial panorama....

That can happen with stereo photography if the camera positions are further apart than the distance between human eyes ...

Quote from: wikipedia.org/Stereo_photography
... Pictures taken in this fashion take on the appearance of a miniature model, taken from a short distance, and those not familiar with such pictures often cannot be convinced that it is the real object
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography#Limitations_of_hyperstereo

[ Some photographic techniques can make reality can look like a miniature (models), e.g.  http://vimeo.com/9679622  ]

... when you freeze the foreground and view in stereo parallax the summit looks only 40-50 meters away and the horizon 20 meters

It would be difficult to accurately judge distances by eye on a self-similar lunar landscape which doesn't include objects whose size is known. You haven't told us where you get these "looks only" numbers from.

... freeze the foreground ...

The image you have posted is highly manipulated, you should have added the caption to indicate that (according to "aulis.com") it includes ...
Quote from: aulis.com
...  Transformations of scale, rotation, reverse distortion, perspective, shift and the convergence of the two images into a stereoscopic image ...
aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

The aulis site says the separation of the camera positions in the lunar stereo image was "20cm" , (although I don't know where they got that figure). 20 cm is wider than the distance between human eyes and would account for the scaled-down miniature (model) effect ...

Quote from: wikipedia.org/Stereo_photography
For making stereo images featuring only a distant object (e.g., a mountain with foothills), the camera positions can be separated by a larger distance (called the "interaxial" or stereo base, often mistakenly called "interocular") than the adult human norm of 62–65mm. This will effectively render the captured image as though it was seen by a giant, and thus will enhance the depth perception of these distant objects, and reduce the apparent scale of the scene proportionately
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography#Longer_base_line_for_distant_objects_.22Hyper_Stereo.22
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 01:55:46 by RD »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #66 on: 14/11/2013 02:33:48 »
When you give a 200+ I.Q. Stanley Kubrick a blank check, he's going to produce some genius and brilliance ...

Mr Kubrick’s actual IQ isn’t important, but that you apparently believe it was "200+" is ...

Quote from: tvtropes.org
[Kubrick] did poorly in school and even stated that his IQ was below average.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/StanleyKubrick?from=Main.StanleyKubrick

Quote from: tasteofcinema.com
[Kubrick] Claims that his IQ is below average.
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2013/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-stanley-kubrick/

Average IQ is 100.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 02:35:58 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #67 on: 14/11/2013 09:52:24 »
Not possible Kubrick had an 'average' I.Q. 

Kubrick was not only a creative & artistic genius, but also chess master who could have achieved grand master. According to his biography Kubrick I.Q. tested 'above average'

"Claimed that his IQ was below average. It was rumored, however, that his IQ was around 200." http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000040/bio

Anyone with common sense would also know that NASA wouldnt hire someone who wasnt a genius to orchestrate and direct their Apollo moon hoax
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 10:06:25 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #68 on: 14/11/2013 11:54:17 »
Not possible Kubrick had an 'average' I.Q. 

His true IQ is irrelevant, that he said it was below average, (below 100) , whilst individuals such as yourself repeat , without any hard evidence, that it was “200+” : i.e. you use fictional numerical values to support your argument , (you’re not going to get away with that in a science forum).

Neither of the pages you’ve linked to in the above post state that Mr Kubrick had his IQ measured by X and it was “200+”.
Biographies are usually written by a fanboys who are not objective, idolize their subject so are prone to exaggeration, and something which is “rumoured” is not proof of anything.

If Mr Kubrick has written an autobiography wouldn’t that be the ideal opportunity to say, “ I faked the Apollo moon footage ” as, if true, it would be his greatest achievement.
Has Mr Kubrick ever written, “ I faked the Apollo moon footage ” or “ my IQ was measured by X and is 200+”  ?
[ the people who have been measured as having extremely high IQ can tell you exactly what it was , not approximate values  like “200+” ]

… NASA wouldnt hire someone who wasnt a genius to orchestrate and direct their Apollo moon hoax

If NASA wanted to fake footage they would just need to hire the type of special-effects technicians Mr Kubrick used , they wouldn’t need to use a famous film director.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 12:23:15 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #69 on: 14/11/2013 13:33:44 »
I have criticized the Apollo program as a waste of money

Apollo program certainly didnt waste any money on rivets...



« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 00:21:39 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #70 on: 14/11/2013 13:35:47 »
They did go a little heavy on the scotch tape however...

« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 00:20:44 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #71 on: 14/11/2013 14:23:10 »
Apollo program certainly didnt waste any money on rivets...

They did go a little heavy on the scotch tape ...

As the lunar lander was a first, an innovation , to say "it looks improvised / not-right to me" , isn't valid criticism or proof that the moon landings didn't occur. What was the lander supposed to look like ? , like the spacecraft people have seen in fictional movies ?. The lander was not designed to land on a body with an atmosphere so wouldn't have to be aerodynamic or bullet-proof like the sci-fi versions of spacecraft.
It was made to be as light as possible, so being clad metal-foil just thick enough to shield the electronics from solar-radiation was sufficient.   

There is footage on YouTube of lunar lander trainers being flown on Earth , which despite looking like a "flying beadstead" did work ..


[ sound-effects have been added , but not by NASA ]


But don't tell me, let me guess, all this footage has been faked.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 14:51:06 by RD »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #72 on: 14/11/2013 15:16:09 »
What was the lander supposed to look like ?

Apollo Lunar Module (also known as LEM, not to be confused with LEMON) had a cost of $350 million usd, equivalent in 2013 dollars to $2,229,299,363.06

http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php


One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape. Common sense also tells anyone its risky to experiment ones life with tape to withstand extreme lunar surface temperatures or potential hit by small space meteorites or debris.

Lunar diurnal temperature range: (roughly -250 F to +250 F)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Term Apollo LEM was later changed to LM to avoid confusion with LEM(on)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 15:21:23 by KubricksOdyssey »
 

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #73 on: 14/11/2013 15:37:16 »
Some photographic techniques can make reality can look like a miniature (models), e.g.  http://vimeo.com/9679622 

That is really neat, I like that.

Have you seen this video....


Apollo 11's Strange Docking
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #74 on: 14/11/2013 15:51:59 »
One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape.

Where is your source that "scotch tape" was the only adhesive used in the construction of the craft ?.

... potential hit by small space meteorites

The LM was in-space & on-moon for about a week in total , the odds of it being hit by a meteorite would be about the same that your car on earth would be hit by one during the same period, i.e. astronomically unlikely.  The high density of craters on the moon may give you a false impression that meteor impacts are much more frequent there than on Earth , but unlike on Earth, lunar craters are not erased by weathering and plate-tectonics , they just accumulate.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 16:00:05 by RD »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #74 on: 14/11/2013 15:51:59 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length