[KubricksOdyssey]

Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
 [ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]

On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made on the moon's surface.

End of story.

The ALL or NONE argument (a common fallacy used by Apollo apologists) does not disprove the BOTH argument to which evidence points is correct. Getting to the moon and faking footage is not incompatible.

Fake footage also does not disprove a landing. It just shows there were problems and faking was the chosen solution.

Kubrick was NASA's chosen solution for whatever reason. Proof is in the photos, video and science.

If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 237,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?

Havent even mentioned yet Kubricks use of miniatures and models...

[RD]

If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes ...

One of your sources of images Elvisinpersonator seems to think photographic film can survive a trip to the moon, however it looks like debris , (such as flakes of anti-reflection paint, or couple of chips of film), inside of the camera have created similar triangular artifacts on consecutive frames of film.   

Also Elvisinpersonator's "transparent astronaut" is due to another normal artifact in electronic (not film) cameras called "afterimage" .

[ If you are in contact with Elvisinpersonator please tell him his sanity has "left the building" ].

[alancalverd]

If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 270,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?

Ektachrome is fairly insensitive to ionising radiation - no more so than humans, who also magically survived the other supposed physical hazards. We still use vacuum tubes for some UHF communication - they aren't obsolete and certainly weren't in the 1960's, though there was a deliberate policy not to put any new technology into space. As for the distance involved, there were already geosynchronous communication satellites and deep space probes in operation. You can get away with very low power in line-of-sight transmission, especially if you have receiver aerials the size of Jodrell Bank and Parkes.

[KubricksOdyssey]

I'd like someone to attempt to explain something so far I've addressed several times. Its been ignored and is becoming the elephant in the room.

Why does every Apollo photo [supposedly taken on the moon which shows a background] always contain a foreground hiding that background. I'm not talking about some Apollo moon photos with background. I'm talking about every one. 

Please address this strange and bizarre coincidence which in my opinion is statistically impossible. Also address why every photo is set up as a front screen projection as Stanley Kubrick would do. To be precise, lets begin this issue by keeping focus first on Apollo 17 photos which can be found here:  http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

For example, I chose this below photo completely at random, it was the first background pic selected by my mouse from Apollo 17 archive....I've then added labels, and call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...

[KubricksOdyssey]

Going back into the archive I clicked on a second pic looking for the next Kubrick Horizontal and happened to find this GEM completely at random. It is image AS17-134-20400

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg

Anyone who is sentient, rational, with a keen sense of discernment, can see it is a scaled miniature. Also note the Kubrick Horizontal is there with the miniatures.

[RD]

... call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...

No let's call it what it is : normal perspective when you are on an undulating terrain. On such a terrain the only landscape photos where the horizon does not appear like this are where the photographer is in an elevated position, e.g. photographs taken from the top of a mountain, or looking over the edge of a high cliff, or from air/space craft high above the surface.
 I doubt you have seen "every Apollo photo" : maybe there are some taken on the surface from an elevated viewpoint , but it must be a bit awkward to climb a mountain in a spacesuit.

[KubricksOdyssey]

RD (or anyone), can you show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation?

Also, was anyone able to discern the miniature rover just posted?

Here it is again...

Scaled Miniature Rover (with bizarre haze to shroud/cloak the miniature)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg

[RD]

RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.

Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.

[KubricksOdyssey]

RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.

Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.

RD, why are you stalling. Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?

Or would you rather choose to be like these guys...lol...

[RD]

... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?

It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three ,
 ( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , Walt Disney maybe ?)

Like I said if you ask me politely  , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,
I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.

PS
the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see inverse square law for the reason why)   ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect

So if you're trying to use Scotchlite-screen to explain things [images] which are tens of meters in front of the camera it's simply not physically possible.

[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called "matte painting" ]

[KubricksOdyssey]

...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]

[RD]

Where is the "Kubrick-line" hiding the bottom of the scotchlite-screen in this moon image ? ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
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 ]

[KubricksOdyssey]

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?

[alancalverd]

Did you know Hasselblad crosshairs are ETCHED into the glass and its impossible for it to be underneath a photo?

Which glass?

[RD]

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 ].

[KubricksOdyssey]

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....

[KubricksOdyssey]

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...

[alancalverd]

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.

[RD]

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 ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm ["crosshair knockout"]

[KubricksOdyssey]

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