|
Post by waynewitt on Apr 23, 2008 17:01:34 GMT -4
In regards to what type of lighting would be required to make Hawaii look like the moon, I know that in "From the Earth to the Moon" they had to get the most powerful stage/spotlights available. (I forget the name and type, but it's in the special features on the DVD set if anyone cares to check) These lights are so rare and powerful that less than 2 dozen exist, and they still weren't powerful enough to recreate the sun on a closed set; the producers had to have extras made. They were then all shone on a large reflecting disk to simulate the circular single-source of light that would have been the sun.
So, even forgetting all the other reasons the Mauna Kea idea is ludicrous, you have to show us proof that large numbers of immensely powerful lights were in use. I'd also like to know, as was mentioned above, how exactly they went about hiding this huge moon set and the odd lighting coming from it.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on May 5, 2008 11:34:05 GMT -4
It is known that NASA was there testing the lunar rover because it is so similar. It is a very isolated and remote area if they were to stage Apollo. One of the clearest, driest and most pitch black places on Earth. And there was already an army military base there. I would say that they would to have had to stop operations around 1973 because that is when seismic activity made the area unsafe. Consequently erupting in 1975.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 5, 2008 12:04:21 GMT -4
It is known that NASA was there testing the lunar rover because it is so similar.
Mechanically, but not optically. For testing a rover you want terrain that provides the same undulations and mechanical response as the lunar surface. It doesn't also need to be the same color.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on May 5, 2008 13:29:13 GMT -4
Many people do indeed liken the huge cinder cones of Manuna Kea to the moon. Optically.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 5, 2008 13:36:12 GMT -4
Perhaps because of the lack of life there, not because it actually looks like the moon's surface.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 5, 2008 18:04:01 GMT -4
Many people do indeed liken the huge cinder cones of Manuna Kea to the moon. Optically. Which bit, specifically? The point is not whether the landscape at Mauna Kea looks a bit like the Moon's surface, but whether it matches exactly any of the terrain seen in the Apollo visual record. The standard challenge I always offer to anyone who claims the Apollo footage was shot in hawaii/Nevada/Area 51 is to find me the exact location they filmed the Apollo 15 mission in, since Apollo 15 has a whacking great rille in much of the footage. Find that rille on any terrestrial location and I might just begin to believe it could have been shot here on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 18:16:28 GMT -4
And how could they build a full size moon? What about the footage of the LM and CM approaching the moon, and the detail in the moon's surface as they approached it? Or the LM footage as it landed on the surface? Wouldn't any lunar orbiter then or now show discrepancies in their photos of the terrain and the 'model' built by NASA?
Isn't the whole issue laughable, or do I have to be an expert to understand the Hoax Theory?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 5, 2008 18:18:54 GMT -4
You have to be a non-expert in everything to understand the hoax theory.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 5, 2008 18:22:00 GMT -4
Many people do indeed liken the huge cinder cones of Manuna Kea to the moon. Optically.
Except they're the wrong color.
|
|