MovieChat Forums > In the Shadow of the Moon (2007) Discussion > Moon landings were propaganda,why else w...

Moon landings were propaganda,why else was the Apollo program shutdown?

posted 12 years ago by ManFromSanFernando
7 replies | jump to latest

Just watched "For All Mankind", was shocked at how fake so much of the footage looked,w o w... I'm not any kind of conspiracy theorist, but after learning about the history of WWI and the massive propaganda effort setup to make people who otherwise wanted nothing to do with Europe's insane wars hate the Kaiser and become militaristic, I would call myself increasingly skeptical.

The Apollo missions were shutdown shortly after the SU developed the capability to probe deep space. This should be a major red flag given the historical context of the 2th century use of mass media as propaganda and the historical context the space program taking place in unison the creation of a huge new generation.

Can anyone answer why the moon looked so fake from the orbiting landing capsule, with no sharp textures, and then suddenly when they land it is rocky and textured sharply?Either they are using different cameras or they are walking on a completely different surface, because the surface shouldn't hafe been blurred as if there was an atmosphere,it should've been as clear as the camera could see.

Also, the other huge problem(one of the biggest problems) I have with it,which would've been incontrovertible proof of being there, would be just a camera that took pictures of the moons surface + the flag or buggy as a reference point to get a time lapse of the earth moving cross the sky,which we never once see except right at the end where the footage looks again,very different.

[–] virgiltx 12 years ago

OP: "Can anyone answer why the moon looked so fake from the orbiting landing capsule, with no sharp textures...".

The spacecraft was traveling over the Moon's surface at about a mile per second while in orbit, and at lower altitudes and speeds there is still going to be motion-blur in any photos, including movie or video frames. Dedicated reconnaissance systems have motion-compensation mechanisms. The Apollo landing-spacecraft equipment did not include this.

[–] b2220128 12 years ago

"Also, the other huge problem(one of the biggest problems) I have with it,which would've been incontrovertible proof of being there, would be just a camera that took pictures of the moons surface + the flag or buggy as a reference point to get a time lapse of the earth moving cross the sky,which we never once see except right at the end where the footage looks again,very different."

The moon is tidally locked to the earth so that one side faces the earth at all times. The converse of this is that the earth stays in (roughly) the same position when viewed from any one point on the moon. There is no earth rise or earth set. The photos and movies taken by Apollo astronauts that show an "earth rise" are taken from orbit and reflect the motion of the capsule as it travels around the moon. In this case the term earth rise reflects a literary use, not a scientific one. Much like saying the "dark side of the moon" to mean the far side of the moon that was fist imaged by a Soviet probe and first seen with human eyes by the Apollo 8 astronauts.

[–] Deidra 12 years ago

Unfortunately, today's audience expects archival film to look like what they have seen from Hollywood of recent years - using the techniques and equipment that are available today, and with everything being controlled in a studio environment or enhanced with special effects. You've got to remember that the space program was the first time this all had been done- all the new technical aspects and equipment were being invented and created. Just like the difference in the airplanes you see at the very beginning of WW 2 compared with those just 5 years later, the pace of technological development can be amazingly rapid. But the initial ones are still in the process of refinement. Techniques changed during the years of the space program as knowledge was gained and improvements were done. It is an amazing feat that any televised product was possible from the moon or space. You should not be so critical that in your opinion it was blurry or did not meet your CGI standards. On what do you base your comment that the moon looked fake? Compared to what? And on what technical knowledge do you base your comment that there should not have been anything blurry? Are you knowledgeable about film stock and cameras and lenses and developing, and the effects of airless, low-gravity environments? All our filming equipment since the invention of it, the irises and lenses, etc have always been built based on the light of the sun coming thru our atmosphere onto our eyes. The light and atmosphere are not the same on the moon so adjustments need to be made. Also, you mention "For All Mankind" which is a different film than "In the Shadow of the Moon"- get your comments correct.

[–] virgiltx 12 years ago

OP: "The Apollo missions were shutdown shortly after the SU developed the capability to probe deep space."

You seem to be saying that NASA feared the USSR would detect that we were faking the Moon missions. Is that what you mean?
Why wouldn't they (or anyone) have discovered since if the alleged landing sites were actually without any indication of landings. It's not that difficult to send a camera probe to the Moon, even land there. The USSR sent a number of landers, some of which returned samples. They never accused us of faking the Apollo landings.
____________________

[–] creatorof2002 12 years ago

Has the brilliant genius who started this thread maybe considered that the moon landings were stopped because each time they went to the moon it cost the government SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS??? and forty years ago there was way less inflation, now a moon landing would cost a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. Are YOU willing to pay that bill $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$???

Dude, I understand that you are a genius but as brilliant as you are do you really think that you are even more intelligent than the scientists, physicists, engineers, and astronauts that made mankinds greatest accomplishment possible? If you are really that smart please let me kiss your feet.

[–] nerhal1 10 years ago

Lol! Got him. ?

[–] bureau203 8 years ago

Just watched "For All Mankind", was shocked at how fake so much of the footage looked,w o w... I'm not any kind of conspiracy theorist...

Ah, ok, good.

...but after learning about the history of WWI and the massive propaganda effort setup to make people who otherwise wanted nothing to do with Europe's insane wars hate the Kaiser and become militaristic, I would call myself increasingly skeptical.

Then you are some kind of conspiracy theorist.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.