ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: Morgul on September 04, 2012, 04:10:02 PM
-
I have been lurking here for some time, and finally decided that I needed to post a "Thank You". I have been an avid follower of the space program since I was a kid, and it's always amazed me that people could actually believe that we did not land on the moon. I have a strong background in Chemistry and Astronomy, so the science, the how's and the why's, have always made sense to me.
But coming here has really increased my understanding and appreciation of the Apollo space program. It's always fun to watch a spurious hoax claim get shredded, but the additional information that you guys have and that you post makes every trip here an educational experience. I've really learned a lot more about the evolution of the program and the operation of the Apollo and LM spacecraft. I thought I knew a lot before, but I've come to realize I was lacking a LOT of knowledge and information, which you guys have provided.
So, for those of you who have worked on the space program, or who have all this knowledge that you're willing to share - thank you.
-Morgul
-
I agree with every point you make and I echo your thanks to all the great contributors here.
The sad part (to me, anyway) is that it's all starting to feel more and more like ancient history, like we're all Civil War buffs or something.
I just wish I could be an Apollo reenactor!
-
You're most welcome.
One of the interesting things you'll notice if you hang around here long enough is how much many of us (or at least those of us who don't work in aerospace) have learned about space exploration in general and Apollo in particular because of hoaxer claims.
I've learned a great deal from researching responses even if the hoaxers I'm answering never do. Aside from helping to educate and inoculate bystanders against their nonsense, this is the main reason I do it.
-
You're most welcome.
One of the interesting things you'll notice if you hang around here long enough is how much many of us (or at least those of us who don't work in aerospace) have learned about space exploration in general and Apollo in particular because of hoaxer claims.
I've learned a great deal from researching responses even if the hoaxers I'm answering never do. Aside from helping to educate and inoculate bystanders against their nonsense, this is the main reason I do it.
+1
It's like Phil Plait says. It's easier to use bad science as a jumping off point to discuss good science. (Shame the mods at Cosmoquest don't appreciate that anymore) The experience for me over the last decade has been that whereas before learning of the conspiracy theory I accepted the reality of Apollo, I now know the reality of Apollo.
-
I agree with every point you make and I echo your thanks to all the great contributors here.
The sad part (to me, anyway) is that it's all starting to feel more and more like ancient history, like we're all Civil War buffs or something.
I just wish I could be an Apollo reenactor!
As I understand it, Tom Hanks felt the same way after making Apollo 13, which lead to the docudrama miniseries "From The Earth To The Moon."
-
As I understand it, Tom Hanks felt the same way after making Apollo 13, which lead to the docudrama miniseries "From The Earth To The Moon."
Interestingly enough, one of the Apollo astronauts or NASA crew was involved and said that when they did scenes in 'Houston' - he kept looking for the elevator because the control room was actually on the second floor. Shows how in depth and detailed Tom Hanks and his team were to meticulously recreate things. Even had everyone in the vomit comet ... if I am not mis-remembering - don't have the series in front of me at the moment - need to research some more to be certain of the statements, but this is what I remember ... :)
Of course the eleveator thing could have been from Apollo 13 and Ron Howard ... what can I say, I am getting old and the memory is failing ... ;D
-
Even had everyone in the vomit comet ... if I am not mis-remembering - don't have the series in front of me at the moment - need to research some more to be certain of the statements, but this is what I remember ... :)
A13 shot footage in the Vomit Comet, but FtEttM was all shot on the ground, if that's what you mean.
-
I don't post much anymore, but it is for people like you that I do.
It seem hoaxers rarely will listen to reason, so it is for the lurkers that I post: helping you to not only understand the basic but also to learn some of the incredible technological wonder that was Apollo.
-
Even had everyone in the vomit comet ... if I am not mis-remembering - don't have the series in front of me at the moment - need to research some more to be certain of the statements, but this is what I remember ... :)
A13 shot footage in the Vomit Comet, but FtEttM was all shot on the ground, if that's what you mean.
That's it - thanks for the correction and clarification! :)
-
I also like to visit this forum I grow up with the Apollo space program. When I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut like Armstrong and go to the moon and for me is very sad to see the new generation of kids watching realities and believing whatever they find in youtube, is good this site exists so people can learn more about Apollo and other things ;D
-
Great post by the OP and I too share the sentiments you express. I am now a oil field consultant and photographer and have none of the scientific and mathematical background and capability like some here. All here are usually more than willing to explain things in a lament terms and more than willing to re-post the same bloody thing they have posted 5 times before all in the name of education and awareness of the greatest accomplishment of humanity! Great bunch of folks here!
-
Interestingly enough, one of the Apollo astronauts or NASA crew was involved and said that when they did scenes in 'Houston' - he kept looking for the elevator because the control room was actually on the second floor
I know that NASA offered Ron Howard the use of an original Apollo control room but he eventually opted to build his own replica because he had to do things not possible in the original. In particular he needed 'flyaway' walls that he could remove to position a camera or lights to get a view that wasn't possible in the original room with its fixed walls and ceilings.
This is apparently very common in cinematography. When you see characters in a car, an airplane cockpit, spacecraft or some other cramped space, think about where the camera had to be to get the view you're seeing. It's often in some "impossible" location, embedded in the walls or even outside them, looking through them as though they were transparent.
Something like this in actual Apollo footage would be a dead giveaway of a hoax (directed by Stanley Kubrick, of course) but I haven't heard of a single claim of this nature. Just watch -- some hoax nut will see this and we'll have a dozen such claims within a week. All bogus, of course.
-
Interestingly enough, one of the Apollo astronauts or NASA crew was involved and said that when they did scenes in 'Houston' - he kept looking for the elevator because the control room was actually on the second floor
I know that NASA offered Ron Howard the use of an original Apollo control room but he eventually opted to build his own replica because he had to do things not possible in the original. In particular he needed 'flyaway' walls that he could remove to position a camera or lights to get a view that wasn't possible in the original room with its fixed walls and ceilings.
This is apparently very common in cinematography. When you see characters in a car, an airplane cockpit, spacecraft or some other cramped space, think about where the camera had to be to get the view you're seeing. It's often in some "impossible" location, embedded in the walls or even outside them, looking through them as though they were transparent.
Something like this in actual Apollo footage would be a dead giveaway of a hoax (directed by Stanley Kubrick, of course) but I haven't heard of a single claim of this nature. Just watch -- some hoax nut will see this and we'll have a dozen such claims within a week. All bogus, of course.
No doubt about that. I was just impressed that ron did such a good job, that he confused an ex-Astronaut for a second or two! :)
-
This is apparently very common in cinematography. When you see characters in a car, an airplane cockpit, spacecraft or some other cramped space, think about where the camera had to be to get the view you're seeing. It's often in some "impossible" location, embedded in the walls or even outside them, looking through them as though they were transparent.
Something like this in actual Apollo footage would be a dead giveaway of a hoax (directed by Stanley Kubrick, of course) but I haven't heard of a single claim of this nature. Just watch -- some hoax nut will see this and we'll have a dozen such claims within a week. All bogus, of course.
A really good example of this that I can recall is in the movie "Contact". Ellie is observing meteors and hears a crash inside her house. She goes inside and finds her father (who she knows has a heart condition) on the floor.
In the next shot, the camera precedes her as she rushes up the stairs, around two corners and into the bathroom where you see her open the bathroom mirror and reach in to get her father's medicine. Watch the scene from 21:20 through to the fadeout at 23:07.
The shot from 22:30 to 23:07 appears as one continuous shot, which of course is impossible since it is "shot" through a reflection in the bathroom mirror. The camera would not be able to see around the corners as Ellie came up the stairs, so it had to have at least one splice. While the "average Joe" might not pick this sort of thing up, a cinematographer would spot it immediately.
-
Something like this in actual Apollo footage would be a dead giveaway of a hoax (directed by Stanley Kubrick, of course) but I haven't heard of a single claim of this nature. Just watch -- some hoax nut will see this and we'll have a dozen such claims within a week. All bogus, of course.
Well, the fake Apollo "spacecraft" had to be well sealed in order to hold the water they were floating in to simulate free-fall, don't cha know.
N.B.: For anyone who doesn't know me, no, that's not a serious claim - it's a sarcastic reference to Hunchy's theory that the shots were done underwater, with an actor wearing a Buzz Aldrin mask which contained breathing tubes.
-
N.B.: For anyone who doesn't know me, no, that's not a serious claim - it's a sarcastic reference to Hunchy's theory that the shots were done underwater, with an actor wearing a Buzz Aldrin mask which contained breathing tubes.
Yes, I could tell. With that video, I think hunchbacked finally revealed his true nature in a totally unambiguous fashion.
The man is ill. There's no other explanation.
-
Well, I thought the sarcasm was obvious, but I've been pounced on before by people thinking I was serious, so I thought I'd toss in a disclaimer.
The HB fad really seems to be in a lull, doesn't it? The only stuff I've seen lately is either so far out as to sound psychotic or is a re-hashing of claims so old and tired they don't even merit a reply. I don't think I've seen anything new from JW in months.
-
Either they're all in a lull or they've looked at hunchbacked (who has become increasingly prolific of late) and decided that they really rather not associate publicly with such a lunatic.
Hunchbacked has pretty much given up trying to claim "incoherences" in the designs of various Apollo systems. All of his recent, uh, work claims various visual "incoherences" such as supposed discrepancies between video and still photography. All of it clearly results from comparing videos and pictures that were in fact taken at (sometimes wildly) different times or from a truly astonishing inability to interpret visual perspective.
-
Either they're all in a lull or they've looked at hunchbacked (who has become increasingly prolific of late) and decided that they really rather not associate publicly with such a lunatic.
Hunchbacked has pretty much given up trying to claim "incoherences" in the designs of various Apollo systems. All of his recent, uh, work claims various visual "incoherences" such as supposed discrepancies between video and still photography. All of it clearly results from comparing videos and pictures that were in fact taken at (sometimes wildly) different times or from a truly astonishing inability to interpret visual perspective.
Which youtube video where you commenting on about his obvious lack of math skills? I can't seem to locate it and was curious what his response was.