|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 23, 2009 20:00:30 GMT -4
This article states that we landed on the moon but that the footage was faked through a technique called Front Screen Projection. It includes a number of examples. Very interesting. jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 23, 2009 20:06:05 GMT -4
If they landed on the moon why did they have to fake the footage?
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Jul 23, 2009 20:18:07 GMT -4
Well, that explains all of the perfectly symmetrical photographs, slow pans, icy stares, and horrifying choral music in the Apollo records.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 23, 2009 20:23:15 GMT -4
If they landed on the moon why did they have to fake the footage? Because they didn't have any REAL technicial capability of recording the actual landings? |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 23, 2009 20:37:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 23, 2009 21:12:06 GMT -4
No, but some of those photos appear to support the front screen projection theory. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 23, 2009 21:19:00 GMT -4
Well, the pose certainly is perfect. Is that Schmitt or Cernan in the frame? |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 23, 2009 21:19:06 GMT -4
How, exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 23, 2009 21:21:52 GMT -4
Well, the pose certainly is perfect. Is that Schmitt or Cernan in the frame? That's Schmitt. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 23, 2009 21:24:53 GMT -4
Wow. Take a look at the last page. First they show the good ol' 'too short' shadow from the Apollo 11 16mm footage. Right after that, he explains how this happens, using a different image (which appears to be taken directly from Clavius), that shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of the effect he is describing. |
|
|
|
Post by Hypersonic on Jul 23, 2009 21:27:14 GMT -4
If they landed on the moon why did they have to fake the footage? Because they didn't have any REAL technicial capability of recording the actual landings? Photography has existed since the 1840's; my wife has family photos from the 1860's. Motion pictures date from at least the early 1900's, and television before WWII. The technology was there and widespread. As Bob said, if did land why would they need to fake anything? |
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 23, 2009 21:32:28 GMT -4
Becase what the moon is actually like is rather different than what we've been presented with such as (according to the article as I recall) a weak atmopshere and water. Possibly even some form of life? Anyway, it's possible TPTB don't want us to know what is really up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 23, 2009 21:48:50 GMT -4
Weidner also makes the blanket claim that since a wide-angle lens has a smaller DOF, it would have been impossible for backgrounds to be in focus.
Unfortunately, aperture has a larger influence on depth of field (I figured that out myself while photographing scale models). His omission of this, particularly in view of the fact that all the lunar surface shots were outdoors, sunlit shots, makes me suspicious of his honesty. His failure to even mention the concept of hyperfocal distance, and the simple fact that, with any lens, you can take a picture in which focus is sharp from a given point out to infinity, makes me suspicious that he understands photography as well as he thinks he does.
A look at the actual lenses used, and it appears the practical hyperfocal distance for most of the surface photographs would have been under four meters. That's not going to be a problem for photographing fellow astronaut, LM, and background all in sharp focus!
And interestingly enough, Kubrick borrowed on of the same lenses -- or perhaps from the same family -- for Barry Lyndon, because it's light-gathering quality made it possible to shoot scenes in candle-light.
And, yes, Bert, I saw that nonsense with the shadows....converging in the surface photograph, diverging in the "how we faked it" model. I think he borrowed that one from Ralph Rene. But he didn't think about it even as hard as Rene did. Putting in evidence to strengthen your claim without even examining it closely is not, to my mind, a mark of a seeker of truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 23, 2009 21:51:31 GMT -4
Becase what the moon is actually like is rather different than what we've been presented with such as (according to the article as I recall) a weak atmopshere and water. Possibly even some form of life? Anyway, it's possible TPTB don't want us to know what is really up there. Oh, brother. He does know that we'd be able to see evidence of an atmosphere from Earth, right? He does also know that finding life on the Moon would create an enormous surge of interest in space travel and therefore a huge increase in NASA's budget? This is lame stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 23, 2009 21:56:35 GMT -4
Oh, brother. He does know that we'd be able to see evidence of an atmosphere from Earth, right? He does also know that finding life on the Moon would create an enormous surge of interest in space travel and therefore a huge increase in NASA's budget? This is lame stuff. Maybe he's been listening to John Lear.  |
|
