United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 2001: A Space Odyssey returning to theaters in 70mm for 50th anniversary
Source:
Consequence of Sound
URL Source: https://consequenceofsound.net/2018 ... -in-70mm-for-50th-anniversary/
Published: Apr 2, 2018
Author: Ben Kaye
Post Date: 2018-04-04 07:37:17 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6903
Comments: 67
If you’re half crazy all for the love of Stanley Kubrick’s sci-fi masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, you’re in luck. To mark its 50th anniversary, Warner Bros.’ is opening its archives’ pod bay doors to present a theatrical re-release of the film. Docking in select theaters on May 18th, WB’s reissue is an “unrestored” 70mm print “struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” according to a studio statement (via The Wrap). “This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits.” That means the movie will be presented in a way that’s as close to Kubrick’s original vision as possible. (Read: Ranking: Every Stanley Kubrick Film from Worst to Best) This new 70mm print will make its debut at Cannes Film Festival with an introduction from Christopher Nolan. The director called the chance to introduce one of his favorite works of cinema in “all its analog glory… an honor and a privilege.” A fully restored version of 2001 will also be available on DVD and Blu-ray later this year. Revisit the original trailer below. "Unrestored" version will feature no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
I've never completely saw it. Perhaps I will go see it.
I found it boring.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
You should just stream it. None of these old movies actually offer much in film format. They're just too dated. Save your money and stream it at home. It will be just as good.
I like to get out. I like going to the movies. Especially the drive in.
The special effects are great - not like the CGI crap that movies rely on nowdays. Not many of those left anymore. Loved going to the drive back in the day - closest one now is maybe 100 miles at least. We have three close by. This one is my favorite. http://www.dixietwin.com
This one is my favorite. http://www.dixietwin.com Do they still show ads like this one? My girlfriend and I would crack up when we watched this one - pretty racy, LOL. I mention it mostly because I have a habit of downloading some of these old favorites and then realizing that their special effects and plots are badly dated. A movie is a product of its own era, like anything else. I used to love Cold War era big-budget movies like Ice Station Zebra. I watched it again recently and it just struck me how dated it was. That world just doesn't exist any more. Even movies like Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (his other great movie IMO) are very dated. Do you plan to followup with the sequel, 2010, made by some other guy in the Eighties? It does somewhat complete the story line and follows Arthur Clarke's 2010 story line. I think maybe he wrote another one called 2060 or something like that, no movie was made of that one. Of course, there is no denying that 2001 is considered one of the most influential films of all time. It regularly turns up in lists of the top ten best films of all time. It is the prototype of so many sci-fi films that have been made since the Sixties. If you make a space opera, the first movie they compare it to is 2001. And maybe 2001 is a good yardstick for the genre. So there is no doubt it is a classic. But it is still pretty dated. PanAm space shuttles? Soviet scientists? Meh. But then you have the iconic shots with the apes and the obelisk, the space station with a Strauss waltz, etc. The 2010 sequel has even more Soviet scientists in it, Americans hitch a ride to Jupiter on a Soviet spacecraft to recover Discovery (the ship in 2001 with HAL shutdown). Still, 2010 is worth seeing at least once, just to complete the story arc. Hopefully, Disney won't buy the film rights and then ruin it all the way they have with Star Wars.
That's because it is boring. The overall plot is good -- an intelligent, self-learning computer figures out it has to take over the ship it's on, with the background of explaining man's origins -- but..... it's boring. Many movies from that era are. Space travel at that time was the latest craze with the Apollo program & moon landings, and the emphasis of the movie was to dramatize space travel. They did that, but by today's evolved cinematic standards, 2001 is boring. By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success. Not that 2001 is a bad movie. It is what it is, and it still has a certain classical charm to it, especially with the sound track.
If it was the hot dog ordering the bun to open up with the bun refusing, it would be .... well..... LOL.
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
Indeed, REAL space travel is certainly boring, stuck in a relatively small spaceship with nothing to do but monitor systems and maintain life support. If the idea is to make a movie about space travel as it would be in real life, the result will be a boring movie, and in that respect, 2001 certainly overplayed the excitement. But people don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home. Documentaries are an exception, but 2001 was of course no documentary.
RE: "Realism." NOT any "Moon Landing" in my opinion. It's easily the Top 3 of Greatest Charades. For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh... But...but...when da Gummint tells you "IT HAPPENED!!" it...er...happened!! Cuz they wouldn't lie, would they? Art imitating life:
I do agree. Real space travel for the rest of this century is likely to be arduous, dangerous, dull and inconvenient. Space is just too unfriendly to life. 2001 does open new ideas. It depicted primitive hominids who interacted with an alien obelisk that magically raised their IQs or something. Fast forward 50,000-70,000 years and mankind is advanced enough to have regular commercial service to a rotating hub space station with artificial gravity for embarking on moon shuttles. Then you have the reveals with the moon obelisk, the signal sent to Jupiter, etc. After that, it's just a bunch of rather drab deep space drama with two astronauts and HAL the know-it-all killer computer. But as a movie, it certainly introduced audiences to new ideas, like a commercial space station, permanent moon bases, expanding manned exploration of the solar system, artificial intelligence computer systems capable of independent (but flawed) judgment. I do, btw, have both the 2001 and 2010 movies on my Plex server. So I do still like them.
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?) THEN the photos need to be authorized and released to the general public (with proper permission.) Q: Why hasn't this procedure already been addressed? Perhaps like me you have scoured different sources to either validate or invalidate to "Moon Landings." We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular. Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical Then there are the directional lighting problems of the ship, undisturbed landing site -- just a plethora of technical problems that just don't add up. (just venting here.) For SOME reason, we have been conditioned to just accept the word of NASA and Gummint: "WE WENT TO THE MOON. PERIOD. If you don't believe it you're a nut. Or worse: a CT."
Thank for the link... BUT conspicuous from its absence: NO COLOR EARTH PHOTOS?? OR photos, period.
Hehe... you are kind of big on this authority thing, aren't you?? :^) The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself. Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority. No, that's not true at all, as any film photographer could tell you. Or even a digital photographer, I imagine. While yes, light from stars on those moon shots would certainly be entering the lens and could, in theory, be recorded along with all else, the problem is that the amount of starlight would be infinitesimal compared to the amount of light reflected from the moonscape, which would certainly be enormous given, again, the lack of atmosphere filtering the full sun. Image recording surfaces can only tolerate a certain amount of light. If it's not enough, nothing registers. If it's too much, then everything shows completely white. To get an actual image, the strength of the light has to be scaled to the sensitivity of the recording surface of whatever type. For the moonscape photos, a light filter of some kind would need to be employed. That might only be the F-stop of the camera (the size of the pinhole near the lens controlling the amount of light enters the camera -- the camera's counterpart to the iris in the eye). Or it could instead be essentially sun glasses on the camera. But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology. Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard. I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand. Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module. Accepting claims blindly is certainly the way of man. All should indeed be considered and tested.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
What do you mean? There are plenty of photos.
Was that one taken at Paramount or MGM? That kind of photo was and is NEVER released to the general public. Otherwise IT would have been THE iconic historic poster for the ages. Can you explain why it wasn't and never has been? Nor have a plethora other similar photos "from the moon" even been released to the general public.
Kinda. :-) In an age where the power of suggestion and technology combine to create Virtual Reality, without proven authorize sources -- as well as historical corroboration -- what have we?
I gotta admit, this is a great photo, and one I've never seen before. And one that certainly should have been a common desktop background for NASA if they only had PC's back then. And..... looking at it closely, I also have to admit that the shadows of the cone object and some rocks do not seem to match up with the lighting of the earth. Where exactly would one infer the Sun to be located in this photo? From the way the earth is lighted, it would seem it should be behind the camera but almost directly overhead. But the shadows of the foreground objects suggest almost directly to the left, but elevated.... It could be this photo was doctored. Perhaps a merger with a legit foreground photo and a background earth by someone wanting to make an awesome photo... or by someone wanting to make the moon missions seem real.... or by someone who wanted to make the moon missions seem faked, if the maker intended the defect to be noticed. Where did you find this photo TC? Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, the earth would always be present at the same relative location in the moon's sky. If the Apollo mission of this photo could be determined, then the moon landing location could also be determined, which might debunk this photo as a fake. It also looks like the western part of the US and Pacific is visible in the photo, which would help ascertain the relative location on the moon this was supposedly taken. (I.e. it was not taken from either of the moon's poles). Edit: I haven't bothered to look it up, but on further thought, if this is real, it means NASA selected a moon landing site that is only edge visible from the earth, and I don't think they would have done that, given the high risk the mission already posed in that day. They would have instead chosen a site which would be much more easily visible from the earth and for which they would have had more confidence was safe to land on.
Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority. Yes, IN THEORY, more than one observatory could corroborate each others findings while also corroborating alleged NASA "landing sites". But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this. Then there is the other factor to consider -- and this is no small one: The credibility of a Government-Science-Hollywood-Media Complex itself and agenda to alter "Reality" and perception OF Reality. We are witnessing the degree to which these same forces have been allied, combining to successfully alter the mind-set of millions with respect to but hardly limited to "Global Warming," "History," the dramatic contrast in treatement of the past two Presidents, normalizing transvestism, cultural/scientific/social psyOps ad nauseam. Now again -- if you and others prefer to focus solely on the validity of the alleged "Moon Landings", there is also the issue of negotiating what would have been the Van Allen Radiation Belt and non-protective flimsy "spacesuits" worn by Armstrong etal. But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology. Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard. I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand. I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions. I find it frankly absurd to believe that NASA would not have included special filters for astronaut camera that would have addressed any "blazingly bright" problem that would have displayed ZERO stars in photos. Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen; On earth via observatories we are still having to view the cosmos through deep layers of atmosphere. Even on the clearest night. Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module. Is that the photo TC has uncovered? There should be HUNDREDS of Moon-to-Earth photos. (Shouldn't there be??) OF NOTE: Did you know Neil Armstrong has NEVER given in in depth interview with respect to his "Moon Landing" experience? Finally: Perception = Reality.
Yes, and that is a simple but BEST argument one can make for cynicism. WHY wouldn't that photo have been festooning every front page, magazine, and book by the latest, the early 1970s?? WHY wasn't there a spread of these types of photos THEN?? WHY wouldn't subsequent Apollo missions MAKE IT A PRIORITY to develop special lens and filters and snap thousands of these types of photos, including MUCH clearer, more definitive shots of the moonscape?
Thank you. However, I am not able to access the link.
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics. I do not suggest we accept the word of anyone, or anything, claiming to be speaking for the truth. But that does not mean that anyone with an agenda is speaking lies. I very much favor studying content as part of making the determination of whether a claim is true or not. I will do it with the moon landing. And I will do it with the Bible. As an aside, why are you so quick to doubt the word of modern "authorities" about the moon landing, but accept without doubt the word of ancient biblical writers on the nature of God? How do you resolve that seeming inconsistency? I'm first to agree MSM can't be trusted. As a present example, I do not believe Russia or Putin was behind the Skripal nerve agent poisoning. It makes no sense at all. Of all Americans that have ill-regard for Putin, I'd say not one in 100 has ever heard or read a single word he's uttered. From what I have observed, Putin is a good man interested in peace, highly intelligent, doing great things for Russia, and very much on the defensive from Western expansionism over the last 15 years. He's also one we should be thankful is running Russia. If it were instead someone of the likes of Hillary, WW3 may have already started. Though some do claim he's murdered journalists, it appears from all else Putin is truly a good man at heart and deserves that considered possibility. That aside, and back to topic..... The penalty of discredit for an observatory would be severe. These are scientists, and about the worst crime scientists could be convicted of is purposely releasing false information about their science to the public as though it was real information. I am serious is saying that is a real deterrent. For the degree of conspiracy you propose, it would require extreme amount of trust for one compromised scientist to trust hundreds or thousands of other scientists to not debunk them. This is not to say scientists cannot be biased in their research which can skew their results. They certainly can be. But I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about outright fraud. I've not researched those. Perhaps they are best left for another day. Perhaps also left for another discussion. But from what I currently understand, it's no surprise to me that no stars are visible on 1970's alleged moon landing photos. Which while obstructing no starlight, also obstructs no sun light. The moon surface would have been brighter than death valley at noon, so the relative difference in light strength would have been, more or less, the same. No, as "earth rise" was photoed from the lunar orbiter as earth appeared over a moon horizon. As the moon is tidally locked to earth, moon inhabitants would never see the earth rise as we on earth see the moon rise.
I didn't notice the link, but it works for me: www.skyandtelescope.com/o...pollo-moon-landing-sites/ And from the map of moon landing sites, assuming they are correct, it appears as I expected that none of them are on the edge of the moon as viewed from earth, which would pretty much certify that the photo TC provided is indeed a fake. But that wouldn't prove the moon landings were faked. It could have simply been someone's artistic creation.
There are several moon photos very similar to this one, very famous. I can't explain why you haven't seen them before. Maybe you should stop pouring over those Trutherish Jonesy sites and look around more.
You seem to think that the moon is in a geosynchronous orbit. It isn't. Or we wouldn't have tidal effect at all.
WHY wasn't there a spread of these types of photos THEN?? Contrary to your impressions, only the first Apollo mission was followed closely by the public. After that, nada. Few people even know which Apollo mission was the last one. Do you? Here's another shot, this time from Apollo 15. Notice the lunar rover they used for the last 3 moon missions. Also that big-ass mountain and the shadows on it. Later missions were more adventurous about where they landed. By the time the last one came along, they were doing extensive geology field work miles away from their lunar lander. But by then, no one was watching. No one knows any of their names either.
Virtually all photography from space is enhanced in various ways. It always has been. Space really doesn't like lenses and film. Almost every space photo you've ever seen was manipulated in some way. Since the Eighties, it has been digital manipulation.
No, tidally locked and geosynchronous orbit are not the same thing. The same side of the moon always faces the earth as the moon orbits the earth. That means if you go to the moon and sit down and watch the earth, it will always be in the same location in the moon sky It will not rise, it will not set. It will simply sit there, unmoving, except you will see it spin against a moving starry background. The sun will rise and set once per month, but the earth will not. In effect, the earth is in lunarsynchronous orbit around the moon the same way TV broadcast satellites are in geosychronous orbit around the earth. For that reason, the lunar landing sites will similarly never see the earth rise or set on them. As all the landing locations on the moon are near central on the moon as viewed from earth, the astronauts there would have had to look near straight up or somewhat close to straight up to see the earth and would never have seen the earth on the moon horizon, that no matter what time of month or year they would have gone there. That would explain why few, if any photos from the landing sites would include Earth in the background. I am of the opinion the moon landings were not faked, but I think the first photo you posted is faked.
Few people even know which Apollo mission was the last one. Do you? Well, we are in complete agreement that the first Apollo mission was followed extremely closely. Many of us still recall watching that fuzzy transmission that was so disappointing and so "meh." Yes, the public followed the Apollo mission in so far as they were allowed to "follow" it. (which is to say, minimal info was released, including technical, photographically, as well as insulation of personal interviews, testimony, and impressions by and of the astronauts.) For having just succeeding at completing THE greatest feat by humans ever, this accomplishment was under-reported and when it was reported it was measured and controlled to the extreme. This should have had the nation and world buzzing for YEARS afterward. But as you note, it lost its fizz quickly. COULD the reason be...the public was starved of info by design? (Because the entire project IF scrutinized would have failed to answer too many obviously un-answerable questions?) In this case the MSM as The Messenger either had no message, OR was ordered to stand down on continued close reporting. Till the day he died, Neil Armstrong never gave more than a bland, non-detailed, uninspired account of his "accomplishment." And NO real interview. Odd, wouldn't you say? Meanwhile Buzz Aldrin, the supposed second man to walk on he moon by many accounts had mental problems afterward. WHY?? Can you or anyone explain why so few photographs were released of the Earth from the Moon? EVER? Where is the video? And yes, isn't it curious how and why after the alleged first "Lunar Landing" subsequent landings were so obviously ignored by Media and documentarians? Later missions were more adventurous about where they landed. By the time the last one came along, they were doing extensive geology field work miles away from their lunar lander. But by then, no one was watching. No one knows any of their names either. Yes, it was noted that after the first Apollo mission, no one was watching. They were virtually ignored. CONSPICUOUSLY SO. One naturally must ask: "WHY WAS THIS THE CASE??" I don't buy, "Meh. Been there, done that." Or boredom. And yes, the identities of subsequent astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon *should* have been known. WELL KNOWN. But, for another odd reason they weren't, aren't, and NOT interviewed, haven't written books on the experience, etc. Conspicuous indeed. The public had initially been served up a few foggy photographs; Armstrong's "First steps for mankind" was aired on a tape delay, the video abysmally obscured and fuzzy. If anything, the public should have been far more hungry for additional video and info from the moon. Most were. But since the Media is THE conduit from which "news" is disseminated, the public's hunger for additional data and pictures was unrequited forever more. As if the Gummint and NASA said, "Here's a teaspoon of what we've accomplished of THE most AMAZING FEAT IN HUMAN HISTORY. That's should suffice." I ask: Does this make any sense?? Is there any video or film FROM the moon and the view of planet Earth from any of the Apollo projects? It should be voluminous. AND clear. But if there were issues of problems with photography or video, why then wouldn't they have been resolved with special lens? If we could send a man to the moon, why could they solve the lens problem?? From a technical and safety aspect, just how did those astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=how+we+know+the+moon+landings+weren%27t+faked&ei=UTF-8&hspart=SGMedia&hsimp=yhs-sgm_fb&type=fx&p=how+we+know+the+moon+landings+weren%27t+faked
But the moon can appear over the top of a nearby mountain. The last mission or two, they were near some smallish mountains.
I don't care. I also don't care about your Truthery moon landing CTs.
Looking at the moon landing locations from the Sky & Telescope link, the attitude at which the earth would appear from those locations should be determinable from how close the locations are to the center of the moon. From dead center, one would need to look directly up to look back at the earth. From a site on the extreme horizon, the earth would also appear on the moon horizon, as the first photo depicted. The Apollo 17 spot looks a little more that midway off center, so I'd expect earth to appear about 40-45 degrees elevated off the horizon from there, quite possibly in camera frame with a mountain. It would take some geometry to figure out what the attitude of the earth would be from various spots but I don't doubt that some moon photos could show the earth above a mountain, at least for Apollo 17. But that's more doubtful for Apollo 16, as that site is more centered.
Comments (41 - 67) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I've never completely saw it. Perhaps I will go see it.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#4)
I like going to the movies. Especially the drive in.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)
We have three close by.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#4)
I like to get out. I like going to the movies. Especially the drive in.
#10. To: IbJensen (#2)
I found it boring.
#11. To: Deckard (#8)
My girlfriend and I would crack up when we watched this one - pretty racy, LOL.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#10)
By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#13)
People don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#13)
Indeed, REAL space travel is certainly boring, stuck in a relatively small spaceship with nothing to do but monitor systems and maintain life support. If the idea is to make a movie about space travel as it would be in real life, the result will be a boring movie, and in that respect, 2001 certainly overplayed the excitement.
#16. To: Liberator (#14)
For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh...
#17. To: Liberator (#14)
#18. To: Pinguinite, Deckard (#16)
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
#20. To: Liberator (#18)
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?)
We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular.
Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical
#21. To: Liberator (#19)
#22. To: Liberator (#19)
BUT conspicuous from its absence: NO COLOR EARTH PHOTOS?? OR photos, period.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#22)
#24. To: Pinguinite (#20)
(Edited)
Hehe... you are kind of big on this authority thing, aren't you?? :^)
#25. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#22)
(Edited)
#26. To: Pinguinite (#20)
The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself.
#27. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative (#25)
(Edited)
I gotta admit, this is a great photo, and one I've never seen before.
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
#29. To: Liberator (#26)
But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this.
Then there is the other factor to consider -- and this is no small one: The credibility of a Government-Science-Hollywood-Media Complex itself and agenda to alter "Reality" and perception OF Reality.
Now again -- if you and others prefer to focus solely on the validity of the alleged "Moon Landings", there is also the issue of negotiating what would have been the Van Allen Radiation Belt and non-protective flimsy "spacesuits" worn by Armstrong etal.
I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions.
Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen;
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Is that the photo TC has uncovered?
#30. To: Liberator, no gnu taxes, Tooconservative (#28)
#31. To: Liberator (#23)
That kind of photo was and is NEVER released to the general public. Otherwise IT would have been THE iconic historic poster for the ages.
#32. To: Pinguinite (#25)
Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, the earth would always be present at the same relative location in the moon's sky. If the Apollo mission of this photo could be determined, then the moon landing location could also be determined, which might debunk this photo as a fake.
#33. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#27)
WHY wouldn't that photo have been festooning every front page, magazine, and book by the latest, the early 1970s??
#34. To: Pinguinite (#29)
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#32)
You seem to think that the moon is in a geosynchronous orbit. It isn't. Or we wouldn't have tidal effect at all.
#36. To: Tooconservative, pinguinite, Deckard, no gnu taxes (#33)
Contrary to your impressions, only the first Apollo mission was followed closely by the public. After that, nada.
#37. To: Liberator (#36)
#38. To: Pinguinite (#35)
As all the landing locations on the moon are near central on the moon as viewed from earth, the astronauts there would have had to look near straight up or somewhat close to straight up to see the earth and would never have seen the earth on the moon horizon, that no matter what time of month or year they would have gone there.
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
From a technical and safety aspect, just how did those astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
#40. To: Tooconservative (#38)
But the moon can appear over the top of a nearby mountain. The last mission or two, they were near some smallish mountains.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]