@eyeusedtoloveher seems intent on promoting some real tripe: "If you want to see a real documentary/video on this subject, watch Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey"". If you can manage to sit through this epic voyage of unadulterated guff without having to pay for it, best of luck. My nephew had me watch it. I showed him the old Time magazine article on "Captain Video", Ed Fendell. He was the man behind the camera, in Houston. A great man, it's sad to his fine work being smeared by a hack.
the bottom line is that the average person watching this vid on Youtube simply isn't open-minded enough to consider anything diffferent from what they've been told... this video is a great effort in "reverse info/research"...won't teach anything, will just re-inforce yet another myth. Have any 9/11 misinformation vids as well?
@eyeusedtoloveher People have asked me to do some 9-11 videos. I want to stay away from that unless I see something interesting that hasn't already been done to death. There is only one topic I am considering right now, and that's the demonstrations where people try to show that the weight of the top portions of the WTC towers wasn't enough to collapse what was underneath.
Debunking that is educational and I'd be going after one of the major players.
Stanley Kubrick broke many mspecial FX milestones in the making of his sci fi movies. Unfortunately, the technology did not exist to pull off a hoax as complex as Apollo. We would have to wait another 15-20 years for FX technology to catch up to what was filmed by Apollo astronauts. The film footage is only one piece of the massive amount of physical evidence that Apollo was a successful, real mission. Of course none of it matters to the average hoaxer. They have too much invested in theories.
@Deke101 Riiiiiight, and people like you think that ALL technology is out in the open and common knowledge right? You're aware that the military has technologies that are at least 20 or 30 years from reaching common public right? There goes your hoax debunk...
@eyeusedtoloveher You have no idea what 'people like me' are thinking. Are you suggesting the military is in the business of creating ground breaking special effects??? Of COURSE not all technology is out in the open. Hence the need for Top Secret levels of security on certain projects. I also know that the private sector invents things that put military R&D to shame. The fact that there are secret projects does not prove any moon hoax theory.
just because Space Odyssey isn't logically perfect in terms of viewpoints and perspectives, doesn't mean that Kubrick did not fake the videos.
Please consult Jay Weidner's video on this, and not this troll..this is pure mis-information. You can literally SEE THE PROJECTION SCREEN in some shots. And when the contrast is bumped up on the lunar photos, there is JUNK in the sky when it should be pitch black. This fact alone debunks your entire video.....goodnight!
@eyeusedtoloveher There is no "junk in the sky." It's an artifict typical of "bumping up" the contrast in jpeg images. A night picture on earth will show the same clutter.
So that "fact" doesn't do anything but debunk the people who use such manipulated images.
@Astrobrant2 Again you are wrong. You are comparing a night picture on Earth to a night picture on the Moon. Not comparable. There should be NO JUNK whatsoever on the moon shots. It's this simple people- just like 9/11, all you need to do is watch the video closely...and the truth is right in front of your eyes. Pure fakeness. This man will also tell you that 10 guys from Iraq took down the towers with boxcutters. DO NOT LISTEN. Do your own investigation!!!
@eyeusedtoloveher I've certainly never seen any "obvious" rear projection screens or "junk in the sky" in Apollo pictures. I have seen a fair number of blue-white dots on Apollo images that appear to be the result of lunar dust getting into the film magazine and damaging the emulsion. Some appear on the sky, where they're most obvious, but they appear all over the frames, including on foreground objects. So they're certainly not "Junk in the Sky".
@ApolloWasReal At first I thought he was talking about the dots, too, but I suspect he's referring to things like Pete showed, jacking the picture up with all sorts of photoshop effects, revealing bogus "features" in the black areas. Alien enthusiasts use this same technique to "reveal" alien "structures," etc.
@Astrobrant2 Brant, i have a question, I am pretty solid on there not being structures on the moon, nor on mars, but i wanted to ask you a personal question about your opinion on aliens in general. Do you believe that an intelligence outside of ourselves exists and has been scoping us out?
this is a load of trash.....pure mis-information....just another troll who is trying to get the rest of the sheeple to be as brainwashed and misguided as they are.
anyone who saw Jay Wiedner's documentary knows that YOU and anyone else who claims the lunar landing videos are real are FULL OF SHIT. For christ's sake you actually SEE that the horizon lines just aren't real and that there is front screen projection. FAIL.
@eyeusedtoloveher I have watched Wiedner's documentary, and I'm of the opinion that Astrobrant2 has been doing an excellent job of debunking the Apollo hoaxers in his clips. This clip is not quite as conclusive as the previous two, as it deals with a different aspect - the use of Kubrick in hoaxer's arguments. The main argument should really be that SK was an honourable man, and wouldn't have set out to willfully fool everyone.
@Beelzebubbbbles "I have watched Wiedner's documentary, and I can't read between the lines or not take anything literally, so I'm going to agree with Astrobrant2 because he coddles my version of reality that has been hammered home 409574057 other times. Then I'm going to be emotionally biased towards Kubrick, and act like stars aren't used by elites to brainwash masses".......you need a clue, bad
@eyeusedtoloveher "I'm going to jump on a bandwagon with other moon hoaxers because I think it is cool. The more complex the hoax is, the more of a hero I will be for 'figuring it out.' Then I can spout my ignorant theories to everyone on the internet and go down the typical list of name-calling to those who disagree with me. That will certaintly lend credence to my theories. Of course I will never publish any of my findings for peer review. That would end the fun."
@eyeusedtoloveher Meh. There's none so blind, etc. Jay Weidner is full of it, I rank his bullshit up there with David Icke. At least Icke hasn't so far had the arrogance to name three Laws of the Universe after himself!!! Still, more power to both of them for getting rich on the gullibility and downright stupidity of people like yourself. PT Barnum wasn't wrong when he observed that there's one born every minute.
My version of reality is grounded in science, not pseudo-science.
@eyeusedtoloveher Clearly you know nothing about front screen projection and you see nothing of the kind. Show us your evidence and I'll show why YOU are the one who is "FULL OF SHIT".
Maybe you can give us a demonstration of your expertise by showing how front screen projection could be used to do pans.
@Astrobrant2 Dude, anyone who sees your video after they see Weidner's is going to think yours is lazy and just full of shit. It's based on nothing. Basically your hypothesis is that because every single scene in 2001 isn't completely perfect that there is no way that it could be possible. And the evidence in the Shining? Can you read between the lines or no? Because in that movie he is practically telling you. People don't want to find the truth they just want their version of reality coddled!
@Tweekerhead Actually, no. They look different in some aspects and similar in others, but exactly the same? No. Keep in mind that one is a motion picture movie and is GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT. But this does NOT mean that the lunar shots weren't shot with front screen projection, and doesn't mean that Stanley Kubrick wasn't the best guy to do it. This astrobrant guy is pure mis-information. If you want to see a real documentary/video on this subject, watch Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey"
Not one scene was accurate when compared to the real footage of Apollo.
This whole"green screen"thing is hilarious,when I was a kid we would just simply suspend our beliefs when it came to the crappy special EFX of the late 60's early 70's.
The notion is laughable to the point of side splitting convulsions on the floor.
I might see Weidner's video, but Brant' here has done a pretty good job, he must have since he's pissed you off.
@eyeusedtoloveher I don't know Astrobrant personally, but I know some of his credentials. They are not disputable. I also know that after years of seeing him around YouTube that he is NOT full of shit. I have checked many of his statements with historic and scientific records. He knows what he is talking about. Hoaxers, on the other the other hand, can't even agree with each other.
@BOUCANSTUDIO Rather than telling people to look up "2001 false flag," why don't you go ahead and make your case? What is "intentional fooling" about my video?
@BOUCANSTUDIO Exactly...This is yet another asshole who is trying to label actual researchers and thinkers as "hoaxers"- frustrated because he's unable to read between the lines or use his third eye one single bit. Keep in mind this person probably never questioned a single thing his text books taught him when he was a kid. Don't mind him.
@eyeusedtoloveher Either all of that OR you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You saw a couple of stupid videos claiming Apollo was hoaxed and gullibly fell for the conspiracy theory because you don't know enough about this to see the errors and deceptions of hoax nuts.
Now you ARE one. And of course, you're smarter than all the real experts in the world for the last 42 years. Ego, much?
It moved because his legs moved. It moved back and forth because the ship moved. Just because in your opinion it is highly unlikely that the ship wouldn't move doesn't mean it didn't.
@niverent "...It moved back and forth because the ship moved... " Then the passengers would be jostled about - in the same directions the tray "moved" -as the ship moved relative to all three.
@MrAugustNidor Hey! I've had moon cheese. Really it was a friend that knows some one that tasted it once. NASA is trying to cover it all up. I think the French are helping them too.
@Astrobrant2 I dont really care that much really and forgot entirely about what I wrote. I had just read somewhere that in the footage of the lunar landing the crosshairs on the video are UNDER some of the images. How is that possible? Does it even occur? And also the flag ... why does it move if there is no gravity on the moon? Also are you a scientist? What are your credentials to back up the claims you make about stanley kubricks film. And what does it really prove debunking a movie?
@MsRachdawg Crosshairs are not under objects in the picture. Bright areas around them will wash them out. Go to the Clavius Moon Base web site and you will see examples of this which are clearly due to this saturation, not manipulation. Besides, what possible reason would there be for faking objects in a picture?
The moon does have gravity -- 1/6 of earth's. The flags aren't "waving." When they move, it is because they are being handled. There is a rod through the top of the flags, (cont'd)
@Astrobrant2 (Pt 2)... so when they are twisted, the flopping motion is exaggerated. When they aren't being handled they are rock solid, and several videos show this.
I am not a scientist, but I did teach science in the public schools. I have a master's equivalency in secondary education. But it wouldn't matter if I had three PhD's; my arguments stand on their own merit. You may challenge them or go look these things up and see for yourself.
Virtually NO scientist in the world disputes Apollo.
Shouldn't the Earth have a diameter of approximately one inch in the lunar sky?
I tried measuring this with uniformity in order to find out how big the Earth would be between my thumb and index finger if I stretched out one of my arms, and I got this:
x ÷ 0,70 = (4*10^7 ÷ π) ÷ (384403*10^3) ↔ x = 0,70*(4*10^7 ÷ π) ÷ (384403*10^3) = 2,32 cm.
@Laurelindo If you're talking about at arm's length, it would be about an inch or a little less. It's about the width of your thumb. See AS17-134-20384. If a ruler had been held at arm's length in front of the camera, the earth would appear about an inch wide.
Note in AS17-134-20462, taken 51 hours later, with the LM in the foreground, that the phase of the earth has changed.
The only thing I can possibly ask myself in this video is - who filmed the lift-off from the moon?
Don't misunderstand me, I know the moon landings are real, there's overwhelming evidence of that, I would just like to know how that part was filmed. =P
@Laurelindo Another fair question. Remember that the rover had a remote controlled video camera. In the last three missions, they were used to film the lunar launches. Ed Fendell was the technician back on earth who controlled its movement. He had to do the upward pan strictly by timing and knowing the speed and trajectory. Nice piece of work -- must have taken quite a bit of practice. Each one was a one-take scene.
(He had to lead the video and audio from the moon by 1.3 seconds.)
@PCBHUK If you watched the video, you would know. You could also Goopgle "Ed Fendell" and find a bunch of stuff on him. I would have thought you would try that before coming here and making a fool of yourself.
I can only make up one name: Charlie Rackenham. I can't think of any others.
And yeah, Sibrel's an asshole. I personally don't believe man landed on the moon. But would I shove a bible in an astronauts face until they punch me? No, it's rude and disrespectful.
@yesiamawizardjonny Myke seems perfectly serious. If he's kidding, he's carried the joke on far longer than any other I've ever seen. Frankly, I think he's probably a paranoid schiziphrenic.
There is also the whole way the astronauts moved. Kubrik did not even use the techniques that the hoaxers were going on about, slowing down the footage and using wires etc.
@dangerouslytalented That was one of the point I abandoned in order to keep from going into a third video. I was determined not to do that. I did discuss the very un-moon-like movement in the meeting room, though.
You've added a point I did not consider -- that he could have slowed the movement down in the meeting room. Good point.
BTW, hope you weren't too peeved about me stealing your cool sign-off, just for a little joke.
@Astrobrant2 You *can't* just slow down the footage (you would actually "overcrank" or speed up the camera) in an earth studio and simulate walking on the moon. This takes care of ballistic motion (at least for heavy objects where air drag is nil) *but it doesn't scale energy*. You'd need normal-looking actors whose every muscle is six times stronger than an ordinary adult male so they could jump up to six times higher.
@ApolloWasReal Right. And then there is the problem of movement when a film is speeded up to correct speed for earth gravity. Non-gravitational movements are completely unnatural.
@Astrobrant2 That's my point - it looks so unnatural when sped up to the claimed "real" speed precisely because overcranking scales only ballistic motion, not the many little muscle-driven movements. If you could find a normally built actor with every muscle 6x stronger, not only could he jump as high on earth as a normal human on the moon, but he could actually make those unnatural, jerky motions. Slow him down and you'd have a convincingly faked moonwalk.
@protogenxl Since I'm just not a TV watcher, I didn't see it. I just watched a little of it on YT and it looks cool. Thanks. I'm sure I'll enjoy watching the whole thing.
Finding errors, however, might be much more difficult, considering the extra 30 years of film and video technology they had in making it.
@protogenxl I've seen the Apollo 11 episode, now. Yes, there were several mistakes. I think the film was more to entertain and precision was not the goal. While they got the major stuff right, they took serious liberties with the dialog in the landing sequence. Rocket and attitude thruster effects were not quite true. The attitude of the LM descending, (as seen from the surface), was incorrect. Stars should not have been seen, but these errors are excusable, as in "2001."
@Astrobrant2 It's still surprisingly easy. Probably the most realistic space-related movie ever made is "Magnificent Desolation": it's in IMAX, it's recent, Tom Hanks et al really wanted it to look good, and it even steals a lot of real Apollo imagery. Yet there are still *many* obvious mistakes, ranging from boots raising dust clouds to incorrect lighting to arcane technical errors like missing or incorrectly attached hoses and cables on space suits.
@ApolloWasReal Hoax nuts are all unaware of just how impossible it would be to fake this in such a way that billions of people, including many real experts, would fail to catch the errors and imperfections.
@yesiamawizardjonny This is a perspective that most hoax nuts lack. They have seen a couple of short video clips and a couple of photos. They do not benefit from the huge mass of video, film, and still photos which were taken during the Apollo missions. The more you realize there is, the more difficult it is to believe that it could have been faked.
All the sets they would have needed for the rover traverse photography and pans. Those alone would make it impossible to fake.
@911Investigate911 Sure, there's a difference. A movie-maker wouldn't feel as obligated to make the movie error-free. But considering this was the best special effects team of the time and there is such a HUGE difference between the Apollo images and 2001, it seems unreasonable to assume that they could have made a couple hundred hours of film and video and thousands of photographs without a single error.
Judging by your screen name, you probably aren't very good at critical thinking.
@GreatExterminator As many times as I watched that movie, I was darned surprised, too, once I started analyzing it for the video. Initially, I thought I might find two or three minor things, but there were some whoppers!
@99thmonkee You have claimed that you have logged thousands of mistakes from Apollo. I asked you to direct me to them. You didn't
You made some specific claims which have been repeatedly and *easily* debunked: the missing LM in pans, the temperature of the film, etc. I have given responses and links for these. The temperature from NASA about the MAXIMUM temperature on the moon, after 7 days of direct sunlight, has nothing to do with cameras exposed to the sun for a couple of hours.
@99thmonkee Pt 2. Of course, I know who Jay *Windley* is and communicated with him a few times before coming to YT. If you were the expert you claim to be and have disproved him several times, I'd think you would know his name by now.
You just made a total fool of yourself. Why don't you tell us how you proved him to be "lacking in pertinent information." Why not tell us how you know all about a NASA propaganda campaign and how it disproves Apollo.
@99thmonkee I'm sorry, but I didn't see this comment until now. I have a master's degree in secondary education. I taught technology education, science, and even a semester of music in my 27 year career in middle and high schools. I am retired now.
Does this qualify me as an expert on Apollo? No, of course not. But then, one doesn't need to be an expert in order to know a historical fact. My arguments stand or fail on their own merit and do not need authoritarian reinforcement.
Jay Wesley? I know who Jay Windley is... for someone who debates them frequently, you sure don't know his name. If you knew anything of Apollo, then you would know who Jay Windley is.
@99thmonkee I've addressed this missing LM claim in my videos: watch?v=PG_skTncFGE
watch?v=PPS1lSqYIi4
It's also in my debunking of bminternet or willywill84, I forget which.
If the antenna's in the wrong direction, it's not being used.
Show me the photo with the incorrect terminator.
Where have you logged these thousands of errors? Why do you think REAL experts all over the planet for 40 years never discovered them, but totally uncredentialed hoaxers did?
@99thmonkee Yes, let's not forget it. This idiocy comes from Marcus Allen and I not only didn't forget about it, I dedicated 7 minutes of one of my videos to it, complete with Google earth flyby and terrain elevations. watch?v=coMGccvTK6g
The picture is taken from 1275 meters from the LM. It is on the other side of a slight ridge, and below the level of the astronauts.
What amazes me most of all about this claim is that hoaxers actually BELIEVE NASA would make such a mistake!
@99thmonkee Pt 2. In addition, the cameras had a very reflective covering and were insulated. NASA planners knew EXACTLY what to expect because of the data gained from previous unmanned missions. I dealt with this oft-debunked issue in my video critique of bminternet's "Faked!"beginning at 8:30:
watch?v=mHxMCtzelQk
Time has been running for 40 years and not one shred of proof against Apollo has been provided. Just tons of ill-informed bullshit from utterly uncredentialed conspiracy theorists.
@99thmonkee What conspiracist site did you lift that from? The temperature of the moon's surface never got anywhere near 250 degrees during the missions. That's one of the reasons they always went when the sun was low in the east. It takes 7 DAYS of continuous sunlight for the surface to reach 250 degrees. Cameras are exposed to sunlight for a couple of hours at a time AND they are moved around so no one side of the camera is constantly in sunlight. (Cont'd).
Also all of 2001 looks more realistic than the transparancy of the earth on the window of the capsule,that NASA tried to pass off as real..lol. Why did they fake that astrobrant?
@1THETRUTH10 I don't know how grown-ups could actually believe the "transparency on the window" thing. Tell me, where did you get that idea? Sibrel? Percy? I don't suppose you have seen how ridiculous that claim is, and why. There are a couple of good videos on it.
Tell me how the "transparency" moves completely out of the window frame. Tell me how it shows rotation of the earth over several minutes' time. Want more?
This video can be rendered pointless with one sentance!
Kubrick did not have the help of all NASA's scientists and physicists...to go over every single detail. This movie could take as many liberties as they wish,NASA knew they could not. Although they ovbiously did make many!
@1THETRUTH10 It really isn't necessary to actually KNOW anything in order to be a hoaxer, is it? Just spout out anything you like and see if it sticks. Kubrick DID have expert help from NASA and the credits after the movie say so. But even so, the movie made several errors. There is not one single error in any Apollo photo, film, or video. Or are you going to point out the waving flag and absence of stars?
@Astrobrant2 I was well aware of the small amount of pointers NASA gave Kubrick.....but the same attention to detail was not required within a major movie. Kubrick liked clean clinical shots.....and again how many scientists and NASA experts really HELPED on this movie........IT WAS a MOVIE....yea get a bit of realisem in there,but dont let realisem spoil the shot! This vid is.... not relevant! Continue to dodge questions of merit...and produce this nonsense!
@1THETRUTH10 Here you say you were well aware of the help Kubrick had from NASA. In your previous comment you said, "Kubrick did not have the help of all NASA's scientists and physicists." Oh, I guess you literally meant "all," right?
A movie would not need to be as accurate, but the mistakes are abundant and some are outright dumb and careless, like the earth being lit from opposite sides in a series of scenes. And fixing that kind of mistake would NOT "spoil the shot."
@1THETRUTH10 Pt 2. Perhaps the most relevant indication that Kubrick and his artists had nothing to do with Apollo is the modeling of the moon's surface that they used in the movie. Even though the movie and Apollo 11 were in the same year, there is a vast difference in the appearance of the surface. For example, the 2001 artists didn't know how smooth large surface features should look. This alone, discredits the claim that Apollo images were faked by Kubrick. (cont'd)
@1THETRUTH10 Pt 3. There is also the fact that small surface details in photos, video, and film from Apollo missions are confirmed in Selene/Kaguya 3-D imaging and LRO photos. These details could NOT have been known by anyone faking Apollo imagery unless they went there. No, it could NOT have been done by unmanned probes because astronauts are filmed moving around in these precisely matching terrains, and their rover photography covers MILES of it.
@1THETRUTH10 (Oh, and jcgmed also made some cool videos of the matching of surface features which could not have been known in 1969 unless we went there.)
@1THETRUTH10 Your utter lack of knowledge in this subject is showing. In 1969 it would have been impossible to map the moon to anywhere near the accuracy and fine detail that has been revealed by Selene/Kaguya and LRO. Yet NOTHING in any of the vast Apollo photo and film archives is inconsistent with the huge amount of detailed data we have accumulated in only the last decade. Anyway, what does this have to do with this video?
Exactly whay liberties did NASA take? You cannot pitch up to a debate and just make a statment like that. Please prove the veracity of your claims. Begin by listing some, and then discussing the science of the,. The phrase is 'taking liberties' anyway. you don't 'make liberties', you take them... grief, these conspiracy people really are dumb asses.
@HiggsBosonNova Show me where I said "making liberties" please? You guys are such liars,no wonder you all worship NASA.....wich claim do you want me to prove,there is a lot of bullshit to wade through. What statment have I made that is untrue? You guys sure like to dance around the most basic of questions!
Which claim do I want you to prove... OK, let's start with the ascent stage. According to Kaysing that should have burnt with an opaque red flame. I contend it should not. Why was Kaysing correct?
@MrAugustNidor I actually first saw the film as a young child. My mother did her best to try to explain her interpretation to me. It was years later that I read the novel. The film is much more symbolic. My take on it was pretty close. But the book does shed much light.
We did indeed go to the Moon! 2001 is an excellent movie! Although the film was indeed the vision of Kubrik, as well as Arthur C. Clark, credit for the visual effects should go to Doug Trumble.
The one thing that strikes me about this Kubrick nonsense is why hire a top special effects director make in comparison a very bad home movie when it came to the Apollo footage.
Like many of these ridiculous claims they work on the premise, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
This merely proves the genius of Kubrick: he made intentional "mistakes" for a science fiction film, but when he faked the Apollo footage, he intentionally was more accurate, and tricked the world.
I'm j/k: the Moon landing hoax is patently absurd. Space Odyssey is one of my favorite films, a true classic, but as the Moon landings showed, it looked different in reality. As your fine video illustrates. Great job! On to part 2...
06:53 - The moon could appear larger simply by moving the camera back and zooming in. The reduction in angular size of the ship would be greater than that of the moon, and so when you zoom back in, the moon would be larger.
Also, did you REALLY need a three and a half minute introduction?
@shanedk I thought I said, "It would appear that way if seen through about a 400 mm lens, but the assumption in a movie is that you are seeing it with the naked eye." Must've been dreaming. I deliberately chose the cockpit view for my analysis because that could NOT be done with a 400 mm lens.
Intro: I wanted the whole Zarathustra theme and a montage of scenes I would be discussing, as well as establish my purpose. It was as much for entertainment as anything else. I'll try harder next time.
@Astrobrant2 Except, what you're talking about (and what the hoaxtards are talking about) is NOT what the astronauts saw with their own eyes on the moon, but what the still and video cameras recorded--cameras which absolutely had zoom lenses.
@shanedk (Pt 1) I remember video zooms and if the earth had been visible, it would have appeared different sizes. Of course, the ratio of diameter to distance from horizon would *not* have changed. Such an effect would also not be possible if taken from inside a small compartment with people just a few feet in front of you, (like the cockpit scene which I analyzed.)
I also remember some photos (A17, I think), of an astronaut and the earth where it appeared different sizes. (cont'd)
@Astrobrant2 Yes, and I wasn't objecting to that part of your analysis. Since the moon keeps the same face to the Earth, the Earth should always be in the same place (within the limits of the aberrations of the moon's orbit) in the sky.
There probably are pictures of the Earth appearing as different sizes in the sky in the lunar photos for this reason, and we shouldn't give the hoaxtards any more ammo. If they see that sequence, they'll think the criticism is valid and try to apply it.
@shanedk Your point is not lost on me. Anyway, I would be surprised if any hoaxer would actually ever think of what we've been talking about. But if they do, I will be prepared to deal with their objections. I felt I pretty much pre-empted any complaint by making the qualifying statements about magnification. When these scenes are taken in conjunction with the proportion observation, the error is hard to dispute, especially with the cockpit scene. Maybe I should have only used that one.
@shanedk (Pt 2) In those photos, I don't know if it was because of different lenses being used or cropping that was done later. I'll have to go look.
Knowing these things, though, AND acknowledging TWICE what the effect of magnification would be, I felt the criticism was valid, especially with the cockpit scene. In that enclosed space such magnification could not have been used and still have the pilots appear the size they did. That's why I used that scene for analysis.
Most people don't know that the moon landing footage from 1969 to 1972 was fake but the footage from 2001 is actually real
kubkins 1 week ago
@eyeusedtoloveher seems intent on promoting some real tripe: "If you want to see a real documentary/video on this subject, watch Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey"". If you can manage to sit through this epic voyage of unadulterated guff without having to pay for it, best of luck. My nephew had me watch it. I showed him the old Time magazine article on "Captain Video", Ed Fendell. He was the man behind the camera, in Houston. A great man, it's sad to his fine work being smeared by a hack.
Beelzebubbbbles 2 weeks ago
I guess hoax-nuts find it difficult to masturbate to this video.
rootytuners 2 weeks ago
the bottom line is that the average person watching this vid on Youtube simply isn't open-minded enough to consider anything diffferent from what they've been told... this video is a great effort in "reverse info/research"...won't teach anything, will just re-inforce yet another myth. Have any 9/11 misinformation vids as well?
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher People have asked me to do some 9-11 videos. I want to stay away from that unless I see something interesting that hasn't already been done to death. There is only one topic I am considering right now, and that's the demonstrations where people try to show that the weight of the top portions of the WTC towers wasn't enough to collapse what was underneath.
Debunking that is educational and I'd be going after one of the major players.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Hey Brant, I have a random question - you know that video where you used the SI unit for height, "meters"?
I was just wondering how common it is to use that measurement in America?
I know you use inches and feet a lot, but how familiar are you with meters?
Can you estimate how many meters away an object is without comparing with feet first?
I'm wondering because in my country we almost always use meters, and while we certainly know what one foot is, we have less feel for that unit.
Laurelindo 56 minutes ago
Stanley Kubrick broke many mspecial FX milestones in the making of his sci fi movies. Unfortunately, the technology did not exist to pull off a hoax as complex as Apollo. We would have to wait another 15-20 years for FX technology to catch up to what was filmed by Apollo astronauts. The film footage is only one piece of the massive amount of physical evidence that Apollo was a successful, real mission. Of course none of it matters to the average hoaxer. They have too much invested in theories.
Deke101 2 weeks ago
@Deke101 Riiiiiight, and people like you think that ALL technology is out in the open and common knowledge right? You're aware that the military has technologies that are at least 20 or 30 years from reaching common public right? There goes your hoax debunk...
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher You have no idea what 'people like me' are thinking. Are you suggesting the military is in the business of creating ground breaking special effects??? Of COURSE not all technology is out in the open. Hence the need for Top Secret levels of security on certain projects. I also know that the private sector invents things that put military R&D to shame. The fact that there are secret projects does not prove any moon hoax theory.
Deke101 2 weeks ago
just because Space Odyssey isn't logically perfect in terms of viewpoints and perspectives, doesn't mean that Kubrick did not fake the videos.
Please consult Jay Weidner's video on this, and not this troll..this is pure mis-information. You can literally SEE THE PROJECTION SCREEN in some shots. And when the contrast is bumped up on the lunar photos, there is JUNK in the sky when it should be pitch black. This fact alone debunks your entire video.....goodnight!
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher There is no "junk in the sky." It's an artifict typical of "bumping up" the contrast in jpeg images. A night picture on earth will show the same clutter.
So that "fact" doesn't do anything but debunk the people who use such manipulated images.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Again you are wrong. You are comparing a night picture on Earth to a night picture on the Moon. Not comparable. There should be NO JUNK whatsoever on the moon shots. It's this simple people- just like 9/11, all you need to do is watch the video closely...and the truth is right in front of your eyes. Pure fakeness. This man will also tell you that 10 guys from Iraq took down the towers with boxcutters. DO NOT LISTEN. Do your own investigation!!!
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher I've certainly never seen any "obvious" rear projection screens or "junk in the sky" in Apollo pictures. I have seen a fair number of blue-white dots on Apollo images that appear to be the result of lunar dust getting into the film magazine and damaging the emulsion. Some appear on the sky, where they're most obvious, but they appear all over the frames, including on foreground objects. So they're certainly not "Junk in the Sky".
ApolloWasReal 2 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal At first I thought he was talking about the dots, too, but I suspect he's referring to things like Pete showed, jacking the picture up with all sorts of photoshop effects, revealing bogus "features" in the black areas. Alien enthusiasts use this same technique to "reveal" alien "structures," etc.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Brant, i have a question, I am pretty solid on there not being structures on the moon, nor on mars, but i wanted to ask you a personal question about your opinion on aliens in general. Do you believe that an intelligence outside of ourselves exists and has been scoping us out?
TheForlornDreams 2 weeks ago
@TheForlornDreams Any malevolent, intelligent race that might be out there "scoping us out" would never bomb us and end all this confusion.
Deke101 2 weeks ago
this is a load of trash.....pure mis-information....just another troll who is trying to get the rest of the sheeple to be as brainwashed and misguided as they are.
anyone who saw Jay Wiedner's documentary knows that YOU and anyone else who claims the lunar landing videos are real are FULL OF SHIT. For christ's sake you actually SEE that the horizon lines just aren't real and that there is front screen projection. FAIL.
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher I have watched Wiedner's documentary, and I'm of the opinion that Astrobrant2 has been doing an excellent job of debunking the Apollo hoaxers in his clips. This clip is not quite as conclusive as the previous two, as it deals with a different aspect - the use of Kubrick in hoaxer's arguments. The main argument should really be that SK was an honourable man, and wouldn't have set out to willfully fool everyone.
Wiedner is the one full of s**t.
Beelzebubbbbles 2 weeks ago 3
@Beelzebubbbbles that's great, you and other trolls can pretend like you actually know the man, like he's too nice to fool you..lol
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@Beelzebubbbbles "I have watched Wiedner's documentary, and I can't read between the lines or not take anything literally, so I'm going to agree with Astrobrant2 because he coddles my version of reality that has been hammered home 409574057 other times. Then I'm going to be emotionally biased towards Kubrick, and act like stars aren't used by elites to brainwash masses".......you need a clue, bad
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher "I'm going to jump on a bandwagon with other moon hoaxers because I think it is cool. The more complex the hoax is, the more of a hero I will be for 'figuring it out.' Then I can spout my ignorant theories to everyone on the internet and go down the typical list of name-calling to those who disagree with me. That will certaintly lend credence to my theories. Of course I will never publish any of my findings for peer review. That would end the fun."
Deke101 2 weeks ago 3
@eyeusedtoloveher Meh. There's none so blind, etc. Jay Weidner is full of it, I rank his bullshit up there with David Icke. At least Icke hasn't so far had the arrogance to name three Laws of the Universe after himself!!! Still, more power to both of them for getting rich on the gullibility and downright stupidity of people like yourself. PT Barnum wasn't wrong when he observed that there's one born every minute.
My version of reality is grounded in science, not pseudo-science.
Beelzebubbbbles 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher Clearly you know nothing about front screen projection and you see nothing of the kind. Show us your evidence and I'll show why YOU are the one who is "FULL OF SHIT".
Maybe you can give us a demonstration of your expertise by showing how front screen projection could be used to do pans.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Not only pans, but tracking shots as well - like those taken from the lunar rover.
GlowWorm1962 2 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Dude, anyone who sees your video after they see Weidner's is going to think yours is lazy and just full of shit. It's based on nothing. Basically your hypothesis is that because every single scene in 2001 isn't completely perfect that there is no way that it could be possible. And the evidence in the Shining? Can you read between the lines or no? Because in that movie he is practically telling you. People don't want to find the truth they just want their version of reality coddled!
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher So, you think the Apollo footage should've looked just like Kubrick's film" 2001"?
Or is it, you can't tell the difference between Kubrick's film and the real Apollo Moon footage?
Do they look the same to you, just curious?
Tweekerhead 2 weeks ago
@Tweekerhead Actually, no. They look different in some aspects and similar in others, but exactly the same? No. Keep in mind that one is a motion picture movie and is GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT. But this does NOT mean that the lunar shots weren't shot with front screen projection, and doesn't mean that Stanley Kubrick wasn't the best guy to do it. This astrobrant guy is pure mis-information. If you want to see a real documentary/video on this subject, watch Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey"
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher You think they look the same?
Not one scene was accurate when compared to the real footage of Apollo.
This whole"green screen"thing is hilarious,when I was a kid we would just simply suspend our beliefs when it came to the crappy special EFX of the late 60's early 70's.
The notion is laughable to the point of side splitting convulsions on the floor.
I might see Weidner's video, but Brant' here has done a pretty good job, he must have since he's pissed you off.
Tweekerhead 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher I don't know Astrobrant personally, but I know some of his credentials. They are not disputable. I also know that after years of seeing him around YouTube that he is NOT full of shit. I have checked many of his statements with historic and scientific records. He knows what he is talking about. Hoaxers, on the other the other hand, can't even agree with each other.
Deke101 2 weeks ago
so what its just a movie !
andrewmoran357 2 weeks ago
@andrewmoran357 Yes, and the point was that Apollo wasn't a movie.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
I mean kubrick was intentionally putting errors & mirrored shots. I completely agree with you on the errors you show us.
Have you read the false flag analysis though?
Btw im not the author & i dont work for him.
This is just a brilliant symbolic study.
BOUCANSTUDIO 2 weeks ago
I would say this is intentional fooling.
Search the web for "2001 false flag",
It decrypts the film and its "errors" through symbolism & kubrick's intentions.
BOUCANSTUDIO 2 weeks ago
@BOUCANSTUDIO Rather than telling people to look up "2001 false flag," why don't you go ahead and make your case? What is "intentional fooling" about my video?
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@BOUCANSTUDIO Exactly...This is yet another asshole who is trying to label actual researchers and thinkers as "hoaxers"- frustrated because he's unable to read between the lines or use his third eye one single bit. Keep in mind this person probably never questioned a single thing his text books taught him when he was a kid. Don't mind him.
eyeusedtoloveher 2 weeks ago
@eyeusedtoloveher Either all of that OR you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You saw a couple of stupid videos claiming Apollo was hoaxed and gullibly fell for the conspiracy theory because you don't know enough about this to see the errors and deceptions of hoax nuts.
Now you ARE one. And of course, you're smarter than all the real experts in the world for the last 42 years. Ego, much?
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
Very nicely done, Astrobrant. Look at the suggested video bar... Makes me facepalm.
stiglistanbul 1 month ago 2
@stiglistanbul Yeah, that's to be expected. Maybe my video is in the sidebar for some of those.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago 2
I love this film when syncd to pink floyd
jmm1233 3 months ago 2
Re: Food tray
It moved because his legs moved. It moved back and forth because the ship moved. Just because in your opinion it is highly unlikely that the ship wouldn't move doesn't mean it didn't.
niverent 3 months ago
@niverent There was no movement of his legs that would launch the tray like that.
What would cause a ship in space to move like that?
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niverent "...It moved back and forth because the ship moved... " Then the passengers would be jostled about - in the same directions the tray "moved" -as the ship moved relative to all three.
occhamite 2 months ago
Comment removed
tibiturio 4 months ago
Watch Kubrick's Odyssey
/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg
jerwar68 4 months ago
@MrAugustNidor Hey! I've had moon cheese. Really it was a friend that knows some one that tasted it once. NASA is trying to cover it all up. I think the French are helping them too.
scooterboi17 4 months ago
how can you explain all of the errors in the actual apollo video ?
MsRachdawg 7 months ago
@MsRachdawg You name the error and I'll try to explain it.
I haven't seen any errors yet.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
@MsRachdawg Another drive-by, I guess.
One more utterly uninformed wannabe whistleblower who can't stand up and defend his claims.
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I dont really care that much really and forgot entirely about what I wrote. I had just read somewhere that in the footage of the lunar landing the crosshairs on the video are UNDER some of the images. How is that possible? Does it even occur? And also the flag ... why does it move if there is no gravity on the moon? Also are you a scientist? What are your credentials to back up the claims you make about stanley kubricks film. And what does it really prove debunking a movie?
MsRachdawg 4 months ago
@MsRachdawg Crosshairs are not under objects in the picture. Bright areas around them will wash them out. Go to the Clavius Moon Base web site and you will see examples of this which are clearly due to this saturation, not manipulation. Besides, what possible reason would there be for faking objects in a picture?
The moon does have gravity -- 1/6 of earth's. The flags aren't "waving." When they move, it is because they are being handled. There is a rod through the top of the flags, (cont'd)
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
@Astrobrant2 (Pt 2)... so when they are twisted, the flopping motion is exaggerated. When they aren't being handled they are rock solid, and several videos show this.
I am not a scientist, but I did teach science in the public schools. I have a master's equivalency in secondary education. But it wouldn't matter if I had three PhD's; my arguments stand on their own merit. You may challenge them or go look these things up and see for yourself.
Virtually NO scientist in the world disputes Apollo.
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
@MsRachdawg If you would like to ask any more questions, I'd be glad to answer whatever I can. If I don't know something, I'll tell you I don't.
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
The horizon is probably another mistake, it seems to bend away much less than the moon horizon and also appears to be further away. =P
Laurelindo 7 months ago
Shouldn't the Earth have a diameter of approximately one inch in the lunar sky?
I tried measuring this with uniformity in order to find out how big the Earth would be between my thumb and index finger if I stretched out one of my arms, and I got this:
x ÷ 0,70 = (4*10^7 ÷ π) ÷ (384403*10^3) ↔ x = 0,70*(4*10^7 ÷ π) ÷ (384403*10^3) = 2,32 cm.
Laurelindo 7 months ago
@Laurelindo If you're talking about at arm's length, it would be about an inch or a little less. It's about the width of your thumb. See AS17-134-20384. If a ruler had been held at arm's length in front of the camera, the earth would appear about an inch wide.
Note in AS17-134-20462, taken 51 hours later, with the LM in the foreground, that the phase of the earth has changed.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
Until it reached the rafters in the studio!
ROCKlogic1 8 months ago
The only thing I can possibly ask myself in this video is - who filmed the lift-off from the moon?
Don't misunderstand me, I know the moon landings are real, there's overwhelming evidence of that, I would just like to know how that part was filmed. =P
Collins, perhaps?
Laurelindo 10 months ago
@Laurelindo Another fair question. Remember that the rover had a remote controlled video camera. In the last three missions, they were used to film the lunar launches. Ed Fendell was the technician back on earth who controlled its movement. He had to do the upward pan strictly by timing and knowing the speed and trajectory. Nice piece of work -- must have taken quite a bit of practice. Each one was a one-take scene.
(He had to lead the video and audio from the moon by 1.3 seconds.)
Astrobrant2 10 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Who is Ed Fendell?
How many other names can you make up?
PCBHUK 7 months ago
@PCBHUK If you watched the video, you would know. You could also Goopgle "Ed Fendell" and find a bunch of stuff on him. I would have thought you would try that before coming here and making a fool of yourself.
I can only make up one name: Charlie Rackenham. I can't think of any others.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago 8
I like how you talk about Disney doing the moon landings... I think only arcangel4myke thinks that... haha
yesiamawizardjonny 11 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny So you have seen how insane arcangel4myke is. And you consider Sibrel to be a jerk. Okay, you're half way there.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I think Myke is kidding, man...
And yeah, Sibrel's an asshole. I personally don't believe man landed on the moon. But would I shove a bible in an astronauts face until they punch me? No, it's rude and disrespectful.
yesiamawizardjonny 11 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Myke seems perfectly serious. If he's kidding, he's carried the joke on far longer than any other I've ever seen. Frankly, I think he's probably a paranoid schiziphrenic.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
There is also the whole way the astronauts moved. Kubrik did not even use the techniques that the hoaxers were going on about, slowing down the footage and using wires etc.
dangerouslytalented 11 months ago
@dangerouslytalented That was one of the point I abandoned in order to keep from going into a third video. I was determined not to do that. I did discuss the very un-moon-like movement in the meeting room, though.
You've added a point I did not consider -- that he could have slowed the movement down in the meeting room. Good point.
BTW, hope you weren't too peeved about me stealing your cool sign-off, just for a little joke.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 You *can't* just slow down the footage (you would actually "overcrank" or speed up the camera) in an earth studio and simulate walking on the moon. This takes care of ballistic motion (at least for heavy objects where air drag is nil) *but it doesn't scale energy*. You'd need normal-looking actors whose every muscle is six times stronger than an ordinary adult male so they could jump up to six times higher.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Right. And then there is the problem of movement when a film is speeded up to correct speed for earth gravity. Non-gravitational movements are completely unnatural.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 That's my point - it looks so unnatural when sped up to the claimed "real" speed precisely because overcranking scales only ballistic motion, not the many little muscle-driven movements. If you could find a normally built actor with every muscle 6x stronger, not only could he jump as high on earth as a normal human on the moon, but he could actually make those unnatural, jerky motions. Slow him down and you'd have a convincingly faked moonwalk.
Just call central casting.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was faked by astronauts on the Moon!
MrAndersohn 11 months ago 3
Astrobrant you many want to consider doing the same analysis of the 1998 mini-series From the Earth to the Moon
protogenxl 1 year ago
@protogenxl Since I'm just not a TV watcher, I didn't see it. I just watched a little of it on YT and it looks cool. Thanks. I'm sure I'll enjoy watching the whole thing.
Finding errors, however, might be much more difficult, considering the extra 30 years of film and video technology they had in making it.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 At the very least I can tell you it is well worth the $25 for the Box Set
protogenxl 1 year ago
@protogenxl I've seen the Apollo 11 episode, now. Yes, there were several mistakes. I think the film was more to entertain and precision was not the goal. While they got the major stuff right, they took serious liberties with the dialog in the landing sequence. Rocket and attitude thruster effects were not quite true. The attitude of the LM descending, (as seen from the surface), was incorrect. Stars should not have been seen, but these errors are excusable, as in "2001."
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 It's still surprisingly easy. Probably the most realistic space-related movie ever made is "Magnificent Desolation": it's in IMAX, it's recent, Tom Hanks et al really wanted it to look good, and it even steals a lot of real Apollo imagery. Yet there are still *many* obvious mistakes, ranging from boots raising dust clouds to incorrect lighting to arcane technical errors like missing or incorrectly attached hoses and cables on space suits.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Hoax nuts are all unaware of just how impossible it would be to fake this in such a way that billions of people, including many real experts, would fail to catch the errors and imperfections.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 Yeah. Yet they sure seem to think they've caught lots of errors and imperfections in the real thing...
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 Remember. We're also talking about DAYS and DAYS of footage. Not a SINGLE ERROR. Little strange... huh?
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny This is a perspective that most hoax nuts lack. They have seen a couple of short video clips and a couple of photos. They do not benefit from the huge mass of video, film, and still photos which were taken during the Apollo missions. The more you realize there is, the more difficult it is to believe that it could have been faked.
All the sets they would have needed for the rover traverse photography and pans. Those alone would make it impossible to fake.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
Filming a movie or making the biggest hoax ever are two different things i think
911Investigate911 1 year ago
@911Investigate911 Sure, there's a difference. A movie-maker wouldn't feel as obligated to make the movie error-free. But considering this was the best special effects team of the time and there is such a HUGE difference between the Apollo images and 2001, it seems unreasonable to assume that they could have made a couple hundred hours of film and video and thousands of photographs without a single error.
Judging by your screen name, you probably aren't very good at critical thinking.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@GreatExterminator As many times as I watched that movie, I was darned surprised, too, once I started analyzing it for the video. Initially, I thought I might find two or three minor things, but there were some whoppers!
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee You have claimed that you have logged thousands of mistakes from Apollo. I asked you to direct me to them. You didn't
You made some specific claims which have been repeatedly and *easily* debunked: the missing LM in pans, the temperature of the film, etc. I have given responses and links for these. The temperature from NASA about the MAXIMUM temperature on the moon, after 7 days of direct sunlight, has nothing to do with cameras exposed to the sun for a couple of hours.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee Well, I'm glad you agree that Kubrick did not fake footage for Apollo. That was the only point of the video.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee Pt 2. Of course, I know who Jay *Windley* is and communicated with him a few times before coming to YT. If you were the expert you claim to be and have disproved him several times, I'd think you would know his name by now.
You just made a total fool of yourself. Why don't you tell us how you proved him to be "lacking in pertinent information." Why not tell us how you know all about a NASA propaganda campaign and how it disproves Apollo.
I have never been associated with NASA.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee I'm sorry, but I didn't see this comment until now. I have a master's degree in secondary education. I taught technology education, science, and even a semester of music in my 27 year career in middle and high schools. I am retired now.
Does this qualify me as an expert on Apollo? No, of course not. But then, one doesn't need to be an expert in order to know a historical fact. My arguments stand or fail on their own merit and do not need authoritarian reinforcement.
(cont'd)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee
Jay Wesley? I know who Jay Windley is... for someone who debates them frequently, you sure don't know his name. If you knew anything of Apollo, then you would know who Jay Windley is.
HiggsBosonNova 1 year ago
@99thmonkee The corroborating images returned from Soviet and American unmanned probes discount your claims that cosmic radiation damages film.
If it did, you should be able to produce examples of such.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@99thmonkee I've addressed this missing LM claim in my videos: watch?v=PG_skTncFGE
watch?v=PPS1lSqYIi4
It's also in my debunking of bminternet or willywill84, I forget which.
If the antenna's in the wrong direction, it's not being used.
Show me the photo with the incorrect terminator.
Where have you logged these thousands of errors? Why do you think REAL experts all over the planet for 40 years never discovered them, but totally uncredentialed hoaxers did?
Pick your favorites. I'll make a video.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee Yes, let's not forget it. This idiocy comes from Marcus Allen and I not only didn't forget about it, I dedicated 7 minutes of one of my videos to it, complete with Google earth flyby and terrain elevations. watch?v=coMGccvTK6g
The picture is taken from 1275 meters from the LM. It is on the other side of a slight ridge, and below the level of the astronauts.
What amazes me most of all about this claim is that hoaxers actually BELIEVE NASA would make such a mistake!
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee Pt 2. In addition, the cameras had a very reflective covering and were insulated. NASA planners knew EXACTLY what to expect because of the data gained from previous unmanned missions. I dealt with this oft-debunked issue in my video critique of bminternet's "Faked!"beginning at 8:30:
watch?v=mHxMCtzelQk
Time has been running for 40 years and not one shred of proof against Apollo has been provided. Just tons of ill-informed bullshit from utterly uncredentialed conspiracy theorists.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@99thmonkee What conspiracist site did you lift that from? The temperature of the moon's surface never got anywhere near 250 degrees during the missions. That's one of the reasons they always went when the sun was low in the east. It takes 7 DAYS of continuous sunlight for the surface to reach 250 degrees. Cameras are exposed to sunlight for a couple of hours at a time AND they are moved around so no one side of the camera is constantly in sunlight. (Cont'd).
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Also all of 2001 looks more realistic than the transparancy of the earth on the window of the capsule,that NASA tried to pass off as real..lol. Why did they fake that astrobrant?
1THETRUTH10 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 I don't know how grown-ups could actually believe the "transparency on the window" thing. Tell me, where did you get that idea? Sibrel? Percy? I don't suppose you have seen how ridiculous that claim is, and why. There are a couple of good videos on it.
Tell me how the "transparency" moves completely out of the window frame. Tell me how it shows rotation of the earth over several minutes' time. Want more?
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
This video can be rendered pointless with one sentance!
Kubrick did not have the help of all NASA's scientists and physicists...to go over every single detail. This movie could take as many liberties as they wish,NASA knew they could not. Although they ovbiously did make many!
1THETRUTH10 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 It really isn't necessary to actually KNOW anything in order to be a hoaxer, is it? Just spout out anything you like and see if it sticks. Kubrick DID have expert help from NASA and the credits after the movie say so. But even so, the movie made several errors. There is not one single error in any Apollo photo, film, or video. Or are you going to point out the waving flag and absence of stars?
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 I was well aware of the small amount of pointers NASA gave Kubrick.....but the same attention to detail was not required within a major movie. Kubrick liked clean clinical shots.....and again how many scientists and NASA experts really HELPED on this movie........IT WAS a MOVIE....yea get a bit of realisem in there,but dont let realisem spoil the shot! This vid is.... not relevant! Continue to dodge questions of merit...and produce this nonsense!
1THETRUTH10 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 Here you say you were well aware of the help Kubrick had from NASA. In your previous comment you said, "Kubrick did not have the help of all NASA's scientists and physicists." Oh, I guess you literally meant "all," right?
A movie would not need to be as accurate, but the mistakes are abundant and some are outright dumb and careless, like the earth being lit from opposite sides in a series of scenes. And fixing that kind of mistake would NOT "spoil the shot."
(cont'd)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 Pt 2. Perhaps the most relevant indication that Kubrick and his artists had nothing to do with Apollo is the modeling of the moon's surface that they used in the movie. Even though the movie and Apollo 11 were in the same year, there is a vast difference in the appearance of the surface. For example, the 2001 artists didn't know how smooth large surface features should look. This alone, discredits the claim that Apollo images were faked by Kubrick. (cont'd)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 Pt 3. There is also the fact that small surface details in photos, video, and film from Apollo missions are confirmed in Selene/Kaguya 3-D imaging and LRO photos. These details could NOT have been known by anyone faking Apollo imagery unless they went there. No, it could NOT have been done by unmanned probes because astronauts are filmed moving around in these precisely matching terrains, and their rover photography covers MILES of it.
See videos by GoneToPlaid and me, on this.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 (Oh, and jcgmed also made some cool videos of the matching of surface features which could not have been known in 1969 unless we went there.)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Again, maybe for the 4th time.....NASA had mapped the moon,before 1969, another FAIL Astro!
1THETRUTH10 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10 Your utter lack of knowledge in this subject is showing. In 1969 it would have been impossible to map the moon to anywhere near the accuracy and fine detail that has been revealed by Selene/Kaguya and LRO. Yet NOTHING in any of the vast Apollo photo and film archives is inconsistent with the huge amount of detailed data we have accumulated in only the last decade. Anyway, what does this have to do with this video?
Thanks for watching.
And thanks for being such a defender of TRUTH.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10
Exactly whay liberties did NASA take? You cannot pitch up to a debate and just make a statment like that. Please prove the veracity of your claims. Begin by listing some, and then discussing the science of the,. The phrase is 'taking liberties' anyway. you don't 'make liberties', you take them... grief, these conspiracy people really are dumb asses.
HiggsBosonNova 1 year ago
@HiggsBosonNova Show me where I said "making liberties" please? You guys are such liars,no wonder you all worship NASA.....wich claim do you want me to prove,there is a lot of bullshit to wade through. What statment have I made that is untrue? You guys sure like to dance around the most basic of questions!
1THETRUTH10 1 year ago
@1THETRUTH10
Which claim do I want you to prove... OK, let's start with the ascent stage. According to Kaysing that should have burnt with an opaque red flame. I contend it should not. Why was Kaysing correct?
HiggsBosonNova 1 year ago
@MrAugustNidor I actually first saw the film as a young child. My mother did her best to try to explain her interpretation to me. It was years later that I read the novel. The film is much more symbolic. My take on it was pretty close. But the book does shed much light.
tumac66 1 year ago
We did indeed go to the Moon! 2001 is an excellent movie! Although the film was indeed the vision of Kubrik, as well as Arthur C. Clark, credit for the visual effects should go to Doug Trumble.
tumac66 1 year ago
@ Trumbull, sorry.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 I remember reading his name and wondered if I should have mentioned it.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
The one thing that strikes me about this Kubrick nonsense is why hire a top special effects director make in comparison a very bad home movie when it came to the Apollo footage.
Like many of these ridiculous claims they work on the premise, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
cushy1900 1 year ago
This merely proves the genius of Kubrick: he made intentional "mistakes" for a science fiction film, but when he faked the Apollo footage, he intentionally was more accurate, and tricked the world.
I'm j/k: the Moon landing hoax is patently absurd. Space Odyssey is one of my favorite films, a true classic, but as the Moon landings showed, it looked different in reality. As your fine video illustrates. Great job! On to part 2...
StevenErnest 1 year ago
@StevenErnest Thank you, Steven.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Interesting video.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays It was a change of pace and a new twist in debunking. Kind of a fun thing.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
06:53 - The moon could appear larger simply by moving the camera back and zooming in. The reduction in angular size of the ship would be greater than that of the moon, and so when you zoom back in, the moon would be larger.
Also, did you REALLY need a three and a half minute introduction?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I thought I said, "It would appear that way if seen through about a 400 mm lens, but the assumption in a movie is that you are seeing it with the naked eye." Must've been dreaming. I deliberately chose the cockpit view for my analysis because that could NOT be done with a 400 mm lens.
Intro: I wanted the whole Zarathustra theme and a montage of scenes I would be discussing, as well as establish my purpose. It was as much for entertainment as anything else. I'll try harder next time.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Except, what you're talking about (and what the hoaxtards are talking about) is NOT what the astronauts saw with their own eyes on the moon, but what the still and video cameras recorded--cameras which absolutely had zoom lenses.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk (Pt 1) I remember video zooms and if the earth had been visible, it would have appeared different sizes. Of course, the ratio of diameter to distance from horizon would *not* have changed. Such an effect would also not be possible if taken from inside a small compartment with people just a few feet in front of you, (like the cockpit scene which I analyzed.)
I also remember some photos (A17, I think), of an astronaut and the earth where it appeared different sizes. (cont'd)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Yes, and I wasn't objecting to that part of your analysis. Since the moon keeps the same face to the Earth, the Earth should always be in the same place (within the limits of the aberrations of the moon's orbit) in the sky.
There probably are pictures of the Earth appearing as different sizes in the sky in the lunar photos for this reason, and we shouldn't give the hoaxtards any more ammo. If they see that sequence, they'll think the criticism is valid and try to apply it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Your point is not lost on me. Anyway, I would be surprised if any hoaxer would actually ever think of what we've been talking about. But if they do, I will be prepared to deal with their objections. I felt I pretty much pre-empted any complaint by making the qualifying statements about magnification. When these scenes are taken in conjunction with the proportion observation, the error is hard to dispute, especially with the cockpit scene. Maybe I should have only used that one.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@shanedk (Pt 2) In those photos, I don't know if it was because of different lenses being used or cropping that was done later. I'll have to go look.
Knowing these things, though, AND acknowledging TWICE what the effect of magnification would be, I felt the criticism was valid, especially with the cockpit scene. In that enclosed space such magnification could not have been used and still have the pilots appear the size they did. That's why I used that scene for analysis.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
All in vein sadly.
MudHut67 1 year ago