ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Kiwi on September 22, 2015, 05:27:50 AM
-
47 minutes 59 seconds
It has in it a cat-lover, an angry self-proclaimed "engineer," a magazine publisher, an elderly monocled astronomer, a writer, the second man on the moon, and some fella called Jay (at 18:52).
This is the first time I've seen it on You Tube. Have always wished I could get a copy on DVD.
For those who haven't seen the many Apollo 11 "Coke bottles", one is visible crossing centre-to-right near the bottom of the screen at 7:34, precisely opposite Buzz's helmet, through the centre of the lens.
-
"Americans have gone back and fourth on this subject...."
::)
-
I watched this long before I knew who JayUtah was. It is a good representation that refuted many of the HB's arguments concerning lighting "anomalies" along with a few more. :)
-
I am never so frustrated when I see people who are so blatantly ignorant of the physical world around them, as I am when people start talking about shadows not being parallel. This is, to me, by far, the single most stupid thing to call proof.
It's right up there with the morons who think that there were secret launches of Saturn V's out of Vandenberg...
-
It's right up there with the morons who think that there were secret launches of Saturn V's out of Vandenberg...
Hey, if everyone had the observational skills the typical HB does, they could totally launch those without anyone noticing. ;D
-
I am never so frustrated when I see people who are so blatantly ignorant of the physical world around them, as I am when people start talking about shadows not being parallel. This is, to me, by far, the single most stupid thing to call proof.
It's right up there with the morons who think that there were secret launches of Saturn V's out of Vandenberg...
I have not seen the non-parallel shadows crud recycled lately.
-
The 'stars' argument has been claimed by some conspiracy theorsts recently to be a strawman invented by us Apollo Nutters, but I have only to link to Bill Kaysing's book (yay Google books) to discredit that claim. I use him specifically since he was the progenitor of this hooey. Probably not the first to consider it, but the first to make a buck off of it. Other professional (and I use the term in the 'making money' sense) conspiracy theorists also make the claim, like RalphRene and David Percy.
-
The 'stars' argument has been claimed by some conspiracy theorsts recently to be a strawman invented by us Apollo Nutters, but I have only to link to Bill Kaysing's book (yay Google books) to discredit that claim. I use him specifically since he was the progenitor of this hooey. Probably not the first to consider it, but the first to make a buck off of it. Other professional (and I use the term in the 'making money' sense) conspiracy theorists also make the claim, like RalphRene and David Percy.
A strawman's strawman?
-
It's right up there with the morons who think that there were secret launches of Saturn V's out of Vandenberg...
You mean they didn't!?
Seriously, if it weren't for the implications, I'd love to be at the Kawajalein end of one of the random Minuteman tests out of Vandenberg. Most be quite a fireworks display when the MIRV's come in...
-
I am never so frustrated when I see people who are so blatantly ignorant of the physical world around them, as I am when people start talking about shadows not being parallel. This is, to me, by far, the single most stupid thing to call proof.
The most obvious piece of stupidity surrounding this is that the presence of non-parallel shadows actually proves the opposite of what HB nutters claim it proves. The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources. In fact, even if the moon landing photos WERE faked in a studio somewhere, non-parallel shadows is not evidence of this. Multiple light sources MUST lead to multiple shadows, so the smoking gun for fake lunar photographs would be multiple shadows.
Of course, there are none in any of the lunar. photos
-
Well, I do know the claymation film Chicken Run used multiple lights for its 'outdoor' scenes without creating multiple shadows (it's mentioned in a coffee table 'Making Of' book, 'Chicken Run: Hatching the Movie', including how much trouble it was), but that exception only proves the rule, as they were meant to be outdoor scenes on Earth, so they could get away with, in fact, needed, softer shadows than Apollo.
-
Well, I do know the claymation film Chicken Run used multiple lights for its 'outdoor' scenes without creating multiple shadows (it's mentioned in a coffee table 'Making Of' book, 'Chicken Run: Hatching the Movie', including how much trouble it was), but that exception only proves the rule, as they were meant to be outdoor scenes on Earth, so they could get away with, in fact, needed, softer shadows than Apollo.
That would require some very clever "fill light" techniques, not at all easy to do in the harsh contrast lighting of the Lunar landscape.
Of course, these days you could do it with CGI.
-
The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources.
Some claim it proves multiple light sources. Others claim it proves nearby light sources. It varies from photo to photo and from claimant to claimant.
-
That would require some very clever "fill light" techniques,
Made easier through the difference in scale. The "barracks" sets in Chicken Run were each only about the size of a kitchen table. To have ever-so-slightly overlapping fields in a uniform wash made from standard studio instruments would be easier if each field is proportionally larger compared to the "natural" scale of the set. Doing it at full scale would be colossally difficult.
-
Here's some behind-the-scenes notes and photos.
http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibzz2.html
And here's Ollie, our long-suffering actor, with the canonical Coke bottle.
(http://www.clavius.org/img/ollie-coke.jpg)
And yes, the RCU is rigged a bit too high. George (the suit tech) had a hard time with the PLSS straps.
-
The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources.
Some claim it proves multiple light sources. Others claim it proves nearby light sources. It varies from photo to photo and from claimant to claimant.
I agree, but while divergent shadows might be explained by a single nearby light source, that would not hold for convergent shadows.
Also, if the light source were nearby, the fall-off would be dramatic and easily observable, something that was readily apparent on your film set (although not mentioned in the video) and not seen on any of the Apollo photos of the Lunar landscape .
-
Thanks for pointing this out Kiwi. I watched in the other day; fairly interesting, though I found it more interesting for the stray info and clips about Apollo than for the hoax stuff.
It did feel like they introduced some hoax claims and then didn't address them, which seemed a bit odd. Anyone know if some of it was edited for time?
Most items were addressed very well though, with nice graphic demonstrations about the light on the flag, the stars and the shadows.
-
It was edited for many reasons. They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.
More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once. Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine. So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up. Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said. In most cases they don't. In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims. I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.
-
It was edited for many reasons. They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.
More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once. Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine. So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up. Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said. In most cases they don't. In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims. I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.
It is really sad that Allen, Percy and/or Sibral won't participate in a live recorded debate. But I guess their financial downside would preclude that from happening.
-
I am never so frustrated when I see people who are so blatantly ignorant of the physical world around them, as I am when people start talking about shadows not being parallel. This is, to me, by far, the single most stupid thing to call proof.
The most obvious piece of stupidity surrounding this is that the presence of non-parallel shadows actually proves the opposite of what HB nutters claim it proves. The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources. In fact, even if the moon landing photos WERE faked in a studio somewhere, non-parallel shadows is not evidence of this. Multiple light sources MUST lead to multiple shadows, so the smoking gun for fake lunar photographs would be multiple shadows.
Of course, there are none in any of the lunar. photos
This is one of my favorite answers to the ignorance of hoax nuts:
-
It is really sad that Allen, Percy...
Allen and Percy were both explicitly invited to participate in this program, but refused. Percy later tried to rebut some of it at the AULIS website.
and/or Sibral...
Sibrel was approached, but demanded an exorbitant "appearance fee" which the producers declined to pay. Sibrel later lied and claimed he had actually contributed, but that none of his material was included because it could not be rebutted.
-
It was edited for many reasons. They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.
More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once. Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine. So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up. Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said. In most cases they don't. In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims. I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.
Ah, thanks for the response Jay! That makes sense.
My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"
-
My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"
Incisive woman your wife, on both counts.
Of course, what Rene also failed to mention was that gravity and air currents make a lot of difference. Anyone who has flown a helicopter in blustery conditions will know exactly what i mean
-
My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"
The HB's fail to note that all the astronauts trained on the LLTV with only three failures?
-
Wasn't a prototype. The LLTV and LLRV weren't even built by Grumman. They were research and training tools for vertical landing.
-
Wasn't a prototype. The LLTV and LLRV weren't even built by Grumman. They were research and training tools for vertical landing.
Didn't Neil indicate that his training helped a lot when he came to the actual landing?
-
IIRC, twice, that I know of. Once in the post-mission debrief, and once in the post-mission press conference. I seem to recall seeing a televised interview with him several years ago, with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, where he mentioned it too.
At least I think I remember it.
At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.
-
...
At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.
I believe the affliction ailment is CRS
-
...
At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.
I believe the affliction ailment is CRS
What were we talking about?
-
...
At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.
I believe the affliction ailment is CRS
What were we talking about?
Exactly