Posted on 08/24/2023 10:57:51 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
Stanley Kubrick is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Of his 13 movies a few are considered classics in their respective genres. Including the black comedy Dr. Strangelove, the highly-quoteable anti-war commentary of Full Metal Jacket, and one of the most disturbing horror films of all time, The Shining.
But in 1968, Kubrick released "2001 - A Space Odyssey". This is more than a classic. It's a masterpiece. And widely regarded as one of the best science-fiction films of all time, and probably the most influential.
This collaboration with science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke tells the story of an alien intelligence that visited Earth in the distant past, and left behind artifacts in the solar system.
The movie (2001 - A Space Odyssey) features ground breaking special effects, which still hold up today.
In fact, the effects looked so good that the movie gave the American Government an idea.
Billions of tax dollars were invested in the space program but the Soviets were still years ahead of the United States.
NASA desperately needed to get to the moon before Russia, but they knew it was impossible. So they turned to one of the World's Best Filmmakers for help. Because when it came to the moon: if they couldn't make it, they'd fake it!
https://youtu.be/yDyJe1nmSOM?feature=shared
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Do you have any good Bigfoot articles?
Listen you lisping Homo. I’ll love for you to say that to my face.
I’m an engineer as well. I work for a very large Aerospace Firm and have consulted with NASA. Virtually all of their projects are Climate Change!?! Their leaders are WOMEN!
Fly your faggot ass to San Diego. I’ll be more than happy to crater you.
Don’t waste your money on a round trip ticket. One way is all you’ll need.
NO. That is not correct. In fact, it's catastrophically wrong.
The experiment was to address the question of how light propagates. Specifically, do light waves propagate through a medium, similar to sound waves propagating through air, water, wood, etc? A leading theory at the time was that light propagated through a medium called the "luminiferous aether". The null result, that is that there is no difference in the speed of light regardless of the angle between Earth's direction of motion and the light's direction of motion, shows that there in fact is no "aether" and the light does not require a medium for propagation. Earth's motion was already clearly demonstrated through astronomy.
And mass-energy equivalence has nothing to do with it.
Too many Sodomites in California. I’ll send you my address in Iowa
Your:
“Love God. Lead your family. Be a man.”
Well said; thank you.
I broke the old FR rule: always read the ENTIRE piece, or watch the ENTIRE video, before commenting!
If someone asked me to fake a moon landing and I was an expert in the art of deception, my first question would be - who do I need to fool, and for how long.
If the answer was everyone in the world, and for all time, I’d tell them to forget it.
Its ludicrous.
So, if you swim with the current of the river, you’re not swimming faster than against the current? Light beams shot through the anther in the direction we are moving and light beams shot perpendicular, should bounce back at the same speed? There should’ve been a difference.
There is no “aether”.
That’s the point.
There was a lot in the book I mentioned about how the astronauts made a LOT of manual calculations, and the on-board computers could be rudimentally programmed or used manually as interfaces. I used to be able to do that when I was a young engineer, a lot better than I can now. I know guys who can still do complicated calculations as naturally as they breathe.
And these guys were engineers and pilots - that’s what those guys do. The plans were in place ahead of time to begin orbits and ascents/descents in certain windows. The “rough” part of the calculations were done way ahead. You don’t risk doing that real time if you don’t have the computational power. The real time stuff was controlling the attitude control engines by hand after you got close. OR by referencing tables and plugging values into the proper calculations, quickly. Again - pilots - it’s what they do.
There was a whole section of the book that talked about how these guys had to learn that orbiting was not like flying. Thrusting forward makes you lose ground on an orbiting target, and backward thrusting makes you catch up. Simple, but foreign at the time. Everyone knew they better have their ducks in a row before they got there, especially for the close maneuvering. It was a whole new framework that they studied to death because it was actually life or death.
Lol. You can see them with a telescope in your backyard. Morons
operation slam dunk.....
Iowa? There’s only steers and queers in Iowa, and I don’t see no horns on you, boy!
Whatever. Go peddle your BS to Mr. Aldrin and make sure someone is getting clear video. I would love to see his reaction to your preening!
Did Van Allen play for the Vikings? LOL
That’s the most hilarious thing about this “Kubrick theory”.
If they hired Kubrick to fake the moon landings we never would have made it by 69. He’d still be ordering them to do another take probably until 75.
why haven't we been "back" to the moon?....
Well, whatever we’re “flying” through, showed no movement. It must not work in a vacuum, and the oceans are the only bodies of water than don’t level themselves out, because of “gravity”.
Thank you. I’ve raised two sons on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.