[KubricksOdyssey]

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.....

[alancalverd]

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?

[RD]

[ 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 ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[ * 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 ?).   

[KubricksOdyssey]

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....

[KubricksOdyssey]

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....

[RD]

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 ...

... 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 ...

...  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 ...

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

[RD]

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 ...

[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

[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.

[KubricksOdyssey]

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

[RD]

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.

[KubricksOdyssey]

I have criticized the Apollo program as a waste of money

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

[KubricksOdyssey]

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

[RD]

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.

[KubricksOdyssey]

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

[KubricksOdyssey]

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

[RD]

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.

[RD]

Have you seen this video....


Apollo 11's Strange Docking

Re:

[1:00 to 1:20 ]

You do realize that is a highly speeded up footage, [time-lapse photography ] ,
in reality (in real-time) what appear to be sudden rapid jerky movements on that video would have been much slower.

[KubricksOdyssey]

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 ?.

Don't misquote me. I never used the word "only".

However the way the tape is oddly and haphazardly applied suggests it is being used to assist in a fix of some type of insulation panel failure.

The real reason is however is Apollo LEM 11 we see in the NASA photographs never left earth, hence their arrogant and brazen disregard for safety.

[KubricksOdyssey]

Have you seen this video....


Apollo 11's Strange Docking

You do realize that is a highly speeded up footage, in reality what appear to be sudden rapid jerky movements on that video would have been much slower.

No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.

Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonwalk_One

Moonwalk One on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-cyoqKjpQ

[RD]

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 ?.

Don't misquote me. I never used the word "only". 

You implied that other adhesives, e.g. “epoxy”, were not used.

The real reason is however is Apollo LEM 11 we see in the NASA photographs never left earth, hence their arrogant and brazen disregard for safety.

You're now accusing NASA of "arrogant and brazen disregard for safety", if your belief is true, that the LEM did not leave Earth, then there was no risk to safety : according to you it never left the ground so it wouldn't matter how poorly it was constructed.

[ I keep forgetting I'm talking to an insane person , I need to stop doing that ]

[RD]

No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.

Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.

It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).


[ on the same YouTube there is another NASA docking where you can see the reflection of an astronaut in a window whose movements are speeded-up ...

to 4m10s ]