Wednesday, August 17, 2011

A11 work and no play makes Jack a dull boy


A few years ago I posted a link to Rob Ager's analysis of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange

Being a Kubrick fan, and a loon, I thought Ager had come up with some interesting, dare I say Illuminating, observations about the film and made a strong case that Kubrick himself was a bit
of a loon


Quite a lot of a loon actually

However, as Ager himself pointed out, just because Kubrick believed in the existence of certain fruity little clubs with a taste for occult practices, mind control and recreational global domination, that does not constitute proof that any of what Kubrick believed is real

All it proves is that Kubrick stuffed his films full of coded references and symbolism


Having said all that, here's some quality Old Skool loonery on the subject of Kubrick and NAZA's Apollo (television?) programme...



(edit 6/9/11 - sadly, the above video 'Kubrick's Odyssey' appears to have been pulled from Youtube after a complaint from its producer about, of all things, copyright violation)

It's worth the price of admission just for the rocket launch sequence at the end of Part 3 alone


After watching this, The Shining makes a shed load more sense than it ever did before
.

137 comments:

Tony Mach said...

This is all just a elaborate coincidence...

Stef said...

Fancy that

Pedobear said...

So do I

Tony Mach said...

But seriously, I think the whole "fake moon landing" is just loonery. The mythbusters did a nice episode on this:
http://youtu.be/mefEKqzq8cg
http://youtu.be/RfKItI-cHPM
http://youtu.be/NOv_zvM-oJQ
http://youtu.be/oCNV1hiKpLI
http://youtu.be/0dTATMEJSuQ

The walk in 1/6th of earth gravity is the best.

And one video about "The Flag":
http://youtu.be/MunPi3ifqpw

Be sure to watch "Kubrick's Odyssey: Lunar Hoax" first, not the other way around, like I did. It's less entertaining when you have seen the busted myths first…

Tony Mach said...

And just one thing, you would see the front-projection system in this shot:
http://youtu.be/yHO_t-sBoP4?t=3m20s
It would appear as a bright light in the vizor of the astronaut.

Tony Mach said...

And do you notice how many moon hoaxers use bad quality images and videos. They want you to believe that this is just a coincidence, but I know the truth: They are stupid.

The Rob Ager vids are so much more enjoyable, because he is so much more subtle. Stef, you need to watch his Full Metal Jacket analysis. All parts. And then tell me if you still think that Ager is "simply a movie buff". Come to think of it, trying to SELL the parts where he pushes his conspiracy theory (even if it is very well worked out), now that is something.

Tony Mach said...

Ah, "Kubrick's Odyssey: Lunar Hoax" would have been so much better without the filmmaker trying to prove that Kubrick faked the moon landing. Just leave it open how he did it. Maybe Kubrick didn't use front-projection? Maybe he used more advanced techniques than in 2001?

Or maybe:
1. The footage from 2001 and from the Apollo missions look quite different. Well, maybe some primates would believe that they look the same.

2. Kubrick wouldn't have had time to make two such big projects.

For some movie plots, you need Willing Suspension Of Disbelief. If the filmmaker points out how Kubrick has faked the moon landing, the audience (or at least the non-brain-dead part of the audience) starts to think about how Kubrick has faked the moon landing. And well, I find flaws in the reasoning of the filmmaker, not in the "making" of the moon landing...

Tony Mach said...

I just imagine Werner Herzog doing a documentary about Kubrick faking the moon landing... Mmmmh. Or even better, a mockumentary how Werner Herzog filmed the moon landing. After all, he did actually pull a steamship over a steep hill in order to access different territory. I think it was Herzog's recollection of faking the moon landing. Or look at Aguirre, the Wrath of God, where he has done the impossible. But then again, Herzog would have shot the moon landing on location...

(Word verification: guera)

Stef said...

There's three parts to this...

1. Did NAZA fake Apollo?
2. Did Stanley help NAZA?
3. Does The Shining include hidden references to Apollo and struggles in Kubricks own life

Stef said...

The Apollo Hoax issue is a bit like 9/11 in that it's easy to get bogged down in the detail and to forget to stand back and look at the situation in a holostic way

It is already 40 years since the last Apollo landing and no-one has claimed to have left low orbit since

40 years is roughly the span of time between this and this

Something's not right about the existing narrative. What it is exactly I do not claim to know

Stef said...

As for whether Kubrick helped NAZA or not, that is not proven by Weidner's movie

What I believe Weidner does demonstrate is that there is a hidden narrative within The Shining

Kubrick was a perfectionist, known for demanding many, many takes of a scene and controlling every single minute detail in his films. Nothing is there by accident

Personally, I 'buy' many of the observations in Weidner's analysis. The launch scene on the hallway carpet being the most powerful

Thanks for the pointer to Ager's FMJ analysis. I haven't seen it and shall seek it out

Stef said...

"Or even better, a mockumentary how Werner Herzog filmed the moon landing..."

ever since I first saw Aguirre - Wrath of God just thinkng about that film always reduces me to a fit of appreciative laughter

no-one does insanity like Herzog

except for his 'remake' of Bad Lieutenant

I'll try and forgive him for that

One day...

Tony Mach said...

Oh, oh, oh, the producer from The Shining having a sentence about 2001 and the moon landings.

Stef said...

Hmmmm, Wag the Dog meets Hearts of Darkness meets Capricorn One...

The more I think about it, the more I like it

Stef said...

Sticking loosely to the subject of Kubrick, Keith Olbermann does a very reasonable Dr Strangelove impersonation

rob said...

fascinating stuff and entirely plausible however why does the commentator in the film say in Part 1(@8mins) that he takes a 3rd position ie "humans did go to the moon but the footage and photos were faked?,,I think in some other part of the documentary he states again that the rocks and stuff brought back from the moon were real?I mean either its faked or its not for fucks sake.

Stef said...

Back in the Dark Ages, before the Internet, I attended a talk given by David Percy where he concentrated solely on possible anomalies in the photographs attributed to the Apollo missions. Percy observed that even if the photographs were fakes that didn't prove that the Moon landings were faked. It was possible that Moonshots took place but not in the way depicted in the photographs

Why would anyone do that?

Percy believed that anyone passing through the Van Hallen belts in an unshielded craft such as Apollo would be subject to lethal doses of radiation. He argued therefore that the real astronauts were possibly people with terminal diseases who volunteered to go on a one-way trip

Alternatively, Jay Wiedner and Richard Hoagland appear to believe that NAZA knows that there are artifical structures on the Moon, may even be operating missions using reverse-engineered/ gifted alien technology and has been covering up what's really going on

Personally, I concede, by the very perfection of its lighting and composition, that the Apollo photography does look supremely dodgy. However, that simply could mean that NAZA ran some promo photos up on Earth because the real stuff from the Moon came out shit

If you look critically at the Apollo photographs, especially if you have a modicum of interest in photography, many of them really do look like professionally lit, carefully composed studio shots

Tony Mach said...

1. Did NAZA fake Apollo?

No.

I think faking the whole thing would have been impossible to fake. The film technology wasn't that far (and it still isn't). You would need many people. The soviets would have known. Everybody would have known.

I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence. No imperfections, no slip-ups, no flaws, no oversights in the Apollo footage. Not a single one. It is all bullshit by loons. And I could show you imperfections in EVERY science-fiction movie I know.

(Compared to the official JFK narrative on the other hand, which smells like it is a fabricated story. Or MLK. Or 9/11 and 7/7, which somehow don't quite add up. Something different happened than what we are told happened, and someone is feeding us bullshit. But I couldn't say what was different in each case. LIHOP? MIHOP? A simple giant fuck-up? I don't know.)

2. Did Stanley help NAZA?

There is a rumor that the "space toilet" instruction (and other stuff) from 2001 was an inspiration to some NASA people. Well, for the production of 2001 they had to think a lot of things through, things that weren't invented yet. Wasn't it Jules Verne who "invented" the countdown? Do people who work in that area read science-fiction? Does that mean that lift-offs are faked by Jules Verne?

But other than that? No, I don't think so.

3. Does The Shining include hidden references to Apollo and struggles in Kubricks own life

Kubricks own life? Yes, I would say so after seeing that little film. Apollo? Quite possibly. Kubrick was a control freak and everything was there for a reason.

More specifically Kubricks involvement in the Apollo program? Well, I don't think he faked it, as I think Apollo (as a whole) was not faked. Maybe some part of it? Did they hide something else in "plain sight", disguised some military program as Apollo and Kubrick helped? Or some other government conspiracy?

Or maybe Kubrick took some part of popular (sub-)culture and used it. Maybe he believed that the moon landing were faked, maybe he thought it was a believable subcontext. "Well, I screwed with your perception of reality. Hope you enjoyed it."

As a side note: I enjoy films about Kubricks films more than the uncommented original. I have seen the Kubrick exhibition in Berlin. I loved it, it was wonderful. There are so many wonderful things Kubrick has done – but I couldn't name one Kubrick film I like as a whole. Hmm.

Stef said...

As for the issue of Moon rocks, two points

1. Some of the alleged Moon rock is fake

2. Dr Werner von Strangelove visited Antarctica on a 'field trip' in 1966-67 and could have picked up chunks of Moon rock there

Of course, some Loons believe that Wernher was actually visiting the Nazi Bovril-powered UFO base in New Swabia but Werner could have popped a couple of pebbles in his pocket during his stay

rob said...

I have to say that I did enjoy the 5 part film a lot.
One thing that always puzzled me is why the Russians did not go? and I don´t want to hear that shit that the Yanks beat them to it!would be like saying why would anyone want want to get to the South pole after Amundsen!

or why has noone been since including the US,,,no money gimme a fuckin break.

Tony Mach said...

no-one does insanity like Herzog

except for his 'remake' of Bad Lieutenant

I'll try and forgive him for that

One day...


I haven't seen either versions of Bad Lieutenant, but I hope it was Herzog's revenge for that god-awful Abel Ferrara movie "New Rose Hotel" - because cosmic karma dictates that somebody HAD to take revenge for that movie someday.

I will most certainly never forgive Ferrara for that movie.

Never.

Stef said...

There is an hypothesis which explains why the Russians...

1. Didn't blow the whistle on faked Apollo Moon shoots

2. Didn't go themselves

The hypothesis being that the Russians did actually go, along with the Americans

The Russians were consistently ahead of the US with their launch vehicle technology. Their rockets were cheaper, much more reliable and capable of lifting heavier loads than their US counterparts

Of course, for US-Russia Lunar co-operation to be true you'd have to acknowledge that the Cold War was, in part, a sham or that the Americans had significant leverage over the Soviets. The US was to all intents and purposes feeding the USSR at the time

Stef said...

and you could equally ask the question 'Why don't the Russians blow the whistle on 9/11?'

or, if you believe the Official 9/11 Narrative, pick the Russians blowing the whistle on something else

They must have some shit on the US

The answer is probably something to do with what would be done to the Russians in retaliation

The people who run states act in their class interest and have more in common with foreign oligarchs than with their own peoples

Tony Mach said...

One thing that always puzzled me is why the Russians did not go? and I don´t want to hear that shit that the Yanks beat them to it!would be like saying why would anyone want want to get to the South pole after Amundsen!


1. They had partly the technology for a moon shot. What was missing was a big rocket. Korolev was the Russian rocket chief and he wanted to build a new giant rocket with new technology (instead of a enhanced version of the available rockets like others suggested). The N1 rocket failed terribly and Korolev died anyway in 1966. The whole moon program was in ruins, so they burried it all, never to speak of it again. They rather sticked to what the could do: Soyus, Salyut and later Mir. And that, they did very very well.

And what did the Americans do? Three Skylab missions? Bah. And the ISS is basically a Mir II, which Americans bought cheaply after they pushed the Soviets into bankruptcy.

2. The Soviets, as a rule, retorted to all *military* moves of the US. They even build a copy of the Space Shuttle because they thought the US could use it for militarization of space. Once they realized that the the Space Shuttle was expensive crap, they shelved their own version.

On the civilian front, they sticked more to their own plans.

Once they realized that they could only be second, there was no military danger by the Amerikans on the moon and there was nothing to learn they couldn't learn by automated probes (which the Soviets were rather good at) they said "What the heck, we don't have money for this!".

3. It's a bit like a Russian asking "One thing that always puzzled me is: why the Americans didn't establish a permanently maned space station?"

4. "would be like saying why would anyone want want to get to the South pole after Amundsen" So why did the Americans stop going to the moon? Maybe it was getting too expensive for a couple of rocks to return to earth? After all, there is only a little more you can learn from new samples...

Edo said...

I'm surprised none of you have mentioned the fabulous Dave McGowan 'Waggin the Moondoggie' essays.

Like Stef says, taking a holistic view of the alleged moon landings gives far greater insight.

Everyone keeps banging on about faked photos, and dodgy flags, but rarely do you hear people discussing the Van Allen radiation belts, the Playtex manufactured spacesuits, problems with spacedust and micro meteorites...

It's so obviously faked.
It says so much about the people that faked it, and continue the lie way beyond its sell by date, and the suckers that keep believing it...

Seriously, just look at this thing.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg

rob said...

"would be like saying why would anyone want want to get to the South pole after Amundsen" So why did the Americans stop going to the moon? Maybe it was getting too expensive for a couple of rocks to return to earth? After all, there is only a little more you can learn from new samples...

disagree.Most costs are in developing the technology to get you there.Once you have that tech its relatively cheap but going to the moon or any other challenging place is not about getting some rocks or dust it is really about the new technology and engineering advancements that are developed in the endeavor.
The spins offs and advancements made in say building a space station or moon station would have countless other useful technologies developed in the process.

Stef said...

I'm with rob on the 'Moonshots are too expensive' argument

Spending money it doesn't have on hugely expensive, wasteful, Military-Industrial projects is what the US government does best

If Apollo were some kind of social welfare program I'd buy the cost argument

It isn't so I don't

Stef said...

I'm surprised none of you have mentioned the fabulous Dave McGowan 'Waggin the Moondoggie' essays.

It's been I while since I looked at them but, agreed, I recall them being a good read

Tony Mach said...

and you could equally ask the question 'Why don't the Russians blow the whistle on 9/11?'

First off, the Russians today are not what the Soviets used to be. The Russians today (or their government) are not that different from any other government in the world. They disperse and even believe any bullshit that is helpful to be disperse and believed.

But you are right, the Soviets might not have called the whistle on a possible Moon Hoax (which I still don't believe). The main aim of the Soviets was to convince the western public to take capitalistic system for the crap it is (at least for the general unwashed masses) – and look what terrible job they did at that. And they knew that had problems bringing their message across. "Mstr Nxn. You rre faaking urr Moon pragram. Iit iiz a faake, just laik urr entaiyre kapitalistik sistem!" Sure, everyone would have believed it right away. Cue in President John Wayne: "You are calling me a liar? And fraud? Fill your hand you sonofabitch!"

Van Halen's Belt said...

Yes, the Cold War was a sham. It helped keep the population on either "side" in line.

Meanwhile the top brass were hobnobbing over brandy (see picture).

Stef said...

"Seriously, just look at this thing.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg "

I have to say, that object looks suspiciously like my Mum's old heating boiler, duck tape and all, magically transported to the Lunar surface

Bridget said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bridget said...

^ Deleted - wrong link.

Shame it was Jon Ronson that was given permission to access 'Kubrick's boxes' - anyone know where there's a copy 'cos I haven't found one.

Stef said...

JR strikes me as the perfect choice

Haven't found a copy myself and doubt that it would be worth much effort securing, or watching, one

Anonymous said...

@Tony:

Worth a read :

Wagging the Moondoggie

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com


I recommend this mainly for its, IMO, overall critical arguments against certain aspects of the moon landing missions, and debunking guardians. Im not arguing for the hoax, just after reading that series (despite some errors on Dave Mcgowan's behalf), it does make you think how the fuck did we manage to get to the moon, and then land the lunar lander so awesomely on the first go, then repeat it pretty much flawlessly after that. Especially in light that today we seem to be struggling with all the latest technology to get anything past the van allen belts for man propelled missions. Why not just re-use the awesomeness of 60s tech?

Anonymous said...

Edo posted before me.
should read the thread better, sorry.

Stef said...

It's a long thread

And can I take this opportunity to say that I do know the correct spelling of Van Allen but always thought it funnier to spell it the other way

Tony Mach said...

I think it is ironic that while the Soviet Union was forced out of business, not only does the Soviet space program live on (and has been continuously operating maned space flights since Juri Gagarin), but now NASA has to use Russian maned flight capability to get to the ISS (which is MIR II).

This is now the second time the NASA has no maned space flight capability after the Apollo/Space Shuttle gap from 1973/75 to 1981.

While the Soviets back then (and the Russians now) try to constantly develop and improve their existing space flight and military designs (in order to keep them going), the US seems more interested in pouring money into new designs (and into the MIC) while having gaps until the new super-hardware comes along. One could think that getting money into the MIC is the aim in the US...

Dick Jones said...

I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?

Robocop News said...

its a free country, but nuthin's for free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCt9Vszkq38

Edo said...

The Jon Ronson doc is on PB Bridget.

http://tinyurl.com/4xs4l3y

Bridget said...

Thanks Edo.

Any theories on the date at the end of the Shining? Obviously Independence Day but 1921?

The Antagonist said...

Did someone mention the Russians? / Why they didn't go to the moon? Why they didn't blow the whistle? Etc., etc..

Looks like Kubrick kovered that konundrum.

craggy said...

I too have sometimes pondered the veracity of the moon landing.

I watched and read many things but two films made me wonder more than most whether it really was faked:

1) What were these astronauts doing here and why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=206YHc2GBX4

2) Why were the returning, victorious crew so reticent, sheepish, vague and subdued here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bflb3OqOTg&feature=related

Edo said...

Good point Craggy, I was going to link to that video of the press conference earlier...

When have Americans ever been subdued after an achievement, small or huge?

Anyone considering themselves to be a good judge of character surely would look at the three astronauts with some suspicion, no?

Stef said...

@craggy

Cheers for the links, especially the first one

I've tried wading through that film before but gave up long before the money shot, as all I was seeing was an arsehole accosting people and demanding that they swear oaths on the bible

Stef said...

"Any theories on the date at the end of the Shining? Obviously Independence Day but 1921?"

I'm still working on that one but I have been struck by the similarity between this and this

As above, so below...

Stef said...

...or should that be 'As below, so above'?

rob said...

Can anyone put me straight as to what the maker of this film believes?


1.Didn´t go to the moon whole thing faked and filmed by Stan Kubrick as part of psyops cold war we´re better than the Russians prank.

2.Did go to the moon.Nothing is faked and your a loon if you believe otherwise.

3.Did go to the moon but the filming and photos were so bad they were produced on a set by Stan Kubrick.

I find 3 to be the least likely which is what the maker of the film thinks did happen.Why did he fuck up the credibility of the rest of the documentray by stating in part 1 at 8mins that we did go to the moon??kinda fuckin daft if you ask me,,unless that is!!??

Tony Mach said...

Yes, yes. As they say in the first video: It is uncannily convincing. Especially the babbling commentary that talks for minutes instead and comments every bit to death instead of letting the proof (or lack of) speak for itself.

And Armstrong saying that he is 130.000 miles out is in fact proof that he isn't, but is instead in LEO! This, I can not counter with logic and must say yes, it is all a fake! And the so called space-ship was made from cake! Any proof or counter-proof is proof that the proof does prove that proof is fake, and therefore the earth is fake! Die Galileo! Die Copernicus! Die Newton! Die Ockham! AHHHHHRRH! MUST KILL ALL!!!!!

Tony Mach said...

How can they claim to walk on the moon when in fact we said they were in LEO? Liars! Die logic! Die!

craggy said...

Nice sarcasm, Tony. I didn't actually make the logical leap you are suggesting. But whatever.

I'd still be interested in your answer to my question: what do you think the astronauts were doing in that film and why?

rob said...

I´ll never see Frank Zappa in the same light again!

Inside The LC The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation

rob said...

great site thanks for the link.

Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal. And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this: Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do? Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program. Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort! Ivan: Fuck it! If we can't be first, we aren't going at all. Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained. Ivan: Nyet!

rob said...

shit I can´t beleive that this guy has written was I was already thinking a few posts back!

t would be particularly easy, needless to say, for America to do it again, since we’ve already done all the research and development and testing. Why then, I wonder, have we not returned to the Moon since the last Apollo flight? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the Moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly dropped and soon forgotten and for nearly four decades now not a single human has been to the Moon. Again, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat? Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon? Why has no other nation ever attempted to send a manned spacecraft anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit?

Dr. Douglas Baker said...

"I forecast that projecting beyond the ring-pass-not could produce personality disorders. It was therefore no surprise to me when reports came through that most of the astronauts concerned with the U.S. Moon ventures developed serious dis-affections of personality after their return, including alcoholism, domestic upsets, religious mania, etc."

Bridget said...

Stef - The Baphomet stance is striking - more so when considering the man behind Jack is either trying to hold his arm down or perhaps indicating to the word SOLVE (if it based on this)... and there's something in his hand. What?

As for Russians, is this indicated by the bear doing uh, something, to the American in one of the rooms?

KingofWelshNoir said...

For all those who ask ironically why we can't go back to the Moon using 1960s technology the answer appears to be that they destroyed all the blueprints.

Remember the Lunar Module? The most technologically remarkable vehicle ever conceived? Two box-cars full of design blueprints allegedly went onto the trash heap of Gunman Aircraft that built it.

'Grumman is an aerospace engineering firm, not a museum. It did not wish to house the hundred thousand cubic feet or so of design documentation at its expense.'

This rather laughable defence comes courtesy of the Moon hoax debunking site :

www.clavius.org/bibcollier.html

Apparently the blueprints for that revolutionary fold-up electric car are missing too.

Anonymous said...

It's perplexing how the 'astronauts' returned from the moon, NASA claim space is a vacuum so they didn't require as much fuel on the return leg, making it sound like Armstrong stuck his feet out the bottom of Apollo11 and paddled his way back, akin to how Fred drove his car in the Flintstones.

Stef said...

I've just taken the opportunity afforded by a couple of long coach trips to reread Dave McGowan's Moondoggie series and rewatch the Mythbusters' attempt to debunk Apollo Hoax theories

First off, like others who have commented here, I like the cut of McGowan's jib

@TonyMach

I agree with MacGowan's analysis of the Mythbusters' episode

Out of five myths supposedly debunked - three of the debunkings were meaningless and two were outright cheats

When I see self-styled mythbusters resorting to deceit that has the precise opposite effect on me to the one intended

Stef said...

Can anyone put me straight as to what the maker of this film believes?

The maker of the film, Jay Weidner, is a member of the Richard Hoagland 'school' of conspiratology and believes that NAZA has a secret space program based on reverse engineered alien anti-gravity technology. Apollo was simply a front

Inconsistent nonsense, of course, as if NAZA was zipping to and from the Moon in antigravity discs it could have done a better job of faking Apollo

If Apollo was faked it was because NAZA couldn't get to the Moon, not because it could

Stef said...

@KoWN

For all those who ask ironically why we can't go back to the Moon using 1960s technology the answer appears to be that they destroyed all the blueprints.

They could, of course, sent the space shuttle on a couple of fly bys instead. The Official Apollo Narrative maintains that you need piss all fuel to 'drop' to the Moon and 'drop' back again from low Earth Orbit so, for the vastly more sophisticated Shuttle, it should have been a piece of cake

Another query to throw into the mix is that it is more than a little peculiar that the Apollo crews took golf clubs and dune buggies with them but not a single telescope

There is NO astrophotography from the Moon's surface. Six NAZA crews, no pictures of any stars or constellations. Bullshit

KingofWelshNoir said...

I've seen it claimed on debunker websites that the reason the astronauts never jumped higher on the moon than they could on earth was because they wouldn't have been able to get back to their feet if they fell over. The weight of the backpack being too much, allegedly. Which raises an interesting question. If it's true they couldn't get up if they fell over, what provision was there for the eventuality that both astronauts fell over at the same time? Houston we have a problem...

Stef said...

@craggy

If that footage of the astronauts dicking around a capsule is genuine that's prima facie evidence of fraud

My problem is that the film-maker who claims to have found it is such a patent arse I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time of day without independent corroboration

Stef said...

"Stef - The Baphomet stance is striking"

And not, I suspect, accidental. Particularly when you consider material featured in other Kubrick films especially Eyes Wide Shut

It's also worth ponting out that the photo only appears on the wall after Jack dies which implies that the scene is not hinting at reincarnation but that the dead Jack has been transported somewhere else. Hell presumably

1921 is clearly not a date but a riddle. It adds up to 13 obviously but that's quite a mundane explanation and not one I would favour

cf. CRM 114/ Serum 114

KingofWelshNoir said...

@Stef
'There is NO astrophotography from the Moon's surface.'

Even more perplexing, the astronauts can't seem to remember whether they saw stars from the Moon's surface or not. Some say they could, others say they couldn't.

You'd think they would remember that. I once went on holiday with some friends to Boracay in the Philippines and they still to this day rave about the stars we saw from the beach. I guess it's different on the moon.

Love this thread.

KingofWelshNoir said...

@Tony Mach

'I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence. No imperfections, no slip-ups, no flaws, no oversights in the Apollo footage. Not a single one. It is all bullshit by loons.'

Well, one man's bullshit is another man's smoking gun, but try this one on for size.

Two photos, according to official NASA web sources, of Buzz Aldrin taken on 20 July 1969

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5903.html

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11-40-5873.html

Compare the ratio of arm length to leg length on each. Is it the same guy? I don't think so.

KingofWelshNoir said...

Sorry the links in my last post seem to have been curtailed.

Here they are again:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5903.html

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11-40-5873.html

KingofWelshNoir said...

Huh? It happened again.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5903.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11-40-5873.html

kingofWelshNoir said...

This is embarrassing.

The one getting curtailed is


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5903.html

Stef, feel free to delete the redundant posts

KingofWelshNoir said...

OK it's just not working.

If you can be bothered, Google the following two images:

as11_40_5903
as11-40-5873

Stef said...

At times like these, I find tinyurl helps

On the subject of one man's bullshit, I've already mentioned that the first time I heard a fully-fleshed out assault on the Official Apollo Narrative was back in the mid 1990s by David Percy. That was pre-internet when I had to rely on snailmail subscriptions to Fortean Times (it wasn't shit then) and Lobster Magazine for all my loon needs

The Percy talk was part of a weekend-long 'Unconvention' and many of the people who listened to it clearly didn't know what they were letting themselves in for

Something like a quarter of the room was visibly furious at the end of the talk. I have never seen such an angry, hostile crowd at any of these events

Me, I came out chuckling at the audacity of suggesting that something like Apollo could have been faked. Post-internet, of course, it now takes much higher doses of loonacy to get the same effect

I mention this story because there's something about suggesting that Apollo was a hoax that really fucks some people off. I think because scientists, rather than politicians and bankers, are firmly in the dock and, to many, science has the same status that religion once had

We're talking blasphemy

KingofWelshNoir said...

'We're talking blasphemy'

Absolutely, blasphemy and taboo, the Gold Standard of insanity. And Percy is to be congratulated for having had the balls to utter the unspeakable.

The Apollo story is sacred, partly, as you say, because it is supported by men of science, and also I suspect because it is one of the few remaining unsullied tales of heroism from our childhoods. If Neil Armstrong and his 'One small step…' is a lie, what else is left?

cuntocracy said...

'Why not call the present political system a ‘cuntocracy’?
I grew tired of Lobster some years ago over it's blasé attitude to the Julyseventh and 9/11 psyops but the recent William Clarke essay offered some appeasement.

Bridget said...

Watched The Shining tonight for the first time. Some thoughts: Jack - caretaker, West Wing - president? Previous caretaker - Grady 1970 - Nixon?

Harding was President in 1921 - interesting snippets on Wiki, he was bought by the oil companies, it is alleged his wife poisoned him (or he committed suicide due to some impending scandal) and afterwards burnt all his official and unofficial papers. Also:

The most sensational allegations include one that President Harding and Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty participated in bacchanalian orgies at the Ohio Gang's Little Green House on K Street in Washington, D.C.; witnesses to this were considered unreliable and one was a convicted perjurer.[258] Also, in his 1987 book The Fiery Cross, historian Wyn Craig Wade suggested that President Harding had ties with the Ku Klux Klan, perhaps having been inducted into the organization in a private White House ceremony. Evidence included the taped testimony of one of the members of the alleged induction team; however, evidence beyond that is scanty. Other historians generally dismiss these stories.

Edo said...

I'm loving this thread.

I know McGowan has a bit of a kamikazee approach to his subject matter, but to me, that's what makes his writing so enjoyable. He doesn't always get it right, but fuck, he don't half go for it.

If you've got the stomach for it, I highly recommend "programmed to kill, politics of serial murder" - a fascinating read. The first few chapters entitled "The Pedophocracy" will blow your minds.

http://www.whale.to/b/pedophocracy.html

Anyway, back to the Apollo missions... The enormity of the lie gave it legs, but it can't run forever....

Warren "G" Harding said...

"How do I know, Jim? One of my ancestors may have jumped the fence."

Tony Mach said...

One thing from the moondoggie site I have reproduce in its entirety (with passages highlighted by me):

The most revealing segment of the show concerned the way that the astronauts moved in NASA’s video footage. The hosts picked out three brief clips showing the astronauts running, skipping and jumping. One of the two hosts then donned a spacesuit and was filmed recreating the movements. That tape was then played back at half-speed and compared to the original. The same would-be actor then performed the same movements while suspended from cables. In both cases, the new footage did not match the original.

It was perfectly obvious, however, that the awkward movements by Mythbusters’ fake astronaut were very different than the movements by NASA’s fake astronauts. A much easier, and far more relevant demonstration would have been to simply speed up the original footage. When this was done, albeit very briefly, it was perfectly obvious that the astronauts were moving in normal, earthly ways. But because the hosts couldn’t reproduce the footage using a hack who appeared to be doing a deliberately piss-poor job of reproducing the motions, the demonstration was deemed to be inconclusive.

The only way to resolve the issue, according to the hosts, was to do a demonstration in a 1/6 gravity environment. Luckily for the guys, they had access to a ‘vomit comet.’ While normally used to provide a zero-gravity environment for training purposes, by slightly adjusting its flight path the plane can also simulate the Moon’s gravity. But by filming this demonstration, the show unwittingly showed viewers how the Apollo crews would have really moved if they had been on the Moon.

As the spacesuited host informed viewers, “at 1/6 my weight, I felt pretty weightless. I felt like I could jump ten feet in the air.” And indeed it was perfectly obvious that, had he not been in a plane with very limited headroom, he could have effortlessly jumped ten feet in the air. Hilariously, the uninhibited support crew can be seen in the background easily performing dazzling acrobatic feats, such as the guy to the left of the frame effortlessly balancing on one hand, and the other guy in the background floating through the air in a ninja pose.

These are the types of movements that the Apollo boys would have been able to perform with ease had they actually been on the Moon. And yet we saw nothing of the sort in any of the alleged transmissions from the lunar surface. Nevertheless, the Mythbusters gang haughtily declared that they had successfully ‘busted’ yet another ‘myth.’
What they had actually done, thus far, was to perform three completely meaningless demonstrations (the flag, the boot print, and the non-parallel shadows simulation) and two more demonstrations that, despite the hosts’ contentions to the contrary, clearly confirmed claims made by ‘conspiracy theorists.’


There is one omission: "Right now I am loaded up with an extra 180 pounds on my body" So unlike the ninja-artists in the back-ground, they added the weight of real space-suit to do the test. Yes, I know, it strains the mind a bit to believe that there was actually a real moon landing, with real space suits, and real physics – but hey, people believe in stranger things.

So this moondoggie-guy that has written&posted the moondoggie documents is either:

1. A deaf dumb unobservant raving idiot that is talking out of his ass - albeit with a funny writing style.

Or:
2. A misleading manipulative lying bastard scumbag.

Have I missed an option? Doesn't matter, I take a leap here and say that ANYTHING written on the moondoggie site, every sentence, every "fact", every hypothesis, has to be take with a ton of salt and then finely brushed to separate the tons of bullshit from the facts that (maybe) are to be found there - or not.

Tony Mach said...

Regarding the "Everything … had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead …"

October 14, 1960 – Marsnik 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Mars, blasts off.

February 12, 1961 – Venera 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Venus, blasts off.


Yeah, right.

There were actually TWO "Marsnik" shots, both utter failures, the first probe was destroyed on the launchpad, the second didn't make it into geocentric "parking" orbit.

The Venera were slightly more successful, failing only on its way to Venus...

"In Sharmany, wherrr I kome from, wee zay: The Ruzian too iz kooking onli wiz water."

(Word Verficaction: brysil)

Stef said...

Moondoggie may not have highlighted the weight of a suit but I took it into account when viewing the Mythbusters episode

The 'heavy' suit would have weighed 180lb x 1/6 = 30lb, call it 15kg

which is fuck all, especially when you've been relieved of 5/6th of your earthly body weight

though I suppose if I suddenly weighed 30kg on a body accustomed to 85kg it is possible I might start walking around as if I weighed 180kg

And, as a general point, I personally mistrust everything and everyone I read. Re-reading this thread I can see that other commentators haven't taken MacGowan at his word and refer to 'mistakes' and a 'kamikaze' style

So, why no telescopes?

Tony Mach said...

Another query to throw into the mix is that it is more than a little peculiar that the Apollo crews took golf clubs and dune buggies with them but not a single telescope

Thank you! As I said above, circumstantial evidence is much more fun than hard facts. Stay away from hard facts, they distract from the mystery one wants to create by a good narrative.

So, to add another mystery: Why did they take telescopes into LEO but not a single golf club or dune buggy?

Tony Mach said...

One more question: What is the relationship between mass, weight and inertia?

Stef said...

"Thank you! As I said above, circumstantial evidence is much more fun than hard facts. Stay away from hard facts, they distract from the mystery one wants to create by a good narrative."

with all respect, that is not an answer

To the very best of my knowledge, it is a fact than there is no astrophotography from the Apollo missions. I believe that it is a reasonable question to ask 'why not?'

I haven't the faintest idea what went on with Apollo and I do not support or offer an alternative narrative. However, there are enough anomalies for me to feel uneasy about the existing narrative

Tom said...

As we say in Scotland:

"I smell shite"

Stef said...

As for the general point about 'hard facts' I have become, over the course of my adult life, a confirmed empiricist

We could for example, debate whether or not the cosmic radiation outside of the Earth's magnetosphere is or isn't theoretically lethal to the crew of an unshielded space capsule

However, I personally would not start to be happy with either answer until someone does it for real and that achievement is confirmed by independent 3rd parties

Put simply, the claim that it is possible to travel to the Moon with existing technology is currently uncorroborated. For 40 years so far, and counting...

Stef said...

and, as a semi-relevant aside, I feel the need to point out that the first two blokes (both Americans) who claimed to have reached the North Pole, Cook then Peary both almost certainly faked it

It's worth noting that back in those days it was still considered 'good form' to submit your exploratory claims and supporting evidence to independent reviewers

Tony Mach said...

BTW, just like Kubrick, I love to shoot with "available light".

So a favorite question of mine is what are light sources on the moon, besides the sun?

There is the moons surface.

You can see the brighter the reflection, the closer you are to the center of the shadow of the astronauts head. That is light that shines directly into the shadowy side of any object on the moon (as long as it rises above the moons plane).

And this you can actually see (partially) for yourself:

One, how bright a moon-lit night is (Ever been somewhere at night without lights and without moon-shine? It can be frightening. Distant stars are anything but bright).

Two, stand in field that has been freshly ploughed on a sunny day. You will see the "opposite surge" effect around your shadow.

But there is another important light source on the moon: The astronaut taking the images. Just look how bright the scenery is! All lighting up the shadows.

While probably not that bright, I wouldn't be surprised that the earth-shine would lighten up the shadows on the moon just a bit as well.

(As a side note: I used to work in a company making document scanners. A big problem was what we called "Aufpump Effekt", lit. "Pump up effect". You have LED-light source shining on the document, light scatters back from the document on the light-source to fall again on the document. If a part of the document was say red, you would get a red shine on different parts of the document...)

Tony Mach said...

with all respect, that is not an answer

To the very best of my knowledge, it is a fact than there is no astrophotography from the Apollo missions. I believe that it is a reasonable question to ask 'why not?'


Well the reasonable question to ask is "Why would the have done a astrophotography mission on the moon?". What could they have done on the moon, they couldn't have done better and cheaper in LEO? Well, there is your answer.

The only reason to do astrophotography on the moon is prove that one was on the moon (to all the people to whom photographs and videos aren't enough). So, if there was no other a reason to do astrophotography on the moon and they would have done it, you would claim that this just proves they faked this evidence (this would "only" be photographs after all, they could have doctored, or take by automated missions, or what else), to appease the loons - or some such. So if they did something to appease the loons, the obviously must have faked the whole mission. I rest my case.

Tony Mach said...

And who would those mystical " independent 3rd parties" be, that would confirm that it is possible to go to the moon? How far are your plans to go? Oh, I forgot, the deadly Van Halen belt would kill you. So do you know anybody you trust that would be willing to risk his life? The Russian space agency? Or the Chinese? Or, by god, gasp, the ESA? If the ESA send an astronaut to the moon, would you "believe" it then, that Moricans landed on that rock? Yes? No?

Bridget said...

Patrick Moore thought the question important enough to ask!

Stef said...

BTW, just like Kubrick, I love to shoot with "available light".

as do I

and many of the Apollo images do look like they were taken with supplementary lighting in a controlled environment

on the other hand, I have seen impressive work performed by people who have hand-printed photographs and selectively dodged and burned elements within a frame

plus, I've never taken pictures on the Moon

So, my own personal issues with Apollo are not based on the photography, however dubious it looks to me

Stef said...

So, if there was no other a reason to do astrophotography on the moon and they would have done it, you would claim that this just proves they faked this evidence (this would "only" be photographs after all, they could have doctored, or take by automated missions, or what else)

Generally speaking, I personally have little taste for agonising over minute flaws in photography and consider it to be a waste of time - not the Zapruder footage, not the junk that was put out after 7/7, not the material which 'proves' that 9/11 was carried out by holograms, none of it

However, your argument seems to be based on the assumption that Apollo was executed on strictly scientific, utilitarian criteria

Which is untrue and misleading

The missions were synchronised with prime time US TV, valuable payload space was given over to stunts such as golfing and moonbuggies. Any argument you could generate against taking pictures could be applied even more strongly to some of the bullshit NASA did do

Why should the astronauts have taken some pictures of the sky? Because that's what anyone with an ounce of curiousity and wonder would do in their situation, and because it would have looked good in the magazines

It might also have been a good idea to stick a permament installation somewhere in a stable, atmosphere-free, non-decaying orbit

Stef said...

And who would those mystical " independent 3rd parties" be

as I attempted to demonstrate by reference to polar exploration, getting your exploratory claims vouched for by independent scrutineers, and specifically collecting material to support your claim, was once normal practice

the Danes, the Swedish and the Swiss have done very nicely out of playing the part of professional 3rd parties for years

Roy Castle said...

You appear to have overlooked the highest authority of Scientific Truth on Earth

Bridget said...

Room 237: 2x3x7 = 42

42 is the number on Danny's top when he looks in the bathroom mirror before moving to the Overlook.

A blog looking at the significance of numbers in Kubrick's films.

A Common Phallusy said...

Hmm.

Bridget said...

Still on the 42 theme:

In Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film version of Stephen King's The Shining, Wendy (Shelley Duval) is shown watching Summer of '42 on television (a brief clip of the scene featuring Hermie helping Dorothy bring her grocieres in the house is playing on the television in the background during the scene).

Douglas Adams said...

told you so

Lewis Carroll said...

no, I did

Stef said...

@Common Phallusy

it would appear that Blogger has chucked a spanner in the works when it comes to linking through your user name

boo!

yay!

Stef said...

and remember boys and girls, conspiranoia is a mental condition brought about by a deep-seated psychological need to fabricate simple, neatly tied-off explanations for everything and a rejection of how complicated the world truly is

which must mean that I am not a conspiranoid because I haven't the faintest fucking idea what any of this means

KingofWelshNoir said...

'conspiranoia is a mental condition'

Odd isn't it, that the conspiracy theorists who suspect a complex multi-layered compartmentalised black op at work are accused of seeking simplistic explanations for when bad things happen. Whereas the worldly-wise sophisticates ascribe it all to some cackling cartoon villain living in a cave in Afghanistan.

SpaceTravelInTheShining said...

http://kdk12.tumblr.com/post/6694079850/space-travel-in-the-shining

paul said...

Personally, the first thing I would do on the moon is see how high I can jump.

Oddly, theres no pictures of astronauts doing this, presumably because editing wires out was too difficult in those days.

Stef said...

Apollo 18 is an upcoming 2011 American science fiction horror film directed by Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego and produced by Timur Bekmambetov. The film centers around a fictional premise of an actual Apollo 18 mission that was launched in December 1974, that supposedly never returned and as a result, signified the real reason why the United States never commissioned another expedition to the Moon. The film is shot in a mockumentary found-footage style, supposedly of the lost footage of the Apollo 18 mission that was only recently discovered. The film will be Lopez-Gallego's first English-language film.
After various release date changes, the film is currently scheduled to be released on September 2, 2011...

Bridget said...

This is such a head f**k!

Probably known to Stef and other Kubrick afficiandos but I just found this:

Neither Lia Beldam (young woman in bath) nor Billie Gibson (old woman in bath) appeared in another movie before or after this one.

A Bill Gibson directed the film Footprints on the Moon 1969, narrated by Werner von Braun. Gibson just like the old lady in the bath is not credited with directing any other movies.

Not found this film online.

Anonymous said...

http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Lia-Beldam/100000230715242?sk=wall

she´s on facebook.ask her a qestion?

Tony Mach said...

Wadaya know! Kubrick invented the iPad! That rascal!

Laura Canyons said...

More McGowan fruitiness on the toob:

Laurel Canyon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JvF9RFf5RQ

Programmed to Kill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUrqLhbfjeo

KingofWelshNoir said...

Stef

Earlier in this post you discuss the link supplied by Craggy showing blue light streaming through the LEM window when it should have been deep space.

You said it constituted prima facie evidence of fraud but you were put off by the demeanour of the film maker.

I know what you mean.

The same giveaway blue sky scenario is also evident in this clip from the Fox documentary on the moon hoax starring David Percy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G918r-E3fyc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Here they show footage inside the Apollo 13 LEM, allegedly 200,000 miles from earth but with the blue sky clearly visible through the window.

More intriguing given the original Kubrick slant to this post, there is a quite remarkable scene in which the astronauts in the command module of Apollo 13 are playing the theme to 2001 : A Space Odyssey and at the same time the camera closes on an artefact from the cabin spinning in a direct echo of the celebrated spinning bone sequence in the movie.

john said...

The video analysis of The Shining is very interesting. I noticed that Joe Turkel, the actor playing the barman Lloyd, who represents the unseen power of the Overlook, turned up a couple of years later as Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the man at the top of the pyramid. Coincidence? probably.

There is so much wrong with the official moonlanding story that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Edo said...

cheers for the Laurel Canyon YouTube clips!

Bridget said...

Declassified JFK memo to Naza outlining proposals for joint work with USSR on deep space and lunar landing programs dated 10 days prior to his death.

Bridget said...

From a 1997 article which claims:

Kennedy had made the offer of a joint manned lunar program to the Russians on several occasions, but his most aggressive effort was made in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 20, 1963 in New York.

At the end of that address, Kennedy said: "In a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity - space - there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts."

"I include among these possibilities," he added, "a joint expedition to the Moon." Why, the President asked, should the United States and the Soviet Union conduct parallel efforts that would include "duplication, of research, construction, and expenditure?"

He laid out a proposal for a joint series of space missions, which if enacted, he said "will require a new approach to the Cold War." But like his earlier proposals to the Russians on joint manned spaceflight, this one also was rejected by the Khrushchev government.

But Sergei Khrushchev told SpaceCast, that in the weeks after the rejection, his father had second thoughts. While the Premiere had agreed with Russian military leaders that said any joint Moon flight would provide an opportunity for the U.S. military to learn more about Russian rocket and missile programs, he now thought that it might be possible to learn more from the technology of the Americans.

"He thought that if the Americans wanted to get our technology and create defenses against it, they would do that anyway. Maybe we could get (technology) in the bargain that would be better for us, my father thought."

Soviets Planned to Accept JFK’s Joint Lunar Mission Offer

soily said...

The shining stuff is really interesting.

1 and l and the same on old typewriters, often literally the same key.

Even if Kubrick put this stuff in for a joke, I'm sure it's deliberate.

Anonymous said...

coca cola, sometimes war!

Edo said...

Well I watched "Kubrick's Boxes" this weekend and can confirm it's a load of tosh.

What could have been a really interesting documentary was turned into a banal serving of trivialities.

Perhaps the most interesting part was the discussion about the abandoned film "Wartime Lies" which Kubrick allegedly shelved because Spielberg beat him to it with "Schindlers' List"...

Anonymous said...

Done a bit of digging:

Bill Gibson was an army and navy photographer, his one film credit been the moon documentary.

The Moon was in fact exactly 237,000 miles from earth on the morning of the 24th July 1969, the day Apollo 11 arrived back on earth.

Not only that, but old textbooks about the moon always list its average distance as 237,000 miles, seems the figure was revised to 238,000 relatively recently.

Anonymous said...

Stef I agree that there is a striking similarity between the photo of Jack at the end and Baphomet.

But what's that Baphomet is point at...

Anonymous said...

That would be the moon the old goat points at.

Tony Mach said...

The number of New York City Firefighters who died September 11, 2001 is 343. It is the same as the number of frames in which U.S. President John F. Kennedy's presidential limousine can be seen in the Zapruder film.

Now here comes the weird bit: The panel number of the Russian T-80 tank driven by James Bond in the movie GoldenEye is 343. What did Martin Campbell want to tell us here? It surely wasn't the speed of sound in dry air at 20 °C…

Just think about it.

Anonymous said...

^^^Very amusing^^^^

But film criticism and interpration is entirely valid, and whether you believe the moon landings were fake or not is beside the point, a decent case can and has been made that Kubrick put references to the Apollo missions in the Shining, for *some* reason.

Tony Mach said...

And with regards to the "not a single telescope": ALSEP. If I look at what they took, it seems quite reasonable to me.

Besides, taking a dune buggy but not a ice cream van with you, now that is lunacy.

Bridget said...

As I'm not familiar with this stuff, what is the explanation for who filmed the flag ceremony? There were only two men from Apollo 11 on the moon?

Video: Restored footage of flag being planted on moon | Science | guardian.co.uk

Tony Mach said...

Just a short (mildly funny interspersed with Jack Sparrow) video-montage of Bob Ballard and him being a bit angry that they went to the moon to play golf instead of fund deep-sea exploration, where he points out how much more we know about the moon and mars than about the deep-sea – thought it would fit here.

Tony Mach said...

Bridget:
They put a camera on a tripod or a similar device.

Get a tripod and try it out yourself: if you want to take a picture (or make film) and be in it yourself, e.g. at the next party, wedding and so on. NASA moon technology – not really.

paul said...

..just don't forget to plug in the invisible cable connecting it to the LM, and make sure you don't trip over the invisible cable.

Tony Mach said...

just don't forget to plug in the invisible cable connecting it to the LM

Must be the same invisible cable that connected the LM to Houston. Must be magic!

BTW: You can see that it is all faked, as YOU CAN SEE NO FOOTSTEPS ON THE MONN IN THAT VIDEO!!!!!11!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!! How did the tripod get there???? Huh???? None of the famous footsteps!!!! Open your eyes and see it for yourself!!!! They surely didn't carry the tripod from the LM, now did they????

Tony Mach said...

With regards to the Unsurvivable Van Halen Rock'n'Roll Radiation Belt:
The biological payload was intact, proving that it was possible to survive a lunar flyby and safely return to Earth. It was announced that the turtles had lost about 10% of their body weight but remained active and showed no loss of appetite. The spacecraft was planned as a precursor to manned lunar spacecraft.

Well, of course we all know the ruskies were lying through their teeth to make us look bad, they were so backwards they couldn't launch a stick in the air. So I don't know if that counts as "independed party".

Tom said...

Never trust a Commie turtle. It's an elementary mistake to make.

paul said...

The most remarkable is how them turtles concealed their martial arts skills after their return.
Saw all that on TV as well.

Anonymous said...

I know the explanation for why the astronauts are moving in slow motion is "they're been careful", but why are they still moving in slow motion when they're in the air during a jump?

Bridget said...

Mystery of MAGNETIC ROCKS FOUND ON MOON cracked • The Register

Anonymous said...

Interesting re: lunar magnetism, since the magnetism found indicates a strong field hard to explain.

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/02/the-strange-story-of-lunar-magnetism/

Other theories have been proposed as well.

KingofWelshNoir said...

Bridget, well spotted and thanks for the link to the Register.

The comments section is priceless. No one seems to have spotted the rather obvious explanation, namely that the 'moon' rocks are magnetic because they are from Antarctica not the moon.

Tony Mach said...

As I stumbled across a reasonably well explanation of mass, weight and inertia – I immediately thought of posting it here.

(Quite obviously this whole video thing is faked. Try it at home, if you flip a massive ball with your finger, it will not behave like that. Yes, go ahead and try it!)

Tony Mach said...

Moon Bears: A reasonably good explanation how the free press in a free country works.