Moon HOAX CONSPIRACY - LEM HATCH TOO SMALL! BEST DOCUMENTARY IS 1 OF OLDEST DOCUMENTARIES

dude the guy was there he estimated not more than 2 feet now a mans waist plus suit plus breathing gear..its not possible.
remember that nasa guy would not let him measure...why was that?? that in itself is an admission of fakery.

i understand your viewpoint.you want to believe and your objectivity is nullified.

they may have gone there but not the way showen ...open your mind abit.

good luck with your beliefs. oh and the earth is flat.lol

he was killed.

dude the guy was there he estimated not more than 2 feet now a mans waist plus suit plus breathing gear..its not possible.
remember that nasa guy would not let him measure...why was that?? that in itself is an admission of fakery.

i understand your viewpoint.you want to believe and your objectivity is nullified.

they may have gone there but not the way showen ...open your mind abit.

good luck with your beliefs. oh and the earth is flat.lol

Pics and video showing the action the "journalist" claims is impossible trumps an estimate.

MOON HOAX BEING EXPOSED ALL OVER THE WORLD

There was a short period when I wasted a good deal of time on GLP, which I thought was hilarious, but eventually the humor went stale. Now I drop in briefly at long intervals to see whether the crackpots have dreamed up any new fantasies. I always find that they haven't.

Ok, anti-moon hoaxers, where's the answer to THAT one?

The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded:

Ok, anti-moon hoaxers, where's the answer to THAT one?

This. Anything Bill Cooper said, you better listen dammit.

dude the guy was there he estimated not more than 2 feet now a mans waist plus suit plus breathing gear..its not possible.
remember that nasa guy would not let him measure...why was that?? that in itself is an admission of fakery.

i understand your viewpoint.you want to believe and your objectivity is nullified.

they may have gone there but not the way showen ...open your mind abit.

good luck with your beliefs. oh and the earth is flat.lol

Thanks for the documentaries! I have the day off so just typed "documentary" into the GLP search. This one looked like the most interesting =)

Just need more proof than 1969 MSM that's all.

5 Star, OP!

dude the guy was there he estimated not more than 2 feet now a mans waist plus suit plus breathing gear..its not possible.
remember that nasa guy would not let him measure...why was that?? that in itself is an admission of fakery.

i understand your viewpoint.you want to believe and your objectivity is nullified.

they may have gone there but not the way showen ...open your mind abit.

good luck with your beliefs. oh and the earth is flat.lol

Moooon


Hoax


LoL

we could go down the laundry list...

hasselblad camera film would've MELTED in 250f

radioactive solar particles would've gone right through the cameras and destroyed film

---------------------------------------

another excellent webpage analyzing legendary director Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the Apollo mission, fake backdrops utilized, etc. (50% rule applied here)

[link to realitysandwich.com]

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings
by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger
of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs.
This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked.

This essay presents a third position on this issue. This
third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked.

Furthermore, this third position reveals that the great
filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.


1. Motivations for Faking

But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the
motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer
technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines.

Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from
outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

Many sources inside the military industrial complex have
related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised
by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world.
He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.

Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his
famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out.
Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to
everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and
get to the moon by the end of the 1960s. JFK’s ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.

After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new
plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to
still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back.

Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the
entire series of moon landings in order to conceal the United States’ extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens, and our enemies.
In some ways NASA’s position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had?


2. Who Will Fake It?

In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black
satire Dr. Strangelove and was looking
to do a science fiction film. While directing Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission
to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him down.
The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was
about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear
bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick’s script and rejected his
request to actually film the inside, and outside, of a B-52. The reason for
this rejection was that Kubrick’s film was clearly a satire on the military and
US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this
satirical undertaking.

Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special
effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old
fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in
NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as
the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do
that well on a limited budget – what could he do on an unlimited budget?

No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to
direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The
fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist
Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley
to cooperate. Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty
negotiator. It would have been very interesting to be a fly on the wall during
the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon
landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget
to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make
any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.


3. Parelleling Events

It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A
Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program.
The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of
2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the
Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings
on July 20th, 1969. Also, it is very interesting to note that
scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and
was also Kubrick’s top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most
pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots
on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the
scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and
not in a studio back lot.


4. Hollywood Trickery

No one knows how many things he tried, but eventually
Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called
Front Screen Projection. It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the
fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and
video material.

What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the
process but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front Screen Projection is
a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that
it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set
provided by the Front Screen Projection.

The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented
a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of
hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These
beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the
Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of
the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A
projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror
and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into
the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he
would appear to be “inside” the projection.

Today Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers
for special effects, and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the
Adding Machine and the Model T. But for its time, especially in the 1960s,
nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that
would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen,
let’s examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick’s film 2001: A
Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills
from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the
early scenes in 2001 with the
actors in ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are
seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround
the ape-men are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite
screens standing at the rear of the set.

In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a
photographic team to Spain to shoot 8” X 10” Ektachrome slides. These slides
were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the Scotchlite
screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the
script.

If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually occasionally see
the “seams” of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front
Screen Projection in such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were
forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create
the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001, you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look
closely:

Next is the same image as above, only I have processed it
through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and
increased the contrast.

Please examine:


Now we can clearly see the “seams” and the “stitching” of
the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.

To get the perspective correct, one has to realize that the
Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on
the soundstage. The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen.
These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar “geometry” when the
image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen.

Let’s show another example. Here is a still from the famous
“water hole” scene from 2001:

This next image is again the same image as above but with
the gamma and contrast increased:

While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can
begin to see the telltale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front
Screen Projection system is being used. It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the
ape-men in the movie are real. Those are “real” rocks (whether papier-mâché or
real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set,
the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector.

One of the ways that you can tell the Front Screen system is
being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the
background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located
rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the
projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the
bottom of the background projection screen if it weren’t blocked in some
fashion. As part of the “trick” it became necessary to place things in between
the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the screen.

I have Photoshopped a line differentiating the set and the
background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. Please note how everything is in
focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains
beyond.

You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen
is always taking place when the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001:
A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen is one
of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its use. Just like the stage magician
who needs the long sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks,
so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully
placed horizon line between set and screen.

Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey:

And here is the same image with my Photoshop line separating
the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.

And you will see, before this article is finished, that this
same fingerprint, this same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo
stills and video footage.

It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA
faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them.

Let’s examine a few NASA Apollo images now.


This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example
of the Front Screen Projection process:


Again, I have Photoshopped a line indicating the back of the
set. One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is
hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in
focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a
strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This is
because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection system
has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on, we will see
that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images.

Here is another Apollo image:


Now here is my version where I show the line between set and
screen:


Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right
behind my lines.

Now let’s go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the
same thing occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating the set from the
screen. Even if you do not see it at first, it will become apparent as one
grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection process and how it is
being used to fake the astronauts standing on the lunar surface. Go to any NASA
site (like this one,
for example) and start looking for yourself.

Not all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes
the astronauts are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious)
black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system
only when they had to. But as the missions went on, and they had to look
better, Kubrick began to perfect the process.

Although you can see the Front Screen Projection process on
every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions,
particularly Apollo 14, 15, 16 and (my favorite) 17.

Here are a few from Apollo 17:


That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the
screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite.
Please note how the tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going
to the edge of the set.


The astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite
screen. Please note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close
to the camera all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut.
As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible.

Also please note the other telltale evidence that permeates
the Apollo images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between
the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the
number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the
set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this
granularity disappears.

This next image is a slick little piece of work. When first
viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface
from beginning to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.


But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen
line once again. Again, please note the change in the texture of the ground
immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to
disappear behind the line.


Doesn’t the fakery just make you all patriotic inside?


5. Depth of Field: More Evidence

Besides the evidence of the horizon line between set and
screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is
another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has
to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has
to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to.

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the
format of the film, the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a
large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field, and 70 mm (which
Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of
the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small
depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two
objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane
of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like
to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are
visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it
is the apes, or the far away desert background, they are all in
focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background
desert scenes are projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In
reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the
actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the
Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the
same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large
format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if
everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men
are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small
set in a studio.

It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar
landscape, but actually they are on a small confined set.

According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were
using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large
rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is
exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.

The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is
incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers,
who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect
to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider
the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to
see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the
chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo
program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland and in the main photographic
repository at NASA’s Houston headquarters. When the Apollo photographic record
is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered.
Instead of many out-of-focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in
pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense
of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to
look through their camera’s viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable
quality of a highly polished professional photographer.

Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a
professional photographer working for Look Magazine. Honestly, even a
professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be
hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus of
the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers. Unfortunately though, for everyone
involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old
telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.

Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how
everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will
discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with
depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus
over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are
bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.

Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field
apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the
record, the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else). As a
professional photographer and a filmmaker, I have wrestled with depth of field
problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has
noticed the lack of any such problems encountered by the
astronaut-photographers. In reality, the lack of depth of field problems is a
nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.