Deconstructing Apollo 20

[onebigmonkey]

Following bewaremouse's nonsense over at infowars, i decided to get my teeth into the alleged Apollo 20 mission videos to see how they were done.

I know there are plenty of websites and youtube videos that have had a go, but I think I'm doing it slightly differently, and (I hope) pretty much putting it in the bin.

Bewaremouse's contention is that it must be real, because the video features an apparently genuine CM and LM and how could anyone go to that sort of trouble to fake it just for a youtube video. The first chunk of what I've done focuses on that, and I think we can safely say that they are genuine CM images, from Apollo 17.

http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/apollo20.html

Next up, the LM footage and the supposed orbit the mission used (according to the film across the Tsiolkovskiy region, it's Polar!).

[Zakalwe]

So, let me get this right.....The latest HB guff is to claim that a mission that only happened in a Hollywood set IS real, and the missions that really happened were faked in a Hollywood set?

WTF?? Are these headbangers deliberately contrary?

[Luke Pemberton]

WTF?? Are these headbangers deliberately contrary?

That was more-or-less my thought, possibly a different set of words. 

[onebigmonkey]

It's a different angle to the hoax argument, one that is quite happy that we went to the moon, just not when we said we did or where we said we did. They get all the benefits of not having to think too hard in challenging the science, and still get to call NASA the evil bad guys!

[Gazpar]

I though the program ended in Apollo 17...

[Allan F]

It did and it didn't. Surplus hardware was used in the Skylab-programme.

[Dalhousie]

So according to these people, what happened to Apollos 18 and 19?

[smartcooky]

Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.

and of course the CSM used for the mission was the one earmarked for Apollo 18.

[raven]

And if you are going to include all CSM flights as 'Apollo' missions, this should be 21, since it allegedly came after the last visit to Skylab.

[Glom]

Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.

The Skylab expeditions (using modern parlance) were just as much Apollo as ASTP. Same spacecraft. Same LV.

[onebigmonkey]

Forgive the necromancy, but I was prompted to revisit this after being alerted that bewaremouse was continuing to try and get mileage out of the supposed Apollo 20 footage taken in the LM on an allegedly unscheduled TV broadcast from the far side of the moon.

I know.

While looking for other sources of the video I came across a youtube channel by 'TheFakingHoaxer', who cheerfully produces absolutely brilliant UFO and other movies, openly revealing how they were done.

Despite his stating clearly that they are fakes, I have seen his stuff used and claimed as genuine - including by bewaremouse and elsewhere - as part of the entirely fictional Apollo 20 mission.

Videos like this one:

and this one:

(Check out his Mars one as well - it really is cleverly done).

Anyhow - what I need is more info on the LM interior used in the Apollo 20 video. Here's a composite I made of it:



There is a broad similarity with the composite kicking around of Aldrin in the LM, but it isn't exactly the same.

There are a number of things wrong in the sequence, not least the 'astronaut' tossing a camera around just like many genuine ones have done in cislunar zero gravity videos, but clearly in Earth gravity conditions, the fake alien seems to be superimposed, and the zooming to exterior shots contain very obvious fade edits.

Notice also the strange material under the LM window which looks as though it is in the distance somewhere, and also the detailing on the DSKY panel, which is wrong.

It is not (as far as I can tell) a reproduction of any known LM photos, based on the footage available and the pre-launch photos taken to document the interiors. My feeling is that it is either a display model they've hijacked, but none of the ones I've found on the web show the same windows, light shades, camera mountings, DSKY, dial positions etc etc

Or they made one themselves.

Any suggestions?

[bknight]

Are people this stupid in believing that any of these are real?

[onebigmonkey]

Are people this stupid in believing that any of these are real?

Yes.

There are even more stupid people out there who, when the fakery is pointed out to them, will argue that it is a smokescreen designed to discredit the truth about Aliens. So depending on which UFO nut you speak to it is either a genuine video showing UFO and alien activity, or it is a fake proving UFO and Alien activity. There are number of pro-UFO sites that acknowledge that it is a fake, but that it is so elaborate and must have taken so much effort to do that there must be some official involvement to produce it.

I have come across one site (http://forgetomori.com/2008/aliens/an-alien-with-boobies-and-floating-torsos/) that spots what it believes is poor compositing in the video superimposing the human figure, but it is possible that the effect is from a shadow, so I think that one's debatable. That site, and others, identifies an artist by the name of Thierry Speth as being responsible, but he doesn't appear to be anywhere online today.

The way that the model alien appears to move is very suggestive of a composite movie, and the techniques used in the other parts of the film suggest a use of large photographic prints with adornments to give an illusion of depth. This may also be how the LM interior was created, so the question is: which photograph was used?!

[bknight]

Perhaps it was composite of several internal LM views instead of a single?