Not looked at JW video in reply
I didn't care for Collins' nonchalance about "whether we went or not", nor his characterization of Jarrah's motives as purely innocent, as anyone who knows his history knows differently. In his defense, Collins is apparently new to the hoax scene and unfamiliar with JW's record. Also, his area of expertise is media production, not aerospace, so naturally he is going to address the hoax arguments using the tools he is most familiar with. All things considered, the quality of his work is outstanding, and the calm, linear message delivery is refreshing. Collins cuts Jarrah and his followers with cool surgical precision instead of brute force. I hope he makes more.
Oh and hi everyone. :)
What gets me is the claim that you have to have worked in film at the time to have known what film was capable of. By that standard, we might easily assume that the Moon landings could have been faked by Georges Méliès. I mean, he did a Moon landing, right?
What gets me is the claim that you have to have worked in film at the time to have known what film was capable of.
Actually, I think the "disinterested observer" tone works quite well. He makes it plain that he's not interested in debating opinions, politics, or hidden agendas.
What gets me is the claim that you have to have worked in film at the time to have known what film was capable of.
White's default method of attack is to discredit his opponent first, by whatever means he deems effective. Actually addressing the moon hoax arguments in earnest takes an 8th-row back seat.
I'm sure some of the members here can attest.
Don't get me wrong - I think his overall approach and final product is absolutely stellar. I just bristled a bit when he complimented Jarrah for doing a "good thing", when those who've spent any time in these debates know he is doing anything but. And he's entitled to his nonchalance about Apollo. I just don't happen to share it.
if you read between the lines, he's shredding JW into confetti in a way so subtle that JW will never pick up on it.
...
"... doing a good thing... he's trying to come to grips with the technology."
(and failing miserably)
...I've viewed some of Collins' work and I find him to have a dry and biting sense of humor. I think... that if you read between the lines, he's shredding JW into confetti in a way so subtle that JW will never pick up on it.
I don't know... I've viewed some of Collins' work and I find him to have a dry and biting sense of humor. I think - and I could just be projecting here - that if you read between the lines, he's shredding JW into confetti in a way so subtle that JW will never pick up on it.
What gets me is the claim that you have to have worked in film at the time to have known what film was capable of. By that standard, we might easily assume that the Moon landings could have been faked by Georges Méliès. I mean, he did a Moon landing, right?
After attempting to clarify a few questions with Jarrah, he has blocked me from posting on his channel. I am perplexed by this outcome :o
Yes, I know it's pissing into the wind, but I have to ask.
After attempting to clarify a few questions with Jarrah, he has blocked me from posting on his channel. I am perplexed by this outcome :o
Yes, I know it's pissing into the wind, but I have to ask.
Well, that makes us partners in distress. I'm 'suffering' the same blockade.
I don't know... I've viewed some of Collins' work and I find him to have a dry and biting sense of humor. I think - and I could just be projecting here - that if you read between the lines, he's shredding JW into confetti in a way so subtle that JW will never pick up on it.
After attempting to clarify a few questions with Jarrah, he has blocked me from posting on his channel. I am perplexed by this outcome :o
Yes, I know it's pissing into the wind, but I have to ask.
Well, that makes us partners in distress. I'm 'suffering' the same blockade.
What did he get you for? I asked him why he had to lie so much.
(http://i.imgur.com/kG2ydlw.png)
(To Jarrah) "If you're ever looking for something to debunk on a rainy day, debunk this."
The suspense is killing me ;D
But If you did work in film at that time you will or should have first hand knowledge and experience which you can't get if you study the subject,. Jarrah White has studied media and clearly thinks he knows everything, Collins has worked in media for over 30 years, and whilst not specifically during the mid-late 60's I would take his experience any day over Jarrah's certificates of studying media.
(http://i.imgur.com/kG2ydlw.png)
(To Jarrah) "If you're ever looking for something to debunk on a rainy day, debunk this."
The suspense is killing me ;D
That was a nice shout out to dwight (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=16). I wonder if he knows Collins plugged his book. :)
I wonder if JW with all his research skills will paint me a liar because I was using my step-fathers surname at the time?
Using Live Tv From the Moon he cant go wrong as long as he disregards the two errors on pages 27 and 43.
I wonder if JW with all his research skills will paint me a liar because I was using my step-fathers surname at the time?
Using Live Tv From the Moon he cant go wrong as long as he disregards the two errors on pages 27 and 43.
Gidday Dwight. What are those errors? Somehow I've not heard about them.
Page 27 mistyping that there were 7 Mercury manned launches. How that came about is worthy of a chapter in itself.
Page 43 stating that the SIT tube was used on the RCA block I TV camera when in fact it was developed for the GCTA. Crossed wired using two spec sheets on pickup tubes from RCA.
....AAaaaaand the inevitable:
jw;dw
I had to stop that at 1.45. Already there he was going down the dishonest route.
They shot it in black & white and then colorized it! Of course! No one would ever notice that!
Did you have to?
jw;dw
jw;dw
;D
Teach me.
Apparently JW is the only super genius who cant tell the blatant difference between sd video and 16mm film. And blind freddy could tell that the sstv of Apollo 11 is video sourced.But how easily would one discriminate between sd video directly capturing a scene vs sd video capturing a projection of a film capture of the scene?
Each method of capture has its own unique artifacts. Combining them produces a whole extra set of artifacts. Maybe there are many people who wouldn't be able to tell, but there are a large number who would.I'm interested in learning more about how one can tell these apart.
I'm not sure what technical difficulties there would be with a customized camera+transport to allow capture of enough material matching the Apollo videos?
I worked in TV broadcasting in the mid 1970s and I noticed that it was very easy to tell the difference between a video signal from a TV camera and a video signal from a telecine that was playing 16mm movie film. I always wondered just what it was that distinguished them, but I never did figure it out.Hmmm... Maybe dwight or someone else more knowledgeable about video processing can help, but from a semi-educated layman's POF (film buff), I can think of two reasons. First, direct video, especially in those days, looked "hotter". Also, telecine had the photocopy of a photocopy effect - that is the grain of the film was compounded by the "grain" of the video systems. Also, panning would jump a bit due to the different frame rates.
It was also very easy to spot TV from the BBC that had been scan converted from 625/50 PAL to 525/60 NTSC.
Monty Python was a good example of both effects. Their indoor scenes were almost always video and outdoor scenes almost always film.
And a telecine process of standard 24fps motion picture to video faces the problem of differing frame-rates but in the context discussed here, one would obviously synchronize the frame-rates of the film projector and the video recorder so no artifacts show up. Same with the shutter.
Quick note: In case it wasn't bloody obvious, I'm a happy amateur in this area as well, but I have had an interest in cinematography (until video started taking over...)And a telecine process of standard 24fps motion picture to video faces the problem of differing frame-rates but in the context discussed here, one would obviously synchronize the frame-rates of the film projector and the video recorder so no artifacts show up. Same with the shutter.
That wouldn't eliminate artifacts as you might expect. Now all my knowledge on this is derived from my years as a Doctor Who fan, and the state of Doctor Who episodes from before 1975 in the BBC archives is a matter of great discussion in the fan community. Everything I'm about to say applies to British TV, basically.
Video doesn't have a 'frame rate' as such. On film you take a discrete image every 1/24th of a second.Just to nitpick here, but in my opinion video has very well defined frame rates (or field rates in case of interlace): 25FPS PAL, ~30FPS NTSC. And while film has a world-wide standard projection frame rate of 24FPS, it is very common to shoot at different frame rates for various effects such as slow-motion. Until very recently such effects were impossible with video where recording and playback frame rates necessarily matched. I relied very much on this fact in the thread about the Apollo 11 cloud passage to conclude that the CBS video is the best available indicator of time.
On video you are effectively scanning the scene with a series of horizontal lines. The crucial difference for our purpose is that standard video scans (for example) all the even numbered lines then all the odd numbered lines, then back to the even numbered lines. What's more it does this at about twice the rate of a film recording. The result of this is effectively half the lines update every 1/25th of a second, the other half at the same rate but offset by 1/50th of a second. Visually this provides a much more fluid motion than on film, and is similar to a 50 fps film playback. (Recently there was some complaint about The Hobbit because to get the 3D version they recorded at 50 fps to get the effects they needed, and a lot of people felt it looked more like a TV show than a big budget film, mainly due to this difference in how motion looks on film and video). That effectively eliminates one well-known artifact of film recording: motion blur. Even if you sych up the video and film so that one set of lines updates at exactly the same time as the film frame changes, you will simply transfer the film motion blur to the video.
(To complicate matters even more, there was also the difference between stored and supprssed field film transfer, but we won't go into that. Suffice to say that if they used the wrong one the result was that everything that moved on the video produced a double image on the film.)
On top of that there are things that happen on one medium that just don't happen on the other. Take a look at video and film taken of a burning torch, for example. On film you get a lovely image of a flame flickering. On video you tend to get a bright, formless blob, with colour fringing if you are using colour video, and if you move the flame you get a bright formelss blob witha big streak behind it. Bright things bloom and streak on video in a way they don't on film. Transferring from one medium to the other won't eliminate that problem. If you have video of a cleanly burning flame you can bet it was shot on film originally. If you have film of a bright blob you can bet it was shot on video.
Just to nitpick here, but in my opinion video has very well defined frame rates (or field rates in case of interlace): 25FPS PAL, ~30FPS NTSC.
Until very recently such effects were impossible with video where recording and playback frame rates necessarily matched.
We have to keep in mind that for my scenario, we are operating kind of opposite of the normal modus operandi where the goal of a telecine is to preserve the quality and "film look" as much as possible whereas we are here trying to remove as much of the "film look" to have the illusion that the video camera is recording the scene directly without an intermediate.
I worked in TV broadcasting in the mid 1970s and I noticed that it was very easy to tell the difference between a video signal from a TV camera and a video signal from a telecine that was playing 16mm movie film. I always wondered just what it was that distinguished them, but I never did figure it out.
It was also very easy to spot TV from the BBC that had been scan converted from 625/50 PAL to 525/60 NTSC.
Monty Python was a good example of both effects. Their indoor scenes were almost always video and outdoor scenes almost always film.
Well, a field might well be considered a 'frame' at least for the purposes I was suggesting. Providing synchronization holds there wouldn't be any artifacts related to fields or frames if recording a 60FPS projection.Just to nitpick here, but in my opinion video has very well defined frame rates (or field rates in case of interlace): 25FPS PAL, ~30FPS NTSC.
I guess it depends on how you want to define a frame rate. As far as i know video is (or was until the advent of digital) always interlaced fields, so there is never a discrete 'frame'. That's why i said you can't match up the frame rates due to their overlap with the interlaced fields. That was related to my comment earlier about stored and suppressed field telerecordings. In once case even though the rates are aligned the difference between video and film imaging results in a double image when things move because one film frame captures both fields, and the image on the fields doesn't align due to motion. In the other case it still looks like film even though its on video now.
Interesting, I didn't know that!QuoteUntil very recently such effects were impossible with video where recording and playback frame rates necessarily matched.
Not entirely true, since slow motion video could be achieved using some very expensive and bulky equipment. However, it could only do a very short section of video at a time. It was often used for action replays of sporting events in the 1970s and 80s, at least on the BBC.
Yeah, I agree. Actually, I now kind of wish I hadn't even raised the point because I didn't really think it through very much and in my haste I underestimated the difficulties a lot, but it seemed an interesting point to consider, using film as an intermediate rather than doing the "fakery manipulations" directly with video.QuoteWe have to keep in mind that for my scenario, we are operating kind of opposite of the normal modus operandi where the goal of a telecine is to preserve the quality and "film look" as much as possible whereas we are here trying to remove as much of the "film look" to have the illusion that the video camera is recording the scene directly without an intermediate.
I am keeping that in mind, but with all the difficulties listed in the normal process and the variations you'd have to try in order to reduce them (though I doubt they could be eliminated), it certainly seems a lot easier to just send a TV camera to the Moon! It also seems that if such techniques were developed in the 1960s they'd have had far wider application in the following years. The more so considering that NASA's way of working was to contract the actual technical expertise from comapnies who did it themselves, rather than have NASA itself as one all-powerful entity that develops things under a cloak of secrecy.
According to commentaries I've read about Doctor Who, the BBC had at the time some peculiar regulations on when you could use film and when you could use video.
Providing synchronization holds there wouldn't be any artifacts related to fields or frames if recording a 60FPS projection.
Edit: Hmmm, I'm not even sure of this now. Each film frame must be fully projected exactly long enough for each field to record it. I'm too sleepy to even work out of this is technically possible with proper shutter speeds...
Interesting, I didn't know that!
Actually, I now kind of wish I hadn't even raised the point
I'm glad you did. Made for an interesting discussion and we learned things in the process. :)Yes, and for me, that's really the best part of the whole hoax farce: I usually end up learning a great many things :)
Isn't this previously filmed in slow motion theory shot down by the fact that the technicians in mission control were interacting with the broadcast images on screen in real time?
I saw at least one example where an astronaut was instructed in real time to pick up specific rock by someone in mission control.
I don't think the hoax believers have any idea how impossible it would be to synch pre-recorded video to people faking the audio broadcast to the numerous people in MC.
I would also think the fellow operating the camera on the rover would have noticed if his camera feed was "pre-taped."
But of course I'll get the default HB answer of "they were all in on it."
the hoaxers often respond that we haven't proved beyond all possible doubt that this specific item
I wasn't able to bring myself to watch JWs entire response video as, much like Rene's geiger counters, my BS meter found itself oversaturated within 3 minutes.
Maybe to entice the 'master' to the forum, somebody should start a thread detailing all his errors, downright lies and deliberate omissions. He is more concerned about not losing face and appeasing his army of trolls. I no longer think he believes in the hoax....I just think he's invested too much of his ego to suddenly proclaim that the penny has dropped. That and the little money earners he's setup on the subject.
I wasn't able to bring myself to watch JWs entire response video as, much like Rene's geiger counters, my BS meter found itself oversaturated within 3 minutes.
There is a technical solution to that. Just open the box, cut the wires between the sensor and the meter, and you might have achieved enough resistance to lower the readout to something tolerable.
Edit: You'll need to find the CommonSense and AdvancedKnowledge and disconnect those too.
I doubt he really ever did, except as a springboard to appease his insatiable ego. I for one do not expend a great deal of time in the appeasement of that ego.
As RAF notes in the other thread, that's highly unlikely. Jarrah has a hard time remaining civil in debate, and this undoes him more often than his patent incompetence in science and engineering.Jarrah will not debate in any forum where he cannot delete posts he does not like.
He contacted me a few years ago via email, desiring to debate his latest drivel via email. I told him for reasons of convenience and honesty that I don't debate via email -- too easy for one party to misrepresent the discussion later in public, and also because I dislike having to answer the same questions over and over privately. When I answer a question in a public forum, it remains available for later readers who need it. I don't have to repeat it. I told him further that, given his history of incivility, I would debate him only under the auspices of a third-party moderator.By removing insult from his armory, he found himself entirely disarmed. That is why he won't come here. Or any other honest forum.
So he popped up unannounced at IMDb some weeks later and asked if that constituted a suitable forum. Since IMDb enforces basic civil conduct, I agreed. You can read the debate for yourself, so I don't need to characterize it here. But as he was being backed into a corner regarding his awkwardly inexpert interpretation of space radiation data, he offered one morning a typical effluence of profanity and insults, which was promptly reported by another reader and removed by the moderator. Although Jarrah has subsequently insinuated his post was "censored," and contained devastating arguments that I somehow caused to be removed, he knows exactly why it was removed: he re-posted the same material later, with the insults and foul language removed.And I lurked that thread. Jarrah became more and more shrill. It was informative to watch how he had no self control, and could not help ramping up to the nonsense.
This is what leads me to believe he will never again try to debate in a public forum that he cannot control, and which will require him to refrain from pointless trash-talking.I differ with you there. He would be entirely happy to engage in any public debate over which he has full editorial control. What does that tell you?
I've sat through all 4 videos......2 of them were informative and jovial, the other 2 less so.
And I lurked that thread. Jarrah became more and more shrill. It was informative to watch how he had no self control, and could not help ramping up to the nonsense.
I differ with you there. He would be entirely happy to engage in any public debate over which he has full editorial control. What does that tell you?
I should add, that since Jarrah is not a member here, I am allowed to say, Jarrah is an idiot. Sue me. Cos I can prove it to be true.
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
"This video is so good, so incredibly brilliant, solid and simple, that you will want to paste it all over your Facebooks and Twitters just to piss off all the IMBECILES who still claim that the Moon landings were faked.* The reason is simple: the technology to fake it didn't exist. "
I guess it's more about the same...
Fawlty Towers, too.BBC Chronicles of Narnina, All Creatures Great And Small, Monty Python's Flying Circus. When I think of this 'trope', I think of the BBC.
IIRC there were union laws governing why outside material was 16mm for non-live footage.