Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Front Projection by Stanley Kubrick

[eventcone]

This is an excellent video BH. It is especially refreshing to hear someone refuse to pull their punches by calling it as they find it: That Sibrel, Percy, White et al ARE liars.

Thank you.

[BlisterHiker]

@eventcone

Thanks. Every positive comment is nice thing to see in this environment dominated in numbers by various conspiracy nuts.

[realsc00ter]

Wack

[2efnbad]

What a piss poor job you've made for your case. All of the images supposedly taken on the moon would have been exposed to space radiation and have been rendered useless. The cameras were not capable of protecting film from this radiation. Hasselblad the manufacturers of the stills camera have said they didn't modify the camera to protect the film from radiation.

America has decided to 'return' to the moon in the future? Why not now, if the 60-70's technology got there.

 It never happened.

[BlisterHiker]

@2efnbad

Radiation is not the subject here, but screen projection theory junk.

Anyway, if you know so much about space radiation, show me one scientific document which says specifically that radiation during Apollo missions must have made film useless, as you claim.

If you know it then there must be scientists somewhere in the world who know that even better than you.

Publication title, author(s) and date published, please, and remember, it must be relevant. It's not about Chernobyl.

[peyotecactus]

Forget the wires. You are obsessed with a detail nobody can prove. Try debunking the Neil Armstrong by the Window on Apollo 11 video. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS. Game over pal.

[BlisterHiker]

"You are obsessed with a detail nobody can prove."

@peyotecactus

Wrong! There are tons of evidence showing the astronauts were in the environment of 1/6 g gravity and vacuum. Hundreds of examples show that each time the astronauts kicked dust or throwed objects!

Check my videos about slow motion theory and lunar gravity. You will see some of very nice examples there.

Sorry, laws of physics and biomechanics do not lie. The astronauts were in the environment of the Moon.

>

[BlisterHiker]

@peyotecactus >

Armstrong by the window of Apollo 11? Are you telling me you believe that proven liar Sibrel and others who parroted those lies?

Sibrel has been caught lying so many times than only someone as ignorant and gullible as you could believe him!

Have you ever seen original, uncut footage from Apollo 11 transmissions? I doubt it.

Please watch these videos and try to digest them though it may be hard for you:

watch?v=ZHnGDFowHlY

watch?v=e6ikoUUCRyY

watch?v=GTUMjlD-7z0

>

[BlisterHiker]

@peyotecactus >cont

watch?v=8-kycXHTYco

watch?v=WOJ2FiCn-L0

Watch how conspiracy liars like Jarrah White contradict themselves!

watch?v=ETUi4jMDjkw

Watch another example showing how Sibrel lies: watch?v=x55yan1Tzmc

Watch this comparison between Apollo 11 TV footage and picture of hurricane Bernice taken by ESSA satellite on July 16 1969:

watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs

The evidence is overwhelming.

If you prefer liars like Sibrel and their bullshit, it's your choice. I prefer the truth.

[peyotecactus]

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”

[BlisterHiker]

@peyotecactus

When you have something meaningful, like even one shred of evidence, let everybody know.

In the meantime, I trust my own education and what 99.99% of scientific and engineering community agrees about.

I have a quote for you too:

"Not believing stories that have no evidence to support them is good for your mental health."

(C) eventcone

[joeneway]

Another fool thats brainwashed and programmed by our govt,keep them eyes shut and continue being one of the sheeple,let me guess 9/11 was an act of terrorist and Kennedy was killed by a magic bullet and nobody can tell or show you otherwise

[BlisterHiker]

@joeneway

If only you showed even one shred of evidence for that trash you posted instead of insulting me, that would be something!

Sorry, evidence speaks for itself. Apollo missions were real.

9/11 was an act of terrorism and official story is real. There was no "magic bullet" that killed JFK. It was motion of his body and position of bones which caused wounds to appear that way.

It is no surprise to see another conspiracy nut behaving that way. I don't tolerate such behavior. Bye.

[cTcSpirit]

NASA is the biggest waste of money ever, and there is no point to ANYTHING they ever did apart from Miltary applications. Only someone with Brain Damage could possibly hold their achievements up as useful, defending them is even more embarrassing- they are lame- End of Story.

[BlisterHiker]

@cTcSpirit

Waste of money? Maybe to ignorants like you who don't even realize how many things around us have been developed or improved thanks to NASA. For merely 0.6% of tax dollars, they do so much many people think NASA's budget is 10x greater than that!

From space exploration, aeronautics to environment studies, medicine and health research, they cover much more than you most likely ever heard about.

Learn about their projects and think about it when you fly your ass on vacation.

[cTcSpirit]

@BlisterHiker pwahaha- What a lot of technobabble. You must be very important. Medicine? Get a grip. Some of us don't NEED medicine, unlike brilliant einsteins among us that have been convinced we do. *yawn*

[BlisterHiker]

@cTcSpirit

Thank you for very intelligent reply...

Google "NASA spinoffs" and learn about thousands of inventions and improvements, about thousands of companies and small businesses that benefit from cooperation with NASA. Learn about things developed thanks to NASA like satellite dishes, technologies used in medical imaging, bar codes, smoke detectors, portable power tools etc etc.

Without NASA, most of those things would have to wait years, even decades before becoming available.

[cTcSpirit]

@BlisterHiker Ahem... Satellite Dishes? Barcodes? I'd love to know how barcodes have improved my life. Consider this indisputable truth bro - EVERYTHING NASA "Creates" requires the DESTRUCTION first of some natural element. By definiton their creations are imperfect.. Now, how about YOU tell me about Jack Parsons of JPL (crater on the far side of the Moon named after him) and also why NASA works in opposition to Natural Laws if they're so smart? Cheers bro. ;)

[BlisterHiker]

@cTcSpirit

Maybe all those inventions have not improved your life, but try to realize there are couple of billions of people living on this planet.

If you want to enjoy "natural order", no one is stopping you. Do not use any technology, do not go to the doctor, do not take any medicines and if your tooth hurts, remove it like our hero from Cast Away movie.

Btw, what are you doing in front of computer posting your comments? Don't you know computers are in the opposition to nature? :-]

[cTcSpirit]

@BlisterHiker Actually, "Computers are a prosthesis for the Brain"... I wish NASA could come up with just ONE meaningful statements as powerful as this.

You're right though- nothing, not even the mighty NASA can stop a few Million of us that have worked it out... Personally, I'd like to extend EVERYONES Life... You concede NASA doesn't benefit everyone, so why can't we reject them if we find a way that DOES benefit everyone? Nah, NASA can't even tell u the meaning of Life in 20 words or less.

[BlisterHiker]

@cTcSpirit

Can I have what you're having? :-]

[cTcSpirit]

@BlisterHiker lol =o) sorry. That's maybe the problem, I haven't had anything... (Thinks: "Now where's that bottle o Scotch?")

[oveid]

Believing jews is a religion for the people who keep this world scared.

[MrTommYYZ]

This is BS. just because they figured out how to fake such a large pan of the camera, saying that "The film technology did not exist at the time" is such a cop out and shows the author does not understand how and why the landings were faked. To say the technology did not exist essentially says that the military is not secret with its inventions and engineering, which is not true. OFCOURSE the military and Nasa had film technology that was secret and not available to the public at the time.

[BlisterHiker]

"the military and Nasa had film technology that was secret"

@MrTommYYZ

If it was secret then how do you know what they had? Can you show any references?

Did you work in film and broadcast TV at that time to have any idea what you're talking about? I doubt it.

I list several arguments against that stupid screen projection theory and none of you, hoax believers, even began to question even one of them.

Internet is full of "experts" like you, each "knowing" more than the other.

[MrTommYYZ]

@BlisterHiker Hey Momo, if you want to believe that the MIlitary shares every scrap of technology it is working on with the public sector, go ahead. That would explain why you are a nasa cheerleader. What I find most interesting about Kubrick is how he used The Shining to tell the story of how he faked the moon landings.

[BlisterHiker]

@MrTommYYZ >1

Thanks for exactly the kind of answer I expected.

You don't know what NASA had, but you know it was secret and it did exactly what you would like to see. Very logical way of thinking...

It always amazes me how people like you build their "reality" around the needs of their theories. From one side, NASA had some advanced technology that nobody ever saw, but then, according to ignorants like you, they didn't even have computer to take the astronauts to the Moon!

>

[BlisterHiker]

@MrTommYYZ >2

They had some very advanced secret technology, but forgot to dig the craters underneath the Lunar Modules, forgot about moving flags and showed them to milliions of viewers on TV, they forgot about rovers' tracks, shadows etc etc...

Get a grip of reality, get educated and above all, grow up mentally.

I won't be tolerating you insulting me here because you have no arguments to support your illusions. Bye.

[abrahm714]

Thank you for these videos BlisterHiker.

[BlisterHiker]

@abrahm714

Thanks! I'm glad to hear a good word in a place dominated, at least in numbers, by various conspiracy nuts.

[0LabRat0]

Gotta get me some red cyan glasses. Very informative BlisterHiker thanks for sharing.

[BlisterHiker]

@0LabRat0

Thanks. Yes, 3D pictures are fun to watch. I call it higher quality experience esp. when we're talking about images from other worlds, like Moon or Mars.

[PETE4REALITY]

Great pick up on the front cloud, hey did I see a 3G image? Nice... In Addition not only do the distances make it conclusive but every matching crater from topographic images match the images on the surface, impossible to fake.

[BlisterHiker]

@PETE4REALITY

If mistakes like those projected cloud patterns visible on the object in front can be found in "2001", then it is safe to expect similar problems in many hours of Apollo videos, isn't it?

Considering how sloppy NASA was ;-) by forgetting about digging craters underneath the LMs, forgetting about rovers' tracks, showing Apollo 15 flag for 30+ seconds after it got allegedly pushed by air etc, how in the world did they hide side effect of front projection on such scale movie set?...

[PETE4REALITY]

@BlisterHiker Yeh and they will say enormous vacuum studios inside area 51 with 5 enormous hangers..Inside each a single Pressurized dome. LoL the imagination is a wonderful thing.. they will also probably tell you that the scotchlite screen wasn't used in every application..;) oh dear those days of hoaxing lol

[straydog02]

BlisterHiker is a NASA shill LIAR who will do whatever it takes to obfuscate the truth of the FAKED APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHY.

FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION CAN CREATE 360 DEGREE PAN SHOTS.

THIS VIDEO IS NASA DISINFORMATION.

[BlisterHiker]

"FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION CAN CREATE 360 DEGREE PAN SHOTS"

@straydog02

Maybe, with today's computer technology, but not 40 years ago and not on such scale.

Creating pans of virtual, projected space, would've required advanced 3D modeling to mimic geometry changes synched with various focal lengths of the lenses. Without that, you couldn't fool child's visual depth perception, let alone experts.

Typing in capital letters does not make you any less ignorant, btw.

For insulting me, you are blocked.

[ApolloWasReal]

@BlisterHiker No, not even with today's technology. See the IMAX movie "Magnificent Desolation"? It used a lot of Apollo imagery and added their own from a studio into which they obviously put a lot of work. The overall effect is by far the best I've ever seen for a realistic moon movie. This was just a few years ago, yet it's still easy to tell the studio parts from the reused Apollo images.

[un4g1v3n1]

@straydog02 If Kubrick did direct the moonlanding videos, then he should be ashamed of himself. The fakery is easily outed by even the most APOLLO/VIDEOGRAPHY ignorant people. Anyone, including children can tell the Apollo Fairy Tale was nothing more than tomfoolery....It's just idiots like BH that can't figure it out!

[BlisterHiker]

@un4g1v3n1

Making such claims without showing any kind of coherent explanation won't get you anywhere.

Claiming that lunar EVA footage and photography was faked with technology available 40 years ago, takes serious ignorance and even delusion.

As a quick wake up call, watch this series from Astrobrant2 which shows some of the obvious mistakes in "2001: A Space Odyssey", mistakes that can't be found in Apollo footage:

Part 1 of "Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo" is there: watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw

[un4g1v3n1]

@BlisterHiker Anyone who looks at Apollo photography and videos and believes that is footage from the lunar surface, is beyond any hope of being considered anything but ignorant. Join the rest of your pan buddies in a toast to your stupidity, and gullibility!!!

[BlisterHiker]

@un4g1v3n1

How about these simple questions?

Why do you block people who did not insult you?

Why did you remove their comments and block new comments which are not convenient for you?

Why didn't you approve my comment on your video about picture taken from ISS (watch?v=tRwZixCwLHM), in which I pointed to motion blur typical for long exposure shots?

Why do you censor others and me as well, but come here and post comments?

You know why? Because you are lying coward.

[Astrobrant2]

@un4g1v3n1 Ahh, there you are. Since you've blocked me, I was unable to invite you to see my new video and comment on it. Why don't you stop on by? Make legitimate arguments. Attitude rants like this one you've posted here will be removed.

"Un4giv3n1 Clobbers NASA / Apollo !!!"

watch?v=_qoFVPGfaZc

[Deke101]

@un4g1v3n1 Typical potshot comment with no substance. Nothing new to see here.

[Tweekerhead]

@un4g1v3n1 Love your new video of the ISS and the "Sun" at the elbow of the robotic arm with the stars & the Aurora, which I thought you could only see at night.

Your critical analysis is right there with Gilligan and the Skipper'.

Do you ever wake up and say to yourself, I'm the Lou Costello of the "Hoax Movement"?

hehehhe heheheh hehehehehe ....

[Rob260259]

@straydog02

Hey Dwayne; did you have permission from Jarrah to leave a comment here?

[ApolloWasReal]

@straydog02 Ever hear the term "poisoning the well"? You should, since it's what you're doing here. It's what you almost always do because you can't deal with what we say.

[monzinator]

Nobody needs front projection when you have a complete stage set that offers you all visible scenes. Without projection you have a better chance to hide wires and other construction parts that might be become visible whit this technique. The rest is solved with "a bad signal or stream".

[BlisterHiker]

@monzinator

Looks like you have another version of Moon hoax theory, which leads to obvious paradox.

Other Hoax Believers claim NASA used front (or rear) screen projection. They can't be wrong because they are Conspiracy Theorists. Conspiracy Theorists are never wrong!

Seriously, if you could only prove your theory and explain how in the world did NASA manage to trick vacuum, gravity and laws of motion on such scale, that would be great. Until then, your theory is just that: a bad theory.

[monzinator]

@BlisterHiker No,I have no real theory how somebody could fake this event,but questions about some documented facts. How they make a Kodak film work under these temperature conditions? How the have no interference from radiation without a shielding for the Hasselblad cam? Why traveled no other human thru these belts or higher than 400mls from earth, after these proofing event? Why they dont use this technology to shield clean up personal in Fukushima? propaganda gives slogans, no answers :)

[BlisterHiker]

@monzinator

How conveniently you jump to completely different subject... Do you think it gives you any credibility?

You are not talking about any documented facts. You're talking about speculations and sheer lies you saw on some conspiracy website or video. How much time did you actually spend researching it? I don't think you spent much, but sure you know so much about temperature conditions and deadly radiation...

There is a very good website which explains those things: clavius . org

>

[BlisterHiker]

@monzinator >2

In case you are not interested in learning something on your own, I will explain some of your concerns.

1. Temperature conditions were not that extreme. All Apollo missions landed on the Moon during lunar morning, when temperatures were in the middle between min and max. Thanks to reflective coating, cameras and other equipment didn't suffer from large temperature swings.

Film itself was based on polyester, the kind formulated for high-altitude photography, not celluloid.

>

[BlisterHiker]

@monzinator >3

2. Radiation levels are not high enough on the Moon to cause problems with film during missions lasting days or weeks. Btw, how do you think US and Soviet satellites back in the 60s took their pictures? They did it on film, which was developed onboard, scanned and transmitted back to Earth. Those films were not damaged by radiation.

3. People did not go beyond Low Earth Orbit since Apollo because programs like that are very expensive and there is no immediate reason for that.

>

[monzinator]

@BlisterHiker So,you mean there is such a big difference from the average 2-300ml distance to 800ml ?

What makes that so expensive ?

[BlisterHiker]

@monzinator >4

4. Finally, you are not familiar with types of radiation. In Van Allen Belts and beyond LEO, low energy particle radiation is dominant. Nuclear reactors are sources of high energy electromagnetic radiation which has to be shielded differently.

Particle radiation emitted by our Sun is much easier to shield against, while cosmic radiation is not strong enough to cause health problems during missions lasting days or weeks.

Instead of jumping between subjects, educate yourself.

[Strefanasha]

nicely done, to prove (what a pity things have degenerated so far that we have to prove it) what was common knowledge, that the americans did in fact land on the moon

[BlisterHiker]

@Strefanasha

Thanks.

Unfortunately, Conspiracy Theories are highly infectious. That's why it is important to educate others, esp. young people. I care about it and that's why I dedicate my time to those projects.

Apollo program was an amazing achievement for all mankind. We should not sit quiet when bunch of underachievers and liars try to gain something by trashing it.

[loperspest]

Man,I wish I had some glasses like that.

[BlisterHiker]

@loperspest

I bought a few pairs of inexpensive 3D glasses on eBay, but one could use color gel filters as temporary solution as well.

For some reason, red-cyan glasses work a little better than red-blue.

It is a good idea to have a pair handy. There are many great images from the Moon and Mars worth watching, plus you could make your own anaglyphs. When I travel, I often take pictures as stereo pairs for that purpose. The feel of 3D space is a higher quality experience.

[loperspest]

@BlisterHiker

Thanks, I'll have to try that. If you make your own, does it matter what side goes over what eye?

[BlisterHiker]

@loperspest

Red filter goes over left eye, cyan over the right.

Not all stereo pictures (anaglyphs) are easy to watch because camera was not always positioned optimally. Sometimes you will need to give yourself couple of seconds before you catch the 3D feel.

For best results, both pictures of a stereo pair should be taken from points which mimic distance between human eyes, but astronauts on the Moon did not always have time to worry about such precision. They took many pictures after all.

[loperspest]

@BlisterHiker Again, thank you.

[ProtectAus]

Even though those slow zooms made me ill, the 3d pics were reasonably convincing, but i still don't rule out minatures and little plasticine Astronots!

[BlisterHiker]

@ProtectAus

Well, anyone who watched footage from lunar EVAs will say those "plasticine astronots" were moving quite naturally. I guess then had very sophisticated robots back then...

Don't stop just there. Maybe those were not real astronauts at all, but cgi animations, just like those planes on 9/11, right?...

[ProtectAus]

Slow down cowboy i was being obviously sarcastic. LOL

Watch my moon PROOF videos at ProtectAus and you will see i already did a 2001 comparison and did it much better than you did here.

BTW i have never seen that long shot FOX5 footage you show in your video, even Anthony Lawson has NEVER presented it as evidence and now it suddenly appears 10 years later, give me a friggin break.

The latest 9/11 research is in "9/11 The Music Video with LOTS of Exploding Planes!!!" and is irrefutable!

[BlisterHiker]

@ProtectAus

After solid demonstration of your mental confusion and cowardly removal of my comments from your idiotic 9/11 conspiracy video, I do not accept any "sarcasm" or "sense of humor" from you, but that actually is not the subject that belongs here. Go and advertise your junk somewhere else.

[ProtectAus]

@BlisterHiker "but that actually is not the subject that belongs here"

.

You bought up 9/11 in your first comment, in a sly attempt to reinforce your feeble argument.

I just counted over 30 of your comments on my 9/11 video, and ALL those comments that i left are essentially regurgitating the same stale theory again and again. You have BLOCKED many Youtubers from your videos, hypocrite!

You're just annoyed that i PROVED that you have many aliases! LOL

[BlisterHiker]

@ProtectAus

I didn't bring 9/11 here to discuss it, and certainly not with you. I did it to explain my point regarding your questionable mental state and low moral level.

You're a liar. There are witnesses among my friends who saw you removing my comments from your video, those comments which seemed most unconvenient for you.

I am not interested in talking to you anymore, and if you will be further posting your delusional views here, I will block you. I don't tolerate liars very well.

[ProtectAus]

@BlisterHiker "You're a liar."

.

Did you fail simple comprehension? I said "ALL those comments that i left" obviously meaning that i did remove comments. I have not lied, and if i have please enlighten me.

But YOU have lied on my video and you know it, and i even caught you out with ALL your aliases.

Go ahead and Block me, this will be my last post anyway.

BTW that voice on your videos is really condescending and irritating, and NOT appropriate.

[BlisterHiker]

@ProtectAus

I hope the chance you had here to vent your frustration helped you a little, but I've had just enough of your lies and arrogance. I should also add your utmost disrespect for others, especially for victims of 9/11, which in my opinion confirms how sick and confused mentally you are.

[ProppaGannis]

Great work though, BH. I am a huge fan of Kubrick's work. I've heard all the BS in regards to him filming the moon landings. While he was a accomplished photographer it was the three men I mentioned in my previous comment that actually created the special effects we see in the movie.

Once again you've shown what little work hoaxters put into investigating their own theories. Another nail in the coffin indeed.

[BlisterHiker]

@ProppaGannis

Thanks KJK. It's good you've brought those facts from Kubrick's career here as they again confirm he was busy with his movies, not working with NASA.

Hoax believers do not even notice they shoot their own feet with their stupidity. On one side, for example, they say technology in the 60s was primitive, that Apollo Guidance Computer was a joke etc, but then they claim NASA somehow faked visuals, but that in turn would've required sophisticated technology many years in the future.

[ProppaGannis]

Let's see, principal photography on 2001 started in Dec 1965. Final edits were done in April 1968. Filming for Clockwork was from Sept 1970 to April 1971. So hoaxters would have us believe he spent the time in between filming moon landings instead of promoting 2001 or doing pre-production for Clockwork. Right. The guy who rarely left his house since 1959. Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that Doug Trumbull, Geoff Unsworth, Tom Howard were talent that helped Kubrick create his imagery.

[spitroast76]

seems like you have a personal grudge with people who don't believe ur version of the facts.

[BlisterHiker]

@spitroast76

There is no "my version of the facts". There is real story, confirmed by vast number of sources and accepted by scientific and engineering community from all over the world. Even North Korea and Cuba do not question Moon landings were real.

If you prefer to stick with conspiracy fantasy, spread by proven ignorants and liars, it's your choice.

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker But Kubrick admit he did it in the shining? Are yoy saying he was mad?

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker And how can you say that some tehnology didnt existed? I mean how dare you , do you know who Nicola Tesla is and what tehnology he had in his mind? Thnology not used today , maby only by the military in secret so dont be so sure they didnt have the tehnology cos the tehnology you use today is adliest 30 years old and that is a fact

[BlisterHiker]

@F1brawfa

I know who Tesla was. He had many things and fantasies in mind, blown out of proportion by various ignorants, new age nuts and ignorants like you.

No technology existed 40 years ago to achieve such projection results as seen in Apollo missions footage and high resolution photography, and you do not understand all complexities involved.

Even latest green screen and virtual geometry techniques leave their signs in movies, signs which are not present in Apollo footage and pictures.

>

[BlisterHiker]

@F1brawfa >2

Of course, technologies tested and developed in labs are in the future, but your "30 years" theory is bullsh.t.

Watch the video again and talk to video or photo professional near you. Notice the scale of the scenery and perfectly uniform lighting over large areas. Remember, what I show here is only a small part of tens of hours of footage and thousands of pictures!

Your arguments are worthless and you prove absolutely nothing, especially with respect to Moon landings.

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker Ok then go now and tell my Doctor of Information technology his 30 year old theory is bulshid , and im not saying Kubrick faked the moonlanding im just saing he did have an episode in his life when he was recording something for nasa and he admit it in 2001 prehaps it was just a cuple of scenes? prehaps it was sepose to be show if the actuall astronuts wuld die?? But do not ridicule it cos he made a hole movie the shining tot ell his story

[BlisterHiker]

@F1brawfa

Unless you start showing relevant facts, we really have nothing to talk about.

You're just another young angry man who's falling into conspiracy stories without even understanding photography, science and engineering well enough.

Ask yourself one question honestly. Why all serious video and photo professionals in the world have no problems with footage and photography from Apollo missions, but conspiracy theorists "geniuses" think they know better?

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker Im just saing Kubrick did leave some clues he had something to do with it and did have an unusual deal with NASA they gave him cameras other directors wuld only dream about. As for conspiracy theory it is mostly true just look for the IG farben documents , the documents that say who had the responsibility for the second world war , you dont have them? Than conspiracy theory must be true

[BlisterHiker]

@F1brawfa

Kubrick asked several NASA engineers for advice during the production of "2001" and later borrowed special Zeiss lens from them to shoot candle-lit scenes in "Barry Lyndon" movie.

Despite that, "2001" is full of errors which even amateur photographers and astronomers notice easily! Watch videos listed in description.

Again, there are no errors in footage and pictures from the Moon. Kubrick was not a part of Apollo program.

If you think there are some "clues", show precise examples.

[BlisterHiker]

@F1brawfa

Watch this and learn: watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker Okay

[F1brawfa]

@BlisterHiker In my last coment i made a litlle mistake i wanted to write "the shining" instead of 2001. In The shining there are some scenes when he is telling us about the moon room and stuff like that , prehaps he was recording the movie that was seposed to be shown if the real moonlanding wuld be a faliuere , anyways there is something about the case and you cant just simply ridicule it cos it wuld be stupidity

[mlmr11]

And as I said , I'll trust my own gut over yours . I don't want to change any persons mind over this. I'm stating an opinion . I am not in a court of law. I believe that you're full of shit. Period. Keep going with your videos. Maybe one day you'll come up with something that makes me go "oooh this guy has made me think I should rethink my position" ...until then you're spewing the same trash that I haven't believed for a long time.

[mlmr11]

I have seen videos of this from both hoax and authentic advocates. Both sides make great arguments.

There is no magic bullet of proof for either side really.

I have gone back and forth for years and have come to the conclusion, at this time, that the lunar landing was in fact not what it appears to be. I don't think man has stepped foot on the moon. My BS detector says that this is the case. I have no proof and neither do you. So I'll trust my gut over yours.

[BlisterHiker]

@mlmr11

I tell you what I have seen. I've seen many people like you, pretending to be open minded, going back and forth, but in true, people who didn't really care or understood what they were talking about.

You still did not answer my question from other video: show me just one proof for any of those "great arguments" presented by hoax believers. I'm waiting...

Unless you start showing some real arguments, all you have is your typical babbling.

[mlmr11]

@BlisterHiker I don't care who you've seen. It's not going to intimidate my judgement. I don't need to show you anything because I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I'm telling you I don't believe you

I decipher information from both sides from an understanding in equity. That is a valid way to form an opinion. Both sides are presenting technical as well as logical arguments. How dare you accuse me of pretending to have an open mind. You lose your case on that alone.

[BlisterHiker]

@mlmr11

For the last time. Show me a proof for just one of those "great arguments" for hoax that you've seen.

It's a very simple request.

[mlmr11]

@BlisterHiker Grandstanding shows what you're about . You're wasting your time because I don't owe you shit. I'm stating an opinion. I dont' believe you ....prove your case

[BlisterHiker]

@mlmr11

I asked you several times for one specific reason why you don't believe, for just one proof or whatever, but you can't even begin normal discussion, but insult me instead. Nothing I have not seen before.

I will not be tolerating your empty babbling and throwing bad language at me.

You have no real arguments. You can not even put one solid argument together!

Enough of your "nose" and "bs detector"... Bye.

[DanielJoseDiego]

Excellent video. Thanks for uploading this. 

[Rob260259]

*&%!$!

I'm definately going to buy 3D glasses...!

Great video again BH.

[ytmoog]

Superb job.



[IllPropaganda]

Excellent!

[GoneToPlaid]

Superb.

[BlisterHiker]

@GoneToPlaid

Hoax Believers always find "explanation", but they don't even realize the paradox of their theory.

On one side, they claim NASA did not have technology to send people to the Moon, that computers were too slow etc., but from the other side, the same Conspiracy Theorists accuse NASA of perpetrating massive scale hoax which would require technology which was 20..30 years in the future.

[GoneToPlaid]

@BlisterHiker 2001 was on TV late night a couple of weeks ago. I stayed up and watched the entire movie again. While the scenes using front screen projection are nice to watch, every scene using the technique is glaringly obvious due to the inherently low contrast which results from the use of the technique.

[Astrobrant2]

Great video, BH. I was looking forward to it.

I've been missing too many of these stereo pairs in videos. Gotta get some of those 3-d glasses!

That was very cool what you did with the "Yes we did" flag at the end.

[BlisterHiker]

Thanks Brant.

Watching stereo images from different worlds is a higher quality experience. For me, images from the Moon are even more fascinating than those sent from robotic missions on Mars. I think it's the human element which makes the difference.

Because pictures were taken manually by the astronauts, cameras were not always at optimal position to mimic our visual perception of three dimensions. In some cases, it takes couple of seconds before brain catches the sense of depth.