Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!

This is why the

moon

hoax would have been impossible. For example, did people go to the

moon

in 1969? I'm not entirely sure I wasn't on the moon. So, they pretended to go to the moon. No, I'm pretty sure it is. Not because they couldn't, some people said that in 1969 people were incapable of sending a man to the moon but they were able to stage the whole thing in a television studio; in fact, the opposite is true, in the late 1960s they did have the technical capacity not to mention the madness necessary to send three guys to the moon and back they did not have the technology to fake it on video now please understand that I am not saying this to defend the honor of the United States, the US government lies all the time about all kinds of things and if they haven't lied to you today maybe they haven't had coffee yet, so it's easy to believe that the Apollo program is also a lie, especially if you were not alive at the time and if you don't know much about the technological profiles of the day you see, the later you were born, the more powerful the magic of movies seems today, it would be very easy fake the moon landing and we seem to have forgotten how to do it for real back then.

Actually it was the other way around since the 1920s, engineers tried to improve liquid fuel rockets and their guidance systems, they wanted to go to outer space, the people who paid for it wanted better bombs in 1943, very firm eyebrows, people already had complete knowledge. Functional suborbital rocket called fear later added known as v2 after the war german rocket scientists got to work rivaling superpowers who then did their best to outdo each other on the world stage it was a global contest by dick ragan on a large scale Never before seen in human history, it is fair to say that technological growth in the Cold War was primarily a competition in aerospace rocketry and weapons science, which was the type of engineering that people strove to stand out and, by the mid-60s, limited space travel was a possibility.

I think in the meantime film technology had expanded and television was still busy trying to be in color now this is where the stories diverge in one version the Americans waste 20 billion dollars to send three guys to the moon they plant the plate which

says

we came in peace for all humanity and then return home to bomb Cambodia in the most tempting version. NASA at some point realizes they can't, so to avoid the humiliation they hire Stanley Kubrick to produce and direct landing broadcasts. You know, he did a great job in 2001 years later. Once the Apollo astronauts start collecting Medicare, some people get a lot of attention pointing out flaws in the Apollo photographic evidence.

When you listen to them, they don't seem to know much about photography, video, lighting or even perspective, and I think they hope you don't either, so we should have seen stars in the sky, no we shouldn't, the camera was set to expose full daylight, if they were exposing stars, then this image would have looked more like this hmm, waving flags. in the breeze, no it's not, it moves in the void after they let it go and the shadows diverge unrealistically across the landscape no, they don't go out at some point and see how the shadows work, they obviously use multiple sources of light in this image, right?

Obviously they didn't. I've been filming in the studio for about 30 years. Now I know what to look for when you shine two lights at something and you get two shadows, so this would have looked more like this, but it doesn't because this stuff was filmed with a single light source and if that light was close to the action, You would have seen a drop in brightness across the entire terrain, but you don't because the light source was 150 million kilometers away, too far away otherwise. square law to make a difference, understand it etc blah blah blah the thing is all these discussions are ignoring one simple point in 1969 it was still technically not possible to fake what we saw on tv why the people miss this?

I think maybe they forget how. Early video was in 1969, I mean, it was an amazing achievement in electronics, but there were a lot of things they couldn't do. Let me try to explain that the fundamental claim of the Apollo deception theory, without which everything falls apart, is that what we saw on television was slow motion footage of astronauts running in a movie studio because if it were in slow motion it wouldn't It could have happened on Earth, right? Let's talk about how slow motion works in film and video. There are two ways to make the movement slow.

If you shoot it at normal speed and play it slowly, the other is you shoot it fast and play it normally. The second way is called overcranking, it looks smoother and more realistic because you are sampling natural motion at a higher frame rate, but that means we would have had to shoot it on film using high speed film cameras, why? Because in 1969 there were no high speed video cameras, but the electronics just weren't there, some people had a magnetic disk recorder that could capture normal speed. video and play it slow, they used it for sports replacement, it could record up to 30 seconds of playback at 10 FPS and you have a whopping 90 seconds of slow motion.

I'll stick with 10 frames per second because that was the video. frame rate for Apollo 11 they had a non-interlaced slow scan television camera made especially for them by Westinghouse. All subsequent missions used regular NTSC cameras running at 2997 fps, which would be three times harder to fake. I'm trying to make this easy. Keep in mind that when people today watch documentaries about the Apollo missions, they watch the highlights. You know, short clips cut together are much easier to fake, but in July 1969, 600 million people, including me, are all watching a continuous lunar broadcast that went on for a long time.

It's actually quite boring. Sometimes, 16 minutes into the EBA, they turn on the video camera. Four minutes later, you get your little fan, then Aldrin comes out and they move the. camera on a tripod and proceeded to do his entire moonwalk, planting flags, taking pictures and collecting rocks, then Armstrong climbs back into the lander and it's over, at which point the video camera has been running for 43 minutes, so if we're faking this with electronic slow motion at 1/3 speed, we only need to record about 47 minutes of continuous live action video, well that's a lot more than the Ampex disk recorder could hold, but NASA is special, maybe they have a big disk recorder in 1969, okay? much bigger 95 times bigger I don't know man I mean government agencies are powerful but they're not God but then again they're NASA maybe they had some special way of exaggerating the video in 1969 for an hour and a half , maybe they have.

Some top-secret high-speed electronic devices that the rest of the world never knew about. Oh wait a minute, no, you said the navigation computers were too slow. I guess we can't have it both ways. I mean, it can't be fast. and slow at the same time, wouldn't it be easier to shoot this on film? I mean, in 1969 we already knew how to exaggerate film for Apollo 11, we just need to shoot at 30 fps and play it at 10, okay, let's try that. I would recommend that you shoot at thirty-five millimeters to minimize the brain on display, that's what Kubrick would have done.

Now let's look at normal 35 millimeter runs at 90 feet per minute, but since we are shooting at 30 fps there will be 112 and a half feet. per minute we need 47 minutes of original film, which is about 5,300 feet, and of course there is no film magazine as big as Volkswagen, but if you shoot loads of thousands of feet that are that big, then you can do it in five journals. If you can do this, you don't want to see the splice marks where you put the reels together because then everyone would know it's fake and remember we're shooting for television so the aspect ratio is one three three and not one eighty five so which means you have to make A and B rolls, you have to split, cut the negative into A and B rolls and print them on a fifty-three hundred foot fine grain interpositive, then cut a response print in the film lab and when When you're done, do I'm sure everyone who works at the film lab dies mysteriously in a car accident.

Now you just need to find a custom-designed Tella city that can transfer your fifty-three hundred foot print response to video or pin-recorded ten frames per second, of course, how difficult. Could that be, of course? You need to be absolutely sure that in all that splicing, printing and transferring, none of the most common cinematic artifacts have made it to your giant print, no scratches on the hem, no flakes of emulsion, no door, we have no brains not a speck of dust because any of those things will instantly betray that this is a hoax, okay, so you do that and then you do it again for five more lunar emissions, only in the later missions you have to play at 30 fps, which means that you have to shoot. like 60 fps, twice the torque, twice the splices to keep clean, twice the chance of film tearing in the camera, you think maybe it would be easier to go to the moon.

I really don't know if that's possible. I said I wasn't on the moon in 1969 and neither were you. I can tell you that in 1969 it was not technically possible to fake what we saw on television. Sorry, Kubrick, no, Kubrick, and why does any of this matter? Well, my concern is. with the final destination of knowing to see the difference between what you can know and what you want because that is what makes sapiens and Homo sapiens without that you are a homo plus the need to believe leads people to trade with part of your soul in exchange for the comfort of being a rebel, fine, but that step from knowing you've been lied to to believing everything else is a lie is a big step once you're forced to hypothesize completely new technologies to May your conspiracy be possible. you have entered the realm of magic requires a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know it's like you need to hold on to your belief system with all your might against the overwhelming evidence of your own rational mind and some people do it The dangerous thing That's why it blinds you to the real conspiracies that the authorities are perpetrating against you right now as we speak, things that are much more important than whether some guys went to the moon, yes I mean, I'm not the United States, but yes I would prefer that you would question Apollo 11 and not question the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, the bailouts of the financial industry and the right to indefinite military detention without charge, those things are real, thanks for watching excellent, my check came from NASA .