David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Slow motion, front/rear projection not used in Apollo footage (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322231)

The God Particle 09-07-2018 07:00 PM

Slow motion, front/rear projection not used in Apollo footage
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=sGXTF6bs1IU

https://vimeo.com/93519262

One thing that grips my shit is this idea that Kubrick was a perfectionist. People, well, some conspiracy theorist claim NASA were so impressed with 2001: A Space Odyssey they got Stan in to fake the Apollo missions. Truth is 2001 as with all Stan's films was riddled with mistakes, 44 possibly more in 142 minutes. 4 years on 142 minutes yet we are asked to believe he faked the Apollo 11 footage in a year.

the nine 09-07-2018 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The God Particle (Post 1063030251)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=sGXTF6bs1IU

https://vimeo.com/93519262

One thing that grips my shit is this idea that Kubrick was a perfectionist. People, well, some conspiracy theorist claim NASA were so impressed with 2001: A Space Odyssey they got Stan in to fake the Apollo missions. Truth is 2001 as with all Stan's films was riddled with mistakes, 44 possibly more in 142 minutes. 4 years on 142 minutes yet we are asked to believe he faked the Apollo 11 footage in a year.

Do we know the size of the budget for each project?

oz93666 10-07-2018 01:45 AM

Like the guy in the video you haven't researched this properly...

He , and you in your post say " conspiracy theorist claim NASA were so impressed with 2001: A Space Odyssey they got Stan in to fake the Apollo missions. " ... A ridiculous statement... no body believes that , because 2001 was released just a year before take off, it takes much longer to plan such things ....

It's an admitted fact Apollo planners travelled from the US to kubrick's film set in the UK.
Jewish kubrick was commissioned to film 2001 years before , so they would have a cover story for the moon set ... dozens of stage hands would be involved in it's construction , you need a believable explanation ...

And of course kubric was involved in some of the filming , under the direction of the NASA planners who were admittedly present on this film set

truegroup 10-07-2018 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oz93666 (Post 1063030321)
Like the guy in the video you haven't researched this properly...

He , and you in your post say " conspiracy theorist claim NASA were so impressed with 2001: A Space Odyssey they got Stan in to fake the Apollo missions. " ... A ridiculous statement... no body believes that , because 2001 was released just a year before take off, it takes much longer to plan such things ....

It's an admitted fact Apollo planners travelled from the US to kubrick's film set in the UK.
Jewish kubrick was commissioned to film 2001 years before , so they would have a cover story for the moon set ... dozens of stage hands would be involved in it's construction , you need a believable explanation ...

And of course kubric was involved in some of the filming , under the direction of the NASA planners who were admittedly present on this film set

Totally made up shit. Yet again you pour out your moronic Kubrick dunnit claim without a single iota of proof.

What the fuck do you mean by "moon set"? They had 50 hours of surface footage with areas many acres wide. We have visibly astronauts wandering hundreds of metres back and forth, left and right, up hills, down them, crossing over. The "set" is perfectly lit for the entire area we see, with one single light source and always one shadow. The sky is jet black!

You are so full of shite you don't know how full you are. Not you or any one of you can explain any of that. This doesn't even address the fact that the whole Kubrick thing was started as a piss take, shot on location*facepalm*

Apollo 11 static camera. Apollo 12 camera burnt out. Apollo 14. ...shitty colour camera over exposed and static. What world of stupid needs Stan the Man to film any of that.

You didn't address either of the videos.....coward!

ianw 10-07-2018 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030340)
Totally made up shit. Yet again you pour out your moronic Kubrick dunnit claim without a single iota of proof.

What the fuck do you mean by "moon set"? They had 50 hours of surface footage with areas many acres wide. We have visibly astronauts wandering hundreds of metres back and forth, left and right, up hills, down them, crossing over. The "set" is perfectly lit for the entire area we see, with one single light source and always one shadow. The sky is jet black!

The sky may appear black, so what the sky is a natural blue screen. With one light source.
Only an apolo fanatic would think movies are filmed entirely in one location eg studio.
Why dont you use some trigonometry to show how far the horizons should be in various moon scenes. I have read on your posts in the distant past that the mountains are 300 miles away but appear a lot closer because of the vacuum. You have already demonstrated such vigor on flat earth threads so you have no excuse not to do the same for the sake of apolo




.

truegroup 10-07-2018 09:28 AM

He stalks me yet again with his bewildering shite.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ianw (Post 1063030362)
The sky may appear black, so what the sky is a natural blue screen. With one light source.

The sky IS black in every single piece of footage in 50 hours of video. It isn't blue, it's black. In every direction, even zoomed cameras, panned around 360 degrees with nothing visible except the surface of the Moon, the astronauts, the LM and equipment and the rover.

You have no explanation, you are a noise generator.

Quote:

Only an apolo fanatic would think movies are filmed entirely in one location eg studio.
Only a very dumb person would carry on misspelling Apollo after 50 corrections and make such a stupid claim about locations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

Quote:

Why dont you use some trigonometry to show how far the horizons should be in various moon scenes.
Only a very dumb person would ask such a thing on a 2d picture.

Quote:

I have read on your posts in the distant past that the mountains are 300 miles away but appear a lot closer because of the vacuum.
I have never made such an extreme claim, you have genuine problems with reading comprehension, now it appears with facts and figures and memory recall. Ten miles some of them.

Quote:

You have already demonstrated such vigor on flat earth threads so you have no excuse not to do the same for the sake of apolo
It is A P O L L O. You trolllllllll. I don't need an excuse not to do something that cannot be done. Your intellect vacuum that stops you understanding this is not my problem.

ianw 10-07-2018 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030370)
The sky IS black in every single piece of footage in 50 hours of video. It isn't blue, it's black. In every direction, even zoomed cameras, panned around 360 degrees with nothing visible except the surface of the Moon, the astronauts, the LM and equipment and the rover.

The sky is blue which makes it a natural blue screen. It dont have to be black you could have any color you wanted, but because its a nasa production theyve gone with black.



Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030370)
Only a very dumb person would ask such a thing on a 2d picture.

Nasa claim to have the moon and landing sites mapped, landing site to distant mountains should be no problem to find out. Calculating if they should be visible over the curvature relates to maths



http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/a...psvj8xn5a7.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030370)
I have never made such an extreme claim, you have genuine problems with reading comprehension, now it appears with facts and figures and memory recall. Ten miles some of them.

10 miles some of them but what height. A pic of Pendle hill from ten miles looks like the apolo mountains but pendle is a hill.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20508.jpg

truegroup 10-07-2018 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianw (Post 1063030376)
The sky is blue which makes it a natural blue screen. It dont have to be black you could have any color you wanted, but because its a nasa production theyve gone with black.

Oh my god, this guy is just Mr. Makeupdumbshit. A full 360 degrees change without projection. Hmm, those geniuses at NASA could do everything but land on the Moon*facepalm*

Anyway, here's a crusty version of the Apollo 17 flag ceremony part of an unbroken sequence of 30 minutes continuous video(oh those clever people*facepalm*)……

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182451.mpg

The American flag is red white and BLUE!!

The sky is still black.

And there's also this little problem....

"For decades, travelling matte shots had to be done "locked-down", so that neither the matted subject nor the background could shift their camera perspective at all. Later, computer-timed, motion-control cameras alleviated this problem, as both the foreground and background could be filmed with the same camera moves."

Quote:

Nasa claim to have the moon and landing sites mapped, landing site to distant mountains should be no problem to find out. Calculating if they should be visible over the curvature relates to maths
Well yes, but you asked me to do it on a picture. Now you want ME to prove that the pictures are authentic because features exist exactly as they should?

Go fornicate yourself:lol: I do nothing for people like you unless I have to. You have a thousand points on the table already that you have cowardly ignored.

Your dipshittery about the rocks claims all the geologists are lying then some colossally dumb crap about missiles and impacts to explain zap pits*facepalm*

You ignored where I totally debunked that....

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=941

Quote:

10 miles some of them but what height. A pic of Pendle hill from ten miles looks like the apolo mountains but pendle is a hill.
High enough. Stupid random question gets random answer. Be specific and you get a specific answer.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975Moon...14..491S

Don't read too much of that, I know that many words can confuse you:lol:

davebeard 10-07-2018 03:21 PM

how come they've not gone back to the moon since? for another go...
all the tech has moved on quite a bit since the 60's...
but no one even talks about going to the moon (again).

:huh:

truegroup 10-07-2018 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebeard (Post 1063030425)
how come they've not gone back to the moon since? for another go...
all the tech has moved on quite a bit since the 60's...
but no one even talks about going to the moon (again).

:huh:

Google it. The first dozen or so times I answered this should have sufficed.

Whackamole.

Just for once it would be nice to have the actual OP addressed

davebeard 10-07-2018 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030389)
Anyway, here's a crusty version of the Apollo 17 flag ceremony part of an unbroken sequence of 30 minutes continuous video(oh those clever people*facepalm*)……

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182451.mpg

this video looks fake as shit.
whats wrong with the flag ?

truegroup 10-07-2018 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebeard (Post 1063030427)
this video looks fake as shit.
whats wrong with the flag ?

Biased bullshit. Thanks for your "opinion" and insightful analysis.

The flag is a normal flag with nothing wrong with it. I would point you to analysis of film speed and gravity but somehow I don't think you will understand it.

The OP? Anyone?

davebeard 10-07-2018 03:46 PM

well I'm biased towards the fact that the film looks fake because it does,
the flag is made from material but its not even moving.. ?

whats the reason for that?

also the top is perfectly flat and it doesnt move at all..
this is not bias, anyone could see it looks weird...

ianw 10-07-2018 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030426)
Google it. The first dozen or so times I answered this should have sufficed.

Whackamole.

Just for once it would be nice to have the actual OP addressed

Im sure at some point the OP will make further posts and respond to posts already made. Why rush to dominate his thread so early its only on page 2 ffs.


.

truegroup 10-07-2018 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebeard (Post 1063030429)
well I'm biased towards the fact that the film looks fake because it does,

No it doesn't....besides how the hell would you know what it should look like on the moon. Your opinion is just that.

How can anyone answer something like that? You say it's weird.....well it's on the moon and looks like it.

Quote:

the flag is made from material but its not even moving.. ?
Haha....what!? You say the flag is NOT moving?? Yes it is.


Quote:

whats the reason for that?
Bad eyesight? Poor observation?

Quote:

also the top is perfectly flat and it doesnt move at all..
this is not bias, anyone could see it looks weird...
The flag has a cross support bar on the top. You aren't the spokesperson for "anyone". It doesn't look weird. ..it looks like it is in lunar gravity and a vacuum.

davebeard 10-07-2018 04:46 PM

THAT is the fakest looking flag I've ever seen, are you mad? hahaha

truegroup 10-07-2018 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebeard (Post 1063030439)
THAT is the fakest looking flag I've ever seen, are you mad? hahaha

Really? So now the frickin' flag is faked. :lol:

Whatever. What should it look like and why?

Watch this, 2.40 long so won't bore you to death....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

Comments?





The troll Ianw hasn't responded about his dumbass "bluescreen" sky bullshit:lol: The blue flag and the black sky.

davebeard 11-07-2018 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063030442)
Really? So now the frickin' flag is faked. :lol:

Whatever. What should it look like and why?

Watch this, 2.40 long so won't bore you to death....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

Comments?

film and mythbusters flag comparison seems legit.

eddieb 11-07-2018 02:55 PM

Guy's please don't waste your time on this idiot of a TROLL. Truegroup is a TROLL.

truegroup 12-07-2018 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebeard (Post 1063030589)
film and mythbusters flag comparison seems legit.

Ok and that means what .....it was filmed on location. On the Moon.

It would be a joyous novelty for the ten ton penny to drop.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:14 AM.