Jump to content

The truth about Duke Nukem Forever


Recommended Posts

Holy shit, dude! Visiters!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

 

- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

"I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... it might explain why Carmack was funding a private orbital spaceship-thing project! He didn't like that the US and UK went to his competitor and their inferior game engine designing talents to get their space aline game!

 

Carmack is going to intercept the aliens with his private orbiter and save us all! or something.

 

 

 

Anyway, I thought DNF was taking forever to come out because Bruce Campbell hadn't made a movie they could steal one-liners from in a long while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really listened, but I'm tempted to call in some night with the most crack-pot theory I can make up and try to sell it.

 

I've considered trying to convince the listeners that Delaware doesn't really exist as a state. It's a government research facility far larger than Area 51. Area 51 is the red herring, and Delaware is actually home to all the super-secret projects.

 

Then you guys turned around and named your project Delaware. I thought that was cute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wow... i hadn't realized art had retired again. well, the last time he just kinda up and quit mysteriously. IIRC, when he came back he was going on about death threats or something to his family? anyway, an interesting character that art bell is... very interesting.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's not theory.

 

It's fact.  And I have a mashed potato sculpture to prove it!

How'd you know about my book?

 

 

"Crackpots and Their Mashed Potato Sculptures"

 

 

 

 

Seriously though, I eat up conspiracy theories, but even this one's a little far fetched for me to swallow. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
We didn't land on the moon in 1969.

Actually, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the video that was broadcast was fake due to technology limitations at the time. Seems more likely than that the whole thing was fake. :(

Was the video fake ?!?

 

I'm not convinced.

 

Besides, wouldn't the land siting be visible from a telescope ?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, people are quick to point out that all the moon landers and such are visible except for the 1969 moon landing. We can't find anything with a telescope. Next, I agree that we didn't have the tv technology at the time to broadcast from the moon.

 

Furthermore, my buddy has a masters in Physics. I've seen him break down how the footage of the landing is pure fake. It doesn't fit in with the laws of low gravity. Careful examination shows they merely played the footage in slo-mo to achieve the affect of low gravitiy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, people are quick to point out that all the moon landers and such are visible except for the 1969 moon landing. We can't find anything with a telescope. Next, I agree that we didn't have the tv technology at the time to broadcast from the moon.

 

Furthermore, my buddy has a masters in Physics. I've seen him break down how the footage of the landing is pure fake. It doesn't fit in with the laws of low gravity. Careful examination shows they merely played the footage in slo-mo to achieve the affect of low gravitiy.

Not to mention some of the camera's crosshairs appeared behind the astronauts like they were a static part of the scenery, the footage taken was studio quality, when the guy who designed the camera said that it was near impossible to get a good shot because of the way it was mounted on the chest of the space suits, the lighting had shadows cast in multiple directions as if in a studio, if it was really on the moon, there should have been shadows from one direction only as the only source of light was the sun, and MAYBE whatever lights the astronauts brought with them....many, many flaws in that video.

 

Do I think they actually landed...probably, but they leave themselves open to attack faking a video. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, people are quick to point out that all the moon landers and such are visible except for the 1969 moon landing.  We can't find anything with a telescope.  Next, I agree that we didn't have the tv technology at the time to broadcast from the moon.

 

Furthermore, my buddy has a masters in Physics.  I've seen him break down how the footage of the landing is pure fake.  It doesn't fit in with the laws of low gravity.  Careful examination shows they merely played the footage in slo-mo to achieve the affect of low gravitiy.

Not to mention some of the camera's crosshairs appeared behind the astronauts like they were a static part of the scenery, the footage taken was studio quality, when the guy who designed the camera said that it was near impossible to get a good shot because of the way it was mounted on the chest of the space suits, the lighting had shadows cast in multiple directions as if in a studio, if it was really on the moon, there should have been shadows from one direction only as the only source of light was the sun, and MAYBE whatever lights the astronauts brought with them....many, many flaws in that video.

 

Do I think they actually landed...probably, but they leave themselves open to attack faking a video. :(

you're joking, right? i hope so as you seem too intelligent to believe this crap... if not, here goes...

 

first of all,

NONE of the moon landers are visible from earth. we don't have telescopes powerful enough. if you'd like a discourse on minimum resolution based on aperture size i can provide one. and no, hubble can't take a picture of the moon, either. the moon is too close, too bright and moving too quickly for hubble to take any decent pictures. remember, hubble was designed to take pictures of galaxies that are light years across...

 

second of all, your friend with a masters in physics maybe should consider a different career. the problem with the "slo-mo" replay theory of the footage is the manner in which the dust falls to earth. see, in earth, due to atmosphere and gravity, dust only flies a VERY short distance before dissipating into a cloud. ALL of the dust rooster tails can very clearly be seen to extend much farther than the high gravity of earth will allow. further, no "dust clouds" are evident in any of the footage and the effect of said rooster tails is most evident upon landing back on the moon.

 

as for the crosshairs, sheesh... you're obviously not an expert on photography because if you were, you'd realize that "white out" occurs when a background image is MUCH brighter than the foreground, i.e. the light reflected from the bright white suits (no atmosphere on the moon to dissipate reflected light) bleeds into surrounding areas of the film... wait a minute, i'm not an expert and even i knew that.

 

oh yeah, btw, the guy that designed the cameras also went on to say that it would take a lot of practice to do what they did with the chest mounted cameras. guess what? this is something they had as they spent MONTHS practicing in the suits. every maneuver and every walk was planned, as well as painstaking practice in pools of water taking pictures... this piece gets even more ridiculous when the "perfect" pictures are taken into context of all the crap pictures that also came out. the dozen or so perfect ones are only the very best of the THOUSANDS they took... go figure.

 

finally, the astronauts themselves were also light sources (bright white reflects) not to mention that the shadow theory also relies on perfectly flat terrain. the latter is a feature seemingly overlooked by conspiracy theorists.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The moon landing was faked because the government doesn't want you to know about the aliens we talk with.

 

That's why they blew up the Challenger.

 

Okay, I was kidding. I was trying to see how much I can get you to buy.

 

The Francis Bacon line I mentioned earlier is also a popular conspiracy theory easily bunked, as with the Rosco White theory.

 

However, Emperor Palpatine did wear pink panties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i never saw the latter posts till just now (bacon, etc.)...

 

i count myself as someone "overly suspicious and informed" when it comes to anything i hear. while i believe in plenty of non-conformist ideas (ZPF, alternates to BB theories, etc.), rule #1 in an objectivist's MO is "verify your information."

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...