New insight about NASA Moon landing
-
Peace to all,
I found this 1 hour documentary about famous filmmaker Stanley Kubrick hiding secret symbolism in his movies to reveal how he helped faking the July 1969's NASA Moon landing.
http//vimeo.com/41771132#
If this is true, then, the question remains What's on the Moon ??
Peace,
Kamzo
-
Thank you for this link!
Kubrick is one of my favorite filmmakers, and I've also heard the rumors that he staged the moon scenes.
Will you keep us updated if there are the second and the third part of this series, please?
Thank you. -
If this is true, then, the question remains What's on the Moon ??
This isn't true, Kubrick never faked the moon landings which were quite real.
On the moon remains traces of the U.S. space program from the late 60's and early 70's; lander descent stages, seismological instruments, electric cars, reflectors you can bounce a laser beam off yourself if you're curious - all sorts of junk really. Not to mention all the footprints. -
Salamun Alaykum.
This is not new. There is a whole documentary made on the this, which is called "The Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon?".
I've watched it, and it does make a lot of sense to me. I also sometimes feel that the whole "landing on the moon" thing could be fake. And after all, a fact remains that 20% of Americans believe that they never landed on the moon.
-
Peace All.
They have landed on the moon, without a doubt
Qoran prophesied that they would
Peace.
-
This isn't true, Kubrick never faked the moon landings which were quite real.
On the moon remains traces of the U.S. space program from the late 60's and early 70's; lander descent stages, seismological instruments, electric cars, reflectors you can bounce a laser beam off yourself if you're curious - all sorts of junk really. Not to mention all the footprints.How do you know that? What is the proof of your claim? You've been there? With what authority you write those words? ???
Nobody actually knows neither yes nor no, everything is possible, as is possible to sell anything to the mob who is prone to believe anything either pro or contra.
If you watched this video which @Kamzo19 kindly posted, you'd have heard that it says that they believe people landed on the moon, but the official footage was not the authentic one!
-
How do you know that? What is the proof of your claim? You've been there? With what authority you write those words? ???
I obviously haven't been to the moon myself, but I have have looked at the evidence available - there's quite a lot of it supporting my position, and it's rather convincing on the whole. I speak with the authority of reason.
As I said earlier, anyone can bounce a laser beam off the reflectors the Americans left up there, which is pretty good evidence - after all, the laser beams wouldn't bounce like they do if nobody had placed any reflectors up there.
Then there are boatloads of recent pictures such as this one, taken from a satellite orbiting low around the moon
http//cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/09/584392main_m168000580lr_ap17_area.jpg
-
Thanks for the answer
-
Peace to all,
Thank you Magnus for demonstrating once again, just like you did with Edip, that you allow yourself to formulate critics about things you don't even examine. The most disgusting thing is that you use the mask of reason and logic. yuck You want to be seen as a good thinker while, in fact, you're not. You're just an agitator and polemist. How sorry is your condition...
Did you watch the documentary I've sent ?
I think that no, Magnus, you did not watch it when you answered, because if you had watched it, you would have noticed, like Godsubmitter wrote, that "If you watched this video which @Kamzo19 kindly posted, you'd have heard that it says that they believe people landed on the moon, but the official footage was not the authentic one!". Are you not ashamed of yourself? If you did not watch it, why don't you just remain silent ? I'm beginning to think that something is attached to you and is nourrishing itself from this bad energy, just like astral parasites nourrish themselves from the bad energy of evildoers. When will you change this bad behavior, Magnus?
Anyway, I'm like you, Magnus, I believe, without any real evidence except those provided by NASA and that are not evidences because more than once, hairbrushing has been shown on them thanks to graphical filters, and because we cannot verify it, I believe that they went to the Moon. So you see, Scribbler, I'm not saying this is new. You can see it in the title of my thread "New insight...", this shows that I recognize and know that other insights about the authenticity of the Apollo moon landing have been brought during the past two decades.
I think, just like the documentary shows, that the images we all saw are fake images, and that the real footage of the landing I believe it happened, is for reasons I don't know, kept hidden from the public.
I just wanted it to be clearer. If I find something else, I'll try to keep you informed. Anyway, thank you for answering.
Peace peace
-
Peace to all,
Thank you Magnus for demonstrating once again, just like you did with Edip, that you allow yourself to formulate critics about things you don't even examine. The most disgusting thing is that you use the mask of reason and logic. yuck You want to be seen as a good thinker while, in fact, you're not. You're just an agitator and polemist. How sorry is your condition...
Did you watch the documentary I've sent ?
I think that no, Magnus, you did not watch it when you answered, because if you had watched it, you would have noticed, like Godsubmitter wrote, that "If you watched this video which @Kamzo19 kindly posted, you'd have heard that it says that they believe people landed on the moon, but the official footage was not the authentic one!". Are you not ashamed of yourself? If you did not watch it, why don't you just remain silent ? I'm beginning to think that something is attached to you and is nourrishing itself from this bad energy, just like astral parasites nourrish themselves from the bad energy of evildoers. When will you change this bad behavior, Magnus?
Anyway, I'm like you, Magnus, I believe, without any real evidence except those provided by NASA and that are not evidences because more than once, hairbrushing has been shown on them thanks to graphical filters, and because we cannot verify it, I believe that they went to the Moon. So you see, Scribbler, I'm not saying this is new. You can see it in the title of my thread "New insight...", this shows that I recognize and know that other insights about the authenticity of the Apollo moon landing have been brought during the past two decades.
I think, just like the documentary shows, that the images we all saw are fake images, and that the real footage of the landing I believe it happened, is for reasons I don't know, kept hidden from the public.
I just wanted it to be clearer. If I find something else, I'll try to keep you informed. Anyway, thank you for answering.
Peace peace
Peace!
Please refrain from strawmanning my position.
I never watched the video, and I never claimed I did. Without even having watched it, I dismiss it's central claim, if it makes one. I have heard Kubrick's name mentioned by lunar-conspiratorial nuts before, and I figured it is probably safe to assume that the youtube clip in question is most likely a repeated variant of the same nonsensical claims I have heard before. May God forgive me if I'm wrong in doing so.
I don't aspire to be seen as a great thinker, but I hope I am using my reason to discern truth from falsehood as best I can, under the circumstances.
If you want to talk about real stuff like rocket science or orbital mechanics or for that matter technichal aspects of photography I will do my best to answer any questions and learn what I need to know in order to do that. If you want to chase conspiratorial whisperings then you are free to continue on your own down that path, though I can tell you in parting and entirely from personal experience it's not the path a true believer wants to be on. -
Of course they did not land on the moon, because if they did, they supposed to land on the luminous surface.
(Qur'an, 7116)
And made the moon therein a light and made the sun a lamp?We were deceived into believing that the moon does not have its own light.
"If you just paid attention to the earth you live on
you will see a different earth to the one you were taught to believe in." -
Oh my God,
The full moon vs partially lit moon depends on how much light strikes the surface of the moon during a night when the sun does not shine on your part of the world but the moon which orbits the Earth catches the sunlight and thus shines up with a white light due to its sandy surface. It is so balanced that the moon is more lit depending on the time of the lunar month.
Sometimes the moon is visible before sunset and then you can see it clearly visible.
The moon does not have its own built-in variable light which depends on timing of the month.
In think that you do everything to justify a faulty interpretation of Quran and fall into the sectarian delusion of struggling backwards because the doctrine says something rather than empirical evidence.
Salaam
-
JavaLatte,
No matter how little you like it but your teacher are ignorant people trying to interpret an innocent text, so it is naive to say Allah is your teacher when Allah clearly is not your teacher but anonymous people of ancient time who make a throne for Allah when the language actually speaks of dominion.
You have never considered that people can be enlightened by the Rabb? If you are enlightened then you are clearly fit to be a teacher because you have knowledge.
The Rabb is not a teacher because the Rabb has no need of being a teacher for people who get absorbed will realize themselves. In the realm of Allah it works with plain understanding and realization. If the Rabb wills someone has knowledge it is just be and this person has knowledge.
But Quran is not your teacher through the Rabb in its mainstream interpretation for you absorb myriad bias and erroneous inferences along the way and pretty much a Pagan religion which has been forced to emerge in an innocent text. It is not the Rabb that you follow but ignorant minds.
And what you state concerning the moon is not factually right. The moon does not have any innate light emitting source but it depends on the sun radiating on it and during its night it is very cold there.
Salaam
-
There has even been unmanned probes measuring the climate and taken samples of the moon and mankind has instruments able to gauge a lot of its structure and dynamics and they know fairly much about the moon to say it does not have any prerequisite to emit light on its own. That would be true regardless if the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax or not. You have satellites in orbit with cameras and they see the moon and you have footage from space seeing the dark side of the moon. Even people who deem the lunar landing in 1969 a political game hardly deny mankind's activities in space.
What kind of conjecture are you indulging in concerning religion. Do you not see you are facing a personal radicalization? This is exactly the stuff that the sects are involved in. It is more important to them to fit some sectarian interpretation they believe in due to blind faith rather than using their rationality and logic to see the obvious.
Salaam
-
I do think like that. I hope someday you also aware about this, brother, God willing.
In the meantime, in an attempt to understand your point of view, because I find it very important in life to understand how others think...
...and I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here... but you're saying that you are of the opinion that the moon is sending out light that comes from itself (and no other celestial body), meaning that we are not dealing with reflection, but rather that the moon is its own independent source of light?
If so, I'm fascinated. If you don't mind me asking, because I'm actually interested in understanding your thinking, I'd really like to know
- Is the moon in your opinion a ball of gas (like the sun and certain other planets) or is it a rock with a hard and solid surface? Gas or rock?
- If you think the moon is solid and rock-like, then do you take it as there would be some self-luminescent substance covering the surface which gives rise to the light emitted?
Peace
-
- Is the moon in your opinion a ball of gas (like the sun and certain other planets) or is it a rock with a hard and solid surface? Gas or rock?
- If you think the moon is solid and rock-like, then do you take it as there would be some self-luminescent substance covering the surface which gives rise to the light emitted?
Peace
Salam ,
This is what i was thinking a while after sawing the Moon at daylight , does it look like a solid earthly (ardض surface? It does not . It's slightly diffrent from the substance of the sky .
This subject go deeper in understanding how the light light up ? How we perceive light ?
In my understanding from a research in the matter I come to
There is a substance In the earth atmospher who makes the Sun visible to us , the light from the Sun interact with that substance in the earth atmospher and lighted it up and produce the daylight , it's the daylight who makes the sun visible .
See for reference 91-03
The Moon could have a atmospher who allow sun substance to interact with it and produce that brightness at night "Nurr ".
Bearing in mind that in Arabic tongue there is difference between the name of what sun was made for and the name of what the moon was made for .
No lets examine something very important to verify that
In the Qur'aan it says that the sun was made to a Diaa'
And the moon to a Nurr , See for reference 10-05The Diaa' is a state of the Nurr , if the Nurr is too strong it produce The Diaa' , these doesn't mean that the sun got light from the moon but only to show the basic meaning for the two term from a Arabic linguistic point of view .
A solid substance as the earth / Ard doesn't interact with light source as the Sun to produce a daylight the interaction is in the atmosphere around the earth , this is why at night around the Moon it look all dark no daylight ? Although the sun light is directing to that area where the Moon is .
Why we do not see the brightness of the light of the sun at night In the sky ?
In my opinion its Simply because there is no daylight atmosphere in the sky at night , the English traduction of the Nahar as daylight is not accurate ,the daylight is the / Dya'a , notice the etymology of Day and Dya'a , Nahar is more about a opining stream or a running stream of something , from it River in Arabic called Nahr as it is a runing Stream of water.
This mean that the moon has a substance that allow him to be lighted up at night , wich is far to be a solid massive dusty matter like Stone but probabley more fludic substance .
Do this expriment look very attentively at a sunny day at the atmospher just very close to your eyes and you Will see a very thiny brightness lighting up like very small explosions .