Here's a bit of Crypto-Kubrological sleuthing regarding this (if you can stomach it). I think you'll find it interesting.
One of the concepts developed by shawnfella is the "Mid-Life Point," or the exact middle of a given (dead) person's life. This date often holds some synchronistic significance. For example, the mid-life point of the actor who played Heywood Floyd in 2001 (William Sylvester) falls on July 29, 1958, the day NASA was formed. Kubrick's mid-life day is November 15, 1963, just one week before the JFK assassination.
Another similar metric is the "Mid-Career Day," handy in the case of an actor such as Bill Hutchinson (for whom there is no exact birth or death information that I can find). Take the releases of the first and last jobs in his career, cut it up and find the exact middle. For Bill Hutchinson this falls on June 26, 1979: the day on which Moonraker premiered! That's the other Bond film that explicitly references the Moon and a secret space program. It also happens to be Paul Thomas Anderson's 9th birthday (but that's another can of worms entirely).
What does this tell me, exactly? I couldn't say for sure, only that there definitely seems to be some funny business surrounding Bill Hutchinson's involvement in the Bond films.
That's an interesting example of the use of synchromysticism as a diving rod to decide if we are on the right track or not. In this case I can't comment for how effective it may be because I'm already biased to want to believe this as "evidence"! This is a problem with syncs in general, that we look for them when we are looking for confirmation, and so confirmation bias increases the likelihood of finding them. Simply put, there's no good reason to presume that syncs can't be generated by the part of the unconscious (the guardian) that wants to mislead us, as well as by the deeper soul. Same with channeled materials and every manner of "woo."
But this is for another thread. I'll take your confirmation because I like it! BTW, FWIW, Hutchinson's most significant role appears to have been in Battle Beneath the Earth, as Lanchek:
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
Well it looks like I got duped – hey lets be real and honest about it. So lets start with the good news… my ongoing faith in the moon landings has been fully restored, not that I ever wained but when a long lost Stanley Kubrick video comes out saying YES I faked the moon landing you start to wonder! That being said I still maintain the moon landings were setup I mean Disney filmed and choreographed the launches – Werner Von Braun had his own show for gosh shakes! But hey if I call it wrong then I call it wrong and although I did express some skepticism I didn’t doubt it enough. It doesn’t happen often but unlike the Roswell Slides lets be upfront about it.
Lately I've been thinking about how you could fake the moon landing photos with late 60s technology. I used to think it was impossible because even now, convincingly faking sunlight over a wide area is darned near impossible and certainly was then. But lately I've been working around some mid-20th century technology -- ships namely, and some factories, and have been deeply impressed at how BIG humans made things back then. Just bigger than you would ever have thought possible. Then I realized with the moon photos -- you wouldn't need to fake sunlight. You could, instead use the sun. All you would have to do is surround your set with massive, shaded black walls, for the background, the "sky". Then cover the entire thing in glass so that while the sun could shine in, the wind, that might blow the acres of dust you've laid out, and that might flutter the flag or the black and/or gold foil wrapped around various parts of the ship, would be nonexistent. The set of course would have to be enormous but that's easy for a government funded project. You would have to shoot at certain times of day and control the shaded black walls that represented "space" to control the shadows.
It actually would not have been that difficult.
I am not saying I believe they were faked because it seems pretty clear that utilizing Newtonian physics to hurl objects through space and send them hurtling in various directions with extreme accuracy is something humans seem to have down pat. But the things that bother me lately are the radiation issues for human passengers, some of the footage I've seen where it sure as hell looks like the astronauts were suspended at certain times from wires, and the seemingly slow-motion filming that seems to have been used to sell the idea of very light gravity. Also the landing module itself is patched with this heavy matte black metal foil called "black wrap" that we use extensively in motion picture production. Also, since I was a kid- where was the camera that recorded Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface?
I feel like sketching out how such a set would be built. It would be a circle, a seamless, lightless background, open on top with a dome of clear glass or plastic over it. And some kind of retractable truss work that could be extended here and there to dangle the astronauts from black wires. The walls making up the circular enclosure could be vertically retractable in sections so that you could adjust the length of the shadows. The entire structure could be built to rotate to follow the sun (like the old silent film sets). You could, even, create a vacuum within the space so the dust behaved properly when disturbed.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Wouldn't it be possible then to utilize this old technology today with no fancy modern bells and whistles and do it one more time? It would "prove" it all happened as told. Just use the same schematics, materials, cpu infrastructure, etc. If that shit was good for them in the 60s and 70s it should be good today, no? The only crazy cost it seems to me would be the actual rocket. After that it's just old hardware. Demonstrate it can be done again in an antique to put this to rest.
I remain 50/50 on it.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
Nordic » Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:11 am wrote:Lately I've been thinking about how you could fake the moon landing photos with late 60s technology. I used to think it was impossible because even now, convincingly faking sunlight over a wide area is darned near impossible and certainly was then. But lately I've been working around some mid-20th century technology -- ships namely, and some factories, and have been deeply impressed at how BIG humans made things back then. Just bigger than you would ever have thought possible. Then I realized with the moon photos -- you wouldn't need to fake sunlight. You could, instead use the sun. All you would have to do is surround your set with massive, shaded black walls, for the background, the "sky". Then cover the entire thing in glass so that while the sun could shine in, the wind, that might blow the acres of dust you've laid out, and that might flutter the flag or the black and/or gold foil wrapped around various parts of the ship, would be nonexistent. The set of course would have to be enormous but that's easy for a government funded project. You would have to shoot at certain times of day and control the shaded black walls that represented "space" to control the shadows.
It actually would not have been that difficult...
This. Reminded me of a site I came across a year or so ago.
This web page will show how, and where NASA faked the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take off, for all the Apollo Moon landing videos. Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may have been the odd picture taken at Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Scientists at NASA knew in the early 60s that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and a plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation. NASA's fake Moon pictures were taken at various locations such as KSC, JSC, LRC, and of course the odd one or two desert locations. I would also like to point out to that the art of faking both still photographs, and movie film is as old as photography and film itself. The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made.
Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026. Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 1 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White. They have the facilities to perform anything, fake backgrounds, simulated orbiters etc. First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. Notice fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.
This crane was purposely built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both the LM and astronauts. It enabled movement of the LM in all directions, ie, up down, left right, forward and reverse. Trial runs were so good NASA, opted to use the setup for faking the film of lunar landing, and take off, whereby the flag is blown over.
Bobby Braun claims the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However no rocket powered LM was ever suspended from this crane. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is impossible to control a rocket engine. The LM was controlled purely by traverse and lowering, in the same way as a conventional crane.
Below are more pictures showing mock LM suspended from this crane. In the center picture note the circular objects on the ground floor. The vast expanse of ground area beneath this crane was ideal for creating mock lunar landscapes. In reality the area was covered with gray ash, (possibly from some coal fired power station or boiler house), or plain cement. The circular objects were then raised by crane to create authentic looking Moon craters...
And some pictures:
There's some good stuff.
Also, re the Van Allen belts, there's this from the Orion Mission:
NASA say they haven't figured out how to get through them safely, yet.
*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
There is no shame in having been fooled. There is a little shame in being indolent since. There is significant shame in declaring not to see paper-mache' and tinfoil. And total shame in defending it. That lunar lander is a golden calf A pagan orgy if you will.
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
A few things that don't make sense to me regarding the supposed hoax:
Assuming they faked the landings, why did they continue doing it for years? It would only increase the chance of someone screwing up and exposing the whole thing.
And if it's so obviously fake, why wasn't the Soviet Union all over it with evidence and charts showing exactly why it was fake? It would be a huge win for them.
Moon rocks: Both the US and the Soviet Union retrieved samples from the Moon. If the US samples were faked they shouldn't match up with the samples from the Soviet Union and someone would have noticed. And if the Soviet samples were faked too, how did they manage to fake two sets of samples and have them agree on all the details? And why are the old "fake" samples not completely different from newer samples? If they never went there they couldn't know the composition of the rocks well enough to fake them accurately.
Pictures of the Apollo landing site from new orbiters. Are those faked too?
And what about the reflectors placed on the Moon by astronauts that anyone with a powerful laser can check?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
What has always thrown me off the trail of the "hoax" is the simple fact that all of the hoax websites I've ever seen get so many things spectacularly wrong. Knowing what I know about photography and faking reality through cinema, having done that professionally for decades now (I'm getting old), most of the claims on the "it was a hoax" websites are laughable. A small percentage of their claims, maybe 5 to 10 percent, have merit. I think it's classic disinfo/limited hangout stuff now.
If I toss all that misleading and stupid info aside and dream up how it could have been done, well, it could have been done. It would have cost a fortune but they HAD a fortune. And plenty of people used to, and willing to, work on top secret projects for Uncle Scam.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Also, since I was a kid- where was the camera that recorded Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface?
Forget about everything else Dr. Evil, can you address the issue of how the camera got to the spot to film Armstrong?
All the 'yeah but what about' arguments supporting an 'actual' going to the moon deserve less consideration if a simple thing like a camera placement question cannot be addressed.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Also, since I was a kid- where was the camera that recorded Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface?
Forget about everything else Dr. Evil, can you address the issue of how the camera got to the spot to film Armstrong?
All the 'yeah but what about' arguments supporting an 'actual' going to the moon deserve less consideration if a simple thing like a camera placement question cannot be addressed.
The official story is that the camera was in the lunar module, and that Buzz Aldrin pulled a cord that "deployed" the camera and set it operating.
These sort of things do not seem improbable to the proponents of the official story. There is a will to believe in my opinion that makes this a difficult subject to discuss. It is like 9/11 or JFK, there are lots of emotions and personal identities invested in the subject.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
