Fascinating stuff from my buddy Jay Weidner. What do you think?
How Stanely Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings (Reality Sandwich)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Forum Dedicated to Discussion of the New York Times Bestseller "Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA" by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara
Pages
Facebook Badge
Will you buy the new edition of Dark Mission
Twitter Updates
Our Favorite Links
2012 Mayan Calendar Doomsday Countdown
Mayan Calendar Countdown
Posts
About Me
- Mike Bara
- New York Times Bestselling author of "The Choice" and "Dark Mission - the Secret History of NASA" and frequent Ancient Aliens contributor.
31 comments:
WOWOW!
Very plausible & extremely compelling.
Does this mean the glass ruins have never been photographed? Or even that thy do not exist?
Put not thy faith in men, thy trust in princes...
Only if you believe Jay is right. I don't.
Yo Mike...
So the whole Moon-business is now a matter of faith then??
And if not...To this date nobody has explained (see also post under "we choose the moon") why oh why is Neil Armstrong transparent most of the time in the original footage...and the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM when Neil takes his first steps from the ladder, away from the LEM and back....Busy Buzzie is still in the LEM...so it can't be him....so who or what is creating the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM during Neil's first steps...?????
If the Apollo 11 mission was faked (to cover up the real stuff and landings on the moon par example) then why bother to defend it...??
Right now, I'm betting on a mixture/fusion of sorts between Jay's and RCH's theories.
Gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out... :-)
I don't think we're going to have to 'believe' much longer.
Soon, we'll know.
I've never heard that one about the shadows. How can you tell anything from that terrible Apollo 11 video?
The landings weren't faked. Just because I find this article interesting doesn't mean I advocate it's position. It's just up for discussion.
I think one would have to invalidate Jay's contention about the uniform focus in the lunar surface photos, similar to the landscapes of the ape scenes in Kubrick's "2001." That's a real problem for Hoagland's theory I think.
That's actually the easy part.
THAT DOES IT!!!!!
I'm going to the Moon
to see for myself!!!!!
I'll let you know what I found
when I get back!!!!!
:-)
Hathor -- Fed up with it all!!!!!
;-)
P.S.: Aw hell. I have to hitch a ride with an
Alien.
Never a darned Zeta Scout around when you
need one....
:-))))
Okay. The uniform focus, then I would say that the surface texture shift (which I can definitely see) beyond his imaginary lines would be the next problem for Hoagland's theory. If that can also be explained without a Kubrick stage, then I'm satisfied in being skeptical of Jay's theory.
Furthermore, as an aside, I think Jay is reaching a bit by comparing the artifacts in the sky above the astronauts to the patterns visible above the apes. However, I was a little taken aback when the patterns above the apes reminded me of some of the patterns painted into the lunar sky by Alan Bean. Everybody look at his paintings again before running with that comparison though! The similarity is not perfect!
Check out this TIME AND MOTION STUDY ;-)
Uh - oh...
What if we find...
...a "Kubrick stage" ON THE MOON?!?
Now *THAT* would throw a monkey wrench in
the works, wouldn't it....
:-)
Hathor -- Oh, the perversity of it all
;-))
(musical interlude)
"Speculate -- speculate --
Dance to the mu - sic,
Speculate -- speculate --
Dance to the mu - sic..."
:-))))
I can understand where the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd gets their juice from some of these photos.
Unfortunately those folks are afraid to look at the bigger picture. If they could accept that we did indeed go to the moon, they're still left holding a bag of tampered photos and a big WHY. Then they would have no choice but to order up a copy of Dark Mission.
Mike Bara said:
That's actually the easy part.
I am curious. How can you do it?
I think it's possible some or part of Apollo was faked, and /or fake footage was filmed to serve as a red herring.
With that said I want to bring to everyone's attention 2 videos I've seen. The first is a french documentary that features extensive interview footage of Henry Kissinger and D. Rumsfeld explaining how they involved Kubrick with filming false Apollo footage to dupe the public. They laugh about it quite a bit. It is thoroughly surreal and has sound stage footage. Saw this years ago. Just Googled it and found it agian: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2304895215368202642
The second was actual Apollo 11 footage of the astronauts setting up a false earth through window camera shot in the Apollo capsule while in orbit presumably to dupe people into thinking the earth was FAR away when it wasn't. Anyone know of the veracity of this?
This was harder to find again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fHAISw6bZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duijen-flwk&feature=related
I guess this comment would explain the documentary:
"Opération Lune as it's called originaly aired as a mockumentary. This is a a comedy by director William Karel. I saw this doc on dutch tv some years ago and it fooled me at the moment :D. But it's fake, and it's a very good example to show how easily it is to make people think something is true with good editing. more info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)"
How'd the producer get all these folks to participate in this, or was it just very clever editing!?
Hey, I'm trying to locate the man interviewed this mo. July on CoastToCoast radio who was talking about the 'real time' alien attacks towards a hu-man colony currently on Mars.
The Moon is very different from the Earth, and Jay is expecting it to be the same. Because there is no atmosphere to cause distortion, there is no distortion. Objects that appear to be only 50 yards away can actually be miles away. The astronauts commented on this frequently, how crystal clear everything was, even at a distance.
"crystal clear"
Very Funny Mike
Hi Mike!
At first I said to myself...wow...interesting stuff...but after I read it and examined every photo....nah....
1. Not one photo from 2001 presented in that article DO NOT match with any photo's of Hoagland.
The sky did not match on 2001 vs Hoagland's processed Apollo shots
The patterns are different!!!
Not even close!
Good going, Sphinx!
"The Devil's in the details!"
:-)
Hathor -- picking the nits
;-)
P.S.: Uh-oh...maybe it was just a different
stitch-up???
:-))))
Hello Mike,
Love the "new" cover to the revised edition ;)
Does Richard know Bob Dean? Apparently he's got some pretty interesting original photos from the Apollo 11 mission... just sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UvWGZMMINE (last couple of minutes)
The whole 'yes we went there/no we didn't' thing is a distraction-ploy-- a cat's-paw-- and a perfect example of how disinfo is used to play a kind of shell-game with everyone's attention. When people start noticing lunar anomalies, the ready-made 'it was all a fake' argument can be trotted out to bog everybody down. The fake lunar landing position doesn't have to be 100 percent fool-proof as an argument, either. In fact, it is very useful if it seems almost-but-not-quite true. The (built in) slippage will cause a lot of back-and-forth argument, as well as a mountain of wasted time digging for (nonexistent) evidence and/or engaging in convoluted extrapolation (i.e., jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because they are attractive), with vehemently-held opinions neatly distracting everyone from the real issue-- lunar anomalies.
Lunar anomalies *do* exist, and *that* is the big problem for the folks who want to keep a lid on things. To this day, 'anomalous lunar lights' are still observed by both professional and amateur astronomers alike, though one doesn't hear anything about this in the mainstream media sources.
It is also very interesting to me that serious lunar observation gets buried in astronomy club newsletters and not-widely-read astronomy journals, while mostly-supposition 'Oh Yeah Kubrick Did It' rumor-mongering abounds in media and on the Internet. While media talking heads and publications apparently dis the idea that the lunar landings were faked, they are in fact planting that very meme in people's heads, and I think this is the primary intention of the 'apparently backhand' coverage. The story is given just enough of a flesh-out to be semi-plausible and nicely seeded, and then the squabbling starts, which is the whole purpose of the exercise.
I will say it again-- people need to not allow themselves to be distracted from the fact that there's a lot of anomalous stuff that's been observed on/in/around our Moon...
Peace,
T'Zairis
in response to
"...I've never heard that one about the shadows. How can you tell anything from that terrible Apollo 11 video?
The landings weren't faked. Just because I find this article interesting doesn't mean I advocate it's position. It's just up for discussion.
July 24, 2009 8:23 AM "
Obviously you are in denial as well...?
...You don't believe...you have never heard...
What ever happened to the "good old fashioned scientific proof" jargon lately...?
Just look at the sodding video's of Apollo 11 for crying out loud and explain why Neil is transparent most of the time!!! and why there are moving shadows under and beyond the LEM during Neil's first steps...walking back to the LEM...
And to your question...How can you tell..? Well..very simple..look at the video's
Richard and I both know Bob, one of the sweetest, most generous men on the planet.
Adrian,
They are not transparent. You are looking at video taken by recording the screen in mission control or in the down link stations, which is itself a de-resed conversion of the original slow-scan transmission. If you look at the original video -- which has been out there for years -- they are not transparent. This is all in the epilogue of DM.
Also, if they were going to fkae all this, wouldn't they be smart enough NOT to make the astronauts transparent? I mean, wouldn't that "give up the ghost," as they say?
You want to live in fantasy-land, go ahead, but this whole thing fell apart years ago.
Well said, T'Zairis!
I was thinking about the
lunar light phenomenon just the other day.
One wonders where those people go when all
this bru-haha gets going.
As for myself, I've merely been playing the
smarty-kat (...just read my posts...)....
< o ||
(= o-)p
< o ||
I ran the lunar-orbit-rendezvouz calculations
myself many years ago, and I *KNOW* we went
to the Moon. (But, naturally, you tell that to
people, and they don't listen.)
I've been appalled at the emergence of this
"We never went" mantra. I mean, what ever
happened to education in this country?
:-)
Hathor -- Applauding The Tigress!
;-))
P.S.: I'll say one thing---a good squabble
gets the Big Kat juices flowing! :-))
:-))))
Marsandro--
In agreement with you re: 'appalled at the we-did-not-go mantra'. That being said, I know why it is being flogged by the intel-lapdog news media, etc.-- it is sound 'discredit in order to hide' strategy. The whole problem of the Moon ringing 'like a bell' for hours after one of the Lunar Modules was purposefully crashed on its surface goes bye-bye if a 'we didn't really go' meme takes hold. Ditto the anomalous lunar lights, which include some that seem to flash as if something both smooth and reflective was mirroring back sunlight. If anyone should know a mirror or glass-flash when they see it, it would be a professional astronomer, I would think, but with everybody yapping like a pack of berserk chihuahuas about supposed Kubric chicanery, who is going to listen to an astronomer?
Another thing I think is going on is that with more and more astronauts 'jumping ship' and talking frankly about seeing some pretty interesting stuff while out in space/on the Moon, it is becoming a major leakage control problem for the erstwhile secret-keepers. Again, a 'we never went' argument can be seen as an attempt to both discredit the astronauts and cut the feet out from under their statements-- the implication of the argument is that the astronauts are lying and are in on the cover-up-- and I find any push to demean the astronauts instead of owning up to UFO sightings, etc., incredibly disgusting.
Peace,
T'Zairis
Well said, T'Zairis.
And on that topic,
perhaps there's more for them to hide than
we might think:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-4F_q38JY&NR=1
(URL must be asembled....)
One wonders what it's all for....
:-)
Hathor -- Seeing the sights
;-)
Jay wasn't talking about atmospheric distortion. He was talking about the depth of field of the camera lens. If he is correct about the lenses used in the Apollo cameras, then he is right in that they cannot resolve nearby objects and far away objects in sharp focus simultaneously.
At first, I thought Jay had discovered the first serious evidence of a hoaxed Apollo.
However, if one actually looks at the high res scans of the Apollo EVA photography available on various archive sites, one will see his claim is false. There is plenty of blurriness in the images.
Here are a couple examples:
AS17-146-22401
AS17-134-20471
His claim of everything being in sharp focus simply isn't true. The images he used to support his hypothesis were too small to judge.
RE : Jay Weidner
I think the guy is on to something. But the question is : What exactly IS in room 237 ? I say room 237 a metaphor for what the astronauts really found : The remains of a once beautiful but now dead civilization. Judging by what happenes to Danny afterwards, it must have really screwed them up.
Post a Comment