Does this mean the moon landings did happen?
Now I have your attention, was the Shining a moon landing conspiracy theory. Danny's character playing on the carpet with images of Cape Canaveral and the famous jumper with apollo 11 written on it.
shareOf COURSE the moon landings occurred! I'm 47 years old and whilst I was not alive during the momentous first landing, I grew up when the world accepted them as fact and still fresh in the memory, and long before a retarded generation raised in daycare grew up thinking they knew better based on Internet gibberish and conspiracy theories started by idiots with far too much free time on their hands.
The new generation has a very tarnished image of the '60s and '70s. They think everything was hideous then, like the dark ages in flared pants, with KKK cross-burnings and lynchings in every town, women forbidden to work outside the home, rape basically legal. Why wouldn't they think the Moon Landings were faked too, with that jaundiced view?
shareThe liars gave themselves away when supposedly calling the moon, and experiencing zero delay. We all know that there is even a significant delay on the live news when talking to someone a few thousand miles away, but 240,000 miles there is no delay in the mind of a moon landing believer: https://youtu.be/U_8tawnlwr8
share(sigh) I explained this on the video you linked. Yes, the conversation took place, and YES, the video was edited to remove the delays because that would be boring to the viewers. Nixon knew because it was all explained to him, which probably explains his detailed speech to the astronauts. Why do you young people have to complicate things?
Well, even though the call is said to be "live", i'll give you that one anyway. There are thousands of anomalies that give away the moon hoax. A big one for me is all that time on the moon (and space walks for that matter), no astronaut has EVER taken a 360 degree video shot around themselves. For me, that would be the first thing I would do, spin around, and show my surroundings. They could never do that though, because if they did, it would expose the 4th wall (they're in a studio).
share"no astronaut has EVER taken a 360 degree video shot around themselves. For me, that would be the first thing I would do"
Maybe they didn't because the general population of the 1960s and 1970s had never been LIED to on camera before. Don't forget, back then, photography was still chemical rather than digital, so it would've been impossible to fake pictures like that, so they saw no need to show they were on the moon for real, as people had seen the photographs (impossible to Photoshop) and the rocket launches (live) for real, and all photographs told the truth then.
If anything (and you must acknowledge this), digital photography has muddied the waters of what is real and what isn't, and isn't it any wonder that no-one believes such things anymore if they can be manipulated so easily? And with the rise of "celebrity replacement" or as it's known, "deepfake", things are only getting worse, if CGI recreations of politicians and celebrities become so realistic that no-one can tell them as fakes. We're in for trying times if this technology improves, mark my words.
...Yet here we are in 2019, and no astronaut has ever even done a 180 with the camera much less a 360. I don't buy it. They supposedly filmed golf games, flags waving, space walks, and much more, but NO ONE thought to do a pan around? Flimsy man, real flimsy.
shareAs I explained, we lived in simpler times when technology was simpler and no-one even entertained the idea that we should have to provide proof of what we did. And why 360 degrees? What if it was filmed from above or below? That'll get your paranoid juices flowing, I'm sure! xD
Put it this way, fzane, in two words: Occam's Razor. You're welcome.
I'm not saying anything about doing a 180 or 360 to "prove" they were doing anything, i'm saying it would have been the thing to do. Getting a full shot of some place like the moon or a space walk would make great footage. I'm not sure why you jump straight to it's only function would be to "prove" they are not lying. That is odd to me. Don't you think a 360 video shot of some place like the moon would be nice to have? Especially after all the work they supposedly put into it?
And saying it was a simpler time has nothing to do with anything. They are still doing space walks, and supposedly go outside on the ISS now and again. And, guess what? That's right, no pans whatsoever. Just straight on shots. So, what do you have left? Occams Razor would state that we would have a pan shot by now after all these years. Zero, ziltch, nada, we got nothin cause it's all a tax scam.
Looney Toons Alert!
shareSorry you can't even remember the proper name. It's actually called Looney Tunes. If you can't even keep that straight, no wonder you believe all the crap your corrupt government sells you. But, I'M the one with the messed up head huh? Go figure, right? What a wild world you must live in going around calling people crazy, but exposing yourself as uninformed in the process.
shareThere's a black ops team after you now. Good luck.
shareSo nitpicking makes you right? You forget to call us "sheeple"!
sharethat's right. and it's not nitpicking. not having a 180 pan of the moon or an iss spacewalk would be like going to the grand canyon over 30 times with a video camera, and never taking a left to right shot of the vastness. it's not just weird, it's ridiculous.
shareSomething that really gets me is the actual Eagle landing itself. There is a complete lack of dust being thrown up by the rocket blasters. Yet When Armstrong does a practice landing on earth the Eagle is dangerously unstable and he needs to use the ejector seat to avoid a fiery death, but when landing on the moon it looks near perfect (no dust being blown up remeber) and comes across as if the lander is being lowered down by a bit of rope in a film studio.
Yes, exactly Poopsey1. The government, media, and everyone involved would never risk the landing in real life. What if something went wrong, and everyone died? That would be very demoralizing for the country. So, they lied. NASA even has a saying they like using: "Fake it til you make it" with good reason. They had to fake it to get everyone excited about the moon landing so they would forget how our young people were being sent to die in the Vietnam war. BTW, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (the torpedo that supposedly fired on US ships that started the war) was declassified about a decade ago, and was found to be a complete fabrication. They made the whole thing up in order to have an excuse to go to war. Sound familiar? (cough, 911). War is a business, and so is the space industry. NASA collects 52 million dollars PER DAY from US citizens. So, we are all putting their kids through college, and paying their 200k mortgages as well. No wonder they get so uppity when we expose them. They would be hung in the streets if it got out what they did, and continue to do, lying to everyone like that.
shareCompletely agree fzane, I remember reading that in the Tonkin incident, an American naval captain (I forget his name) was ordered to sink an American ship (thus causing the Tonkin incident) he refused to do so and was sent to Leavenworth. Another captain carried out the order leading to the outbreak of hostilities. The moon landings were designed to make the American people concentrate on how great they were compared to Russia. Much like what that idiot Trump is now doing by planning to send a human to Mars.
shareThe no dust claim is expained very well at this site: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander-blow-the-dust-away-or-why-does-it-look-like-it
"The dust on the Moon, while it would be extremely fine-grain, is also highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface, grain to grain, but also cling to astronauts' space suits, something that was made quite apparent when they had fairly big problems getting it off and somewhat cleaning the space suits before going back to the Lunar Module (LM) during several Apollo missions."
"The Lunar Module on the Apollo 11 mission, named Eagle, didn't land directly (see: one shot video of the landing on YouTube), but was navigating horizontally to the Moon's plain at a fairly low altitude for quite some time (they even had a fuel warning, but that was later determined to have been premature), trying to find a suitable landing site. This means, that the LM landed with engines at an angle to the surface of the Moon for the most part, and only straightened for the very last few meters. This would limit the amount of dust raised, and it being blown away mainly in one direction away from LM when it was landing on the Sea of Tranquility."
>Maybe they didn't because the general population of the 1960s and 1970s had never been LIED to on camera before.
You do realize movies are just lies we call fiction?
"Maybe they didn't because the general population of the 1960s and 1970s had never been LIED to on camera before."
Say what?
"Don't forget, back then, photography was still chemical rather than digital, so it would've been impossible to fake pictures like that"
That's absurd. For one thing, you can fake the picture by faking the scene and then taking a picture of it (no alteration to the picture necessary), and/or by compositing multiple photographic elements together. They were doing that for Hollywood movies long before 1969, and it was done particularly well in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Most of the special effects in that movie still hold up today.
For another thing, a fake picture can be created from scratch by a talented artist with an airbrush. For example, just look at some of Dru Blair's airbrush paintings, like this:
https://art-faux2.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/BIDEC06opt.jpg
And this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/bb/1e/4dbb1e5712f1401c640827ebd7724b67.jpg
And I don't know who did this one but it's another of countless examples:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/75/5c/c5755c0cc51452ab8ec559370fecf6f1.jpg
If you took a large, photorealistic airbrush painting, photographed it with a large format stat camera, and made a contact print to photographic paper (or had it offset printed for publication in a book or magazine), you could never tell that it was originally a painting.
Or, an airbrush can be used to touch up or otherwise modify an existing photograph, which is a lot easier than painting an entire photorealistic scene from scratch.
Taking a 360 degree shot would have the camera pointing at the sun at some point and burning it out. Something astronaut Alan Bean did by accident when he was mounting a camera on a tripod.
sharepazuzu9, that tripod incident sounds just like a typical "story" from these moon landing liars. A simple search shows them having no trouble taking photos of the sun during Apollo 14:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-644b18708ff280cdcfc4a6f463d99bab.webp
So....which is it? These liars always want to have it both ways to fit their narrative. Not on my watch! BUSTED!
It's true that later cameras were designed to handle exposure to direct sunlight but those types of shots were avoided for obvious reasons. They did not produce good shots (Lens Flares) and long exposure could still damage the camera.
Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program. That's a lot of people that kept their mouths shut for 50 years ;)
Another thing these moon landing liars like to do is pretend they don't know what compartmentalization is, and insist that everyone who ever worked on the projects had to be "in on it". When in fact, less than 20 people actually had to know it was staged.
All they do is waffle from one excuse to another, and never actually say anything that makes sense. For example, when confronted about something simple like asking for a 360 (or even a 180!) degree camera pan of an astronaut on a space walk with the new updated cameras that CAN see the sun no problem, they have NOTHING. And, similarly, when asked why we don't have what should be must have and very monumental/interesting footage of the ISS docking with the new supply and astronauts, there is also nothing but crickets.
Who are these "liars"?
And who is asking them these questions?
Why do you think there should be a 180 or 360 pan?
Thank you.
There have always been people who didn't believe the Moon landings happened. A small number in the beginning but that number is not small now. Not saying I'm in on that number, just that's it's big.