Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Area 51 and environmental conditions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Nassau Bay, Texas
    Posts
    3,193
    As has been claimed by some HBs, Area 51 or whatever its official name is, was used as the setting for the moon landing sites.

    My questions is this,

    How could NASA (or anyone) pull off filming this hoax when one must consider, espeically for the three day missions, the following:

    Rain, clouds, snow, aurora, birds, insects, animals, desert wildlife in general, sky glow, wind, planes, and I'm sure many more.

    I think Mt. St Helens would have been a better place. Oh wait, that was 1980.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    Your post has just made me realize what the "stars" are in Cosmic Dave's Apollo photos - the glowing eyes of coyotes at area 51. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    I think their theory is that the hoax was done on a sound stage inside an aircraft hangar at area 51. The reason for choosing area 51 is simply that it is a top secret, restricted-access government facility. Oh wait - Cosmic Dave also says that the area 51 environs (not the ones in the picture he linked to in another thread, BTW, but an area he is stll looking for)are just like the moon - so maybe he's not sure if it was shot indoors or outdoors. Maybe he's not sure what he's saying?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Nassau Bay, Texas
    Posts
    3,193
    The one thing that I just noticed tonight by my porchlight is the lack of insects. If there were the massive spotlights that the HB claim were needed for illumination, I'd bet these things would be a magnet for all sorts of flying things, yet I don't see a one.

    Just a thought

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute here...

    What CD and others are claiming (I think) is that the terrain in the Nevada desert is similar to the lunar suface, and might have been used for the background of the fake EVA pics.

    That way, they could be photographed, processed in non-real-time (e.g. color changed to monochrome gray, any obvious anomalies removed), printed on backdrops, and hung within a large stage to shoot the EVA scenes.

    Even the HBs are not so foolish as to think that the EVA films were made on open outdoor sets in real time. Or at least, I'm pretty sure they're not.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,973
    On 2002-06-11 09:50, Donnie B. wrote:
    I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute here...

    What CD and others are claiming (I think) is that the terrain in the Nevada desert is similar to the lunar suface, and might have been used for the background of the fake EVA pics.

    ...

    Even the HBs are not so foolish as to think that the EVA films were made on open outdoor sets in real time. Or at least, I'm pretty sure they're not.
    You are almost certainly right.

    However, this is the same type of "inaccuracy" for which folks like Jay have been repeatedly pilloried.

    cd: "They found a spy satellite hovering over China."
    Jay: "Satellites can't 'hover' over one spot."
    cd: "Oh, yeah? What about geostational satellites, huh? What else are you wrong/lying about?"

    If cd, et al are going to dump on Jay, et al for "imprecise wording" then they should be precise in their wording.

    cd has yet to post the pictures which he claims show the area which he claims NASA used for unspecified filming purposes.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Nassau Bay, Texas
    Posts
    3,193
    I re-read all of the CDs comments about Area 51 and I couldn't really tell from his posts what he means. In general I'd agree with you, but his first post about Area 51 says'

    "Believe me guys, I would genuinely love to believe that Man landed on the Moon, as I guess most HBers would, but have a hard time believing some of the evidence that NASA has released. Has any one of you seen the map of Area 51 which looks uncannily like one of the landing sites?"

    To me that implies that they filmed outside. If nothing else, the copied an Earthly setting.

    I also looked at the links CD provided and I didn't realize how green the area was. A lot more shrubs and grasses than I believed for that part of the country. West Texas is a lot more barren than this.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-11 10:52 ]</font>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Jim and jr,

    Agreed on both points.

    CD's use of the word "map" implies that he's suggesting that "Area 51" was used for overhead shots, rather than backgrounds. Sure would be nice to see that evidence he's touting!

    As to the vegetation, I'm sure there are lots of places that would be more suitable for "lunar surface" shots than Area 51. The Sahel, the Gobi, and parts of the Sinai come to mind. However, they lack the conspiratorial cachet of the Groom Lake area.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    89
    Ok, I don't quite get this...

    If they shot the fake scene outdoors, they might have got the lighting right, but the environment wrong.

    If they shot it indoors, they might have got the environment right, but the lighting wrong.

    Just an idea here: perhaps they shot it on the moon instead?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    On 2002-06-11 11:50, M_Welander wrote:
    Just an idea here: perhaps they shot it on the moon instead?
    Yeah! That's it! We faked going to the Moon by... going to the Moon! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    523
    On 2002-06-11 12:21, Donnie B. wrote:
    On 2002-06-11 11:50, M_Welander wrote:
    Just an idea here: perhaps they shot it on the moon instead?
    Yeah! That's it! We faked going to the Moon by... going to the Moon! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
    That makes as much sense as some of the HB theories. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    I'm developing my own pet conspiracy theory. Stay with me, now...

    January 1967: Apollo 1 fire.
    June 1967: 6-Day War.

    Coincidence? I think not. NASA needed locations in the Sinai to shoot the lunar EVAs after the fire destroyed any hope of completing Kennedy's mission on time. Egypt wouldn't cooperate, so the U.S. government gave Irael the go-ahead to occupy the peninsula.

    Want proof? Here it is: Israel didn't give the Sinai back to Egypt until after the last "lunar mission".

    It all makes sense now! It's all part of the Illuminati/Zionist New World Order. Except it should be the "New Worlds Order", as the shadow government is moving to alien-built Moon habitats Real Soon Now. Elvis is there already, along with the Heaven's Gate crowd.

Similar Threads

  1. how to reduce our environmental footprint
    By tommac in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 2008-May-06, 12:20 AM
  2. Environmental poll
    By banquo's_bumble_puppy in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-31, 02:59 PM
  3. Environmental Rape
    By genebujold in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-10, 02:06 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-02, 03:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •