ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Dinorupe on January 04, 2013, 04:54:31 AM
-
Hi guys first things first im an Apollo nut and not in any way supporting a hoax theory!
My questions for the hoax advocates are
1.If there is a breeze on the flag (ie its an external set) why do subsequent photos claim to show stage lights?Is the stage outside or inside????
2.In the various photos why cant we see any stagehands,directors,lights or any other equipment bar the LM.
3.If we are supposed to be able to see stars why cant we see any in the photo showing the flag waving?
I figure its time they were subject to their own criticism!
-
Sensible questions. Sadly you won't get sensible answers from any hoax advocate because a) we don't have many here anyway, and b) sensible answers don't actually occur to them. They just warp reality to fit their skewed vision of events.
-
I just figured id put them out there and hopefully get a reply from reasonable advocate!
I joined the rather hilarious David Icke forums to ask the same questions but they believe the earth is hollow...
-
I just figured id put them out there and hopefully get a reply from reasonable advocate!
I joined the rather hilarious David Icke forums to ask the same questions but they believe the earth is hollow...
And filled with lizards, or something.
Dinorupe, welcome to the boards. :D
-
I joined here because im all for hoax theories (as a form of entertainment) but the sheer militancy of the hoax sites and sheer denial of date that is readily available put me off!
-
I just figured id put them out there and hopefully get a reply from reasonable advocate!
I think that I can see why you might have a problem....
-
I always thought they were arguing that the filming was done on an indoor soundstage and that the flag waved because...erm...someone accidentally left a door open and there was a draught...Of course, that doesn't explain why said breeze didn't also kick up dust.
-
I always thought they were arguing that the filming was done on an indoor soundstage and that the flag waved because...erm...someone accidentally left a door open and there was a draught...Of course, that doesn't explain why said breeze didn't also kick up dust.
Remember, it was dustless dirt. Sifted and washed so that potentially aerosolized particles were removed, while being fine enough to look like sand.
Dinorupe, your questions are great for pointing out the contradictions within the ideas proposed by various hoax proponents and even contradictions by individual hoax proponents. Unfortunately there is no resolution within the context of a hoax theory, because the resolution ultimately requires admitting the reality of Apollo.
-
I always thought they were arguing that the filming was done on an indoor soundstage and that the flag waved because...erm...someone accidentally left a door open and there was a draught...Of course, that doesn't explain why said breeze didn't also kick up dust.
I thought it was from the air conditioning.
-
Remember, it was dustless dirt. Sifted and washed so that potentially aerosolized particles were removed, while being fine enough to look like sand.
Wow. They went to all that hassle to wash and sift tonnes of sand, yet realised the blooper reel where the flag was moving. They really were idiots at NASA, weren't they? Or should we blame Stanley Kubrick??
-
Wow. They went to all that hassle to wash and sift tonnes of sand, yet realised the blooper reel where the flag was moving. They really were idiots at NASA, weren't they? Or should we blame Stanley Kubrick??
It's a common assumption that it was Kubrick, but:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5935HR.jpg
It was obviously J.J. Abrams.
-
I do love the Kubrick idea, mainly because, unlike nearly all HBs, I know where Kubrick lived and worked at the time of Apollo, and where pretty much all of his films were made, and it wasn't anywhere near a soundstage in Arizona...
In my case, it was a tad closer to home!
-
What I find entertaining is that hoax believers can rarely, if ever, agree on anything (even within their own arguments)... whereas, as we have demonstrated on the "€1m" thread, independent engineers and physicists do agree down to decimal points and beyond. It's almost as if physics is consistent, or something ::)
Yet, somehow, HBs miss this pretty big clue.
-
I do love the Kubrick idea, mainly because, unlike nearly all HBs, I know where Kubrick lived and worked at the time of Apollo, and where pretty much all of his films were made, and it wasn't anywhere near a soundstage in Arizona...
In my case, it was a tad closer to home!
They're just mere details.
I love Stephen Fry's view on it...
*Caution* there some risqué comments in there, in case anyone is easily offended.
-
The only conspiracy i can see is the USSR whipping up the hoax claims of it being a fake to make Americans lose faith in their government but the infamous Fox special in the 90's came well after the Cold War had peaked.
Be ironic if the conspiracy theorists were in fact the victims of one!
-
Of course, that doesn't explain why said breeze didn't also kick up dust.
Or why they didn't just reshoot the scene.
-
Of course, that doesn't explain why said breeze didn't also kick up dust.
Or why they didn't just reshoot the scene.
Nah..a whistle-blower signed it off in the hope that the conspiracy would be blown.....
-
I think they trimmed the part where some old newspapers blew across the set though...
-
And tumbleweeds.
-
Well, there has been a claim going around that a bunny rabbit hopped across the set and also got caught on camera.
The part that bugs me most about the "flag was waving because of the breeze from an open door" is, well, the flag is STRAIGHT OUT. What is outside that door, Katrina?
-
I think they trimmed the part where some old newspapers blew across the set though...
If Kubrick did it then it was filmed in Shepperton Studios in Surrey. At some point the tea-lady would have come round, pushing a trolley with mugs of tea and biscuits. They managed not to get her on any of the images....
-
If Apollo had been filmed at Shepperton, the first landing would have been delayed until early 1970 on account of a set-mover's strike.
-
If Kubrick did it then it was filmed in Shepperton Studios in Surrey. At some point the tea-lady would have come round, pushing a trolley with mugs of tea and biscuits. They managed not to get her on any of the images....
Perhaps she dropped the Coke bottle that woman in Australia saw?
-
Wow. They went to all that hassle to wash and sift tonnes of sand, yet realised the blooper reel where the flag was moving. They really were idiots at NASA, weren't they? Or should we blame Stanley Kubrick??
It's a common assumption that it was Kubrick, but:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5935HR.jpg
It was obviously J.J. Abrams.
At least some of that comes from the fact that HBs as a group have no discernible sense of humor and don't realize that Dark Side Of The Moon was a mocumentary.
-
The truth emerges, in which a falling light ruins Neil's first step.
-
This is hilarious, and not to be taken seriously by anyone.
-
This is my favourite one (look closely at the reflection in the visor).
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps96e001d0.jpg)
-
What I find entertaining is that hoax believers can rarely, if ever, agree on anything (even within their own arguments)... whereas, as we have demonstrated on the "€1m" thread, independent engineers and physicists do agree down to decimal points and beyond. It's almost as if physics is consistent, or something ::)
Yet, somehow, HBs miss this pretty big clue.
The lack of a consistent narrative among proponents of a theory (conspiracy or not) is, to me, one of the biggest indicators that the theory is unreliable.
-
1.If there is a breeze on the flag (ie its an external set) why do subsequent photos claim to show stage lights?Is the stage outside or inside????
Well, from the mainstream point of view we do use "studio lights" outdoors too, especially for shooting at night. In the daytime we often find that shade and shadow are too stark. So to create fill light we can diffuse the sunlight and open up the lens, reflect sunlight into the shadows with large reflectors, or apply studio lighting to bring up the shadows.
See http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html for an example of how we created a "Moon set" at night out in the desert. And yes, it was very, very windy that night. Our flag nearly blew over.
Conspiracy film maker Bart Sibrel has argued that the set was indoors, but that the flag waving was caused by massive air conditioners used allegedly to keep the astronauts cool on the set. Funny thing is, such a setup wouldn't have the slightest effect. The suit you see in the photos linked above is a costume space suit built by Global Effects for the miniseries From The Earth to the Moon. The prop PLSS has a set of batteries and fans that feed air into the suit helmet, using the oxygen hoses. According to Global Effects, which is Hollywood's premier supplier of space-suit costumes and props, this is the only way actors can receive fresh air and stay cool while wearing a full space suit costume. So blowing air on the outside of the suits won't help.
But your point remains valid nevertheless: there are a number of dissimilar theories for where and how the allegedly fake Moon footage was filmed. They can't decide whether it was indoors or outdoors.
2.In the various photos why cant we see any stagehands,directors,lights or any other equipment bar the LM.
Over the years I've heard a few people claim they can in fact see studio equipment, stage hands, etc. Their claims invariably turn out to be little more than pareidolic interpretations of reflections or shadows in heavily processed and enlarged portions of each image.
The rest turn out to be poorly Photoshopped fakes.
3.If we are supposed to be able to see stars why cant we see any in the photo showing the flag waving?
Presuming it's supposed to be outside, you still wouldn't necessarily see the stars. You can't see the stars in any of the video or photography we did out in the desert, and any of the photographers and cinematographers on the set could have told you why.
The visibility of stars in photographs still remains one of the hotly contested points, when the science of it is so very well established.
-
The truth emerges, in which a falling light ruins Neil's first step.
I love this one because it still makes the rounds of conspiracy theorists even after the obvious reference to the "Mr. Gorsky" joke, and the coming-clean of the London studio that made it. After a month of letting it go viral, they posted a page at the original URL that said basically, "Here's who we are, here's how we made it, and please don't take it seriously." The die-hard conspiracy believers keep falling all over themselves trying to show that it's still "somehow" a genuine outtake clip.
-
The visibility of stars in photographs still remains one of the hotly contested points, when the science of it is so very well established.
I think the absence of stars is counterintuitive for the HBs because the Lunar sky is black and we're acustomed to black sky = night.
The very simple truth, if you think about it, is that it was daytime at the landing sites and you don't (typically) see stars in the daytime. Duh.
I remember seeing the program you participated in with the night desert shoot and I remember that my first thought - even though the subject under discussion was the reflectivity of the ground filling in shadows - was "How about that? No stars."
Once, just as a mental exercise, I tried to play Devil's Advocate with myself - my notion being, "If I approached the subject with an open mind, is there anything that would convince me that the moon landings were faked?". I came to the conclusion that maybe - MAYBE - if there had just been AS-11 and no follow-up missions, it could have happened. But the sheer tonnage of data (and samples) accumulated by all the missions together... well, I think it's just beyond human capability to fabricate that much material with that level of consistency. So, for me anyway, I guess it's the Hoax that falls under the heading of Personal Incredulity.
-
I think the absence of stars is counterintuitive for the HBs because the Lunar sky is black and we're acustomed to black sky = night.
John Young remarked that he felt uncomfortable on the Moon and finally worked out that half his body was telling him it was nighttime because of the dark sky while the other half was telling him it was daytime because of the daylight. Apparently there's some truth to that, because research into circadian fatigue mentions bright sky as a cue that the body should be wakeful.
I remember seeing the program you participated in with the night desert shoot and I remember that my first thought - even though the subject under discussion was the reflectivity of the ground filling in shadows - was "How about that? No stars."
In the scene later in the Hollywood photo lab we look specifically at the photos I took with the Apollo Hasselblad camera stopped as wide open as it would allow, at 1/60 second, and noted that there are no stars. I have those transparencies, and I've had them professionally scanned and I've looked at them under microscope and I can't see any stars.
Coincidentally Mars was at its brightest that night -- in full phase at its closest approach to Earth. I got some naked-lens pictures of it with my digital camera, but only at obscenely long shutter speeds (e.g., ISO 800, f/4 at 0.5 sec.).
-
I've always found the no-stars argument pretty conclusive that most of the HBs don't live in, say, Los Angeles. I've been in Los Angeles very late at night indeed, and you still can't see stars. The city itself is too bright.
-
The truth emerges, in which a falling light ruins Neil's first step.
I love this one because it still makes the rounds of conspiracy theorists even after the obvious reference to the "Mr. Gorsky" joke, and the coming-clean of the London studio that made it. After a month of letting it go viral, they posted a page at the original URL that said basically, "Here's who we are, here's how we made it, and please don't take it seriously." The die-hard conspiracy believers keep falling all over themselves trying to show that it's still "somehow" a genuine outtake clip.
You see the same behaivour in crop-circle believers. Even when Bower and Chorley came out and showed how they made them, the adherents kept banging on about plasma vortices, spaces-craft etc. etc. Wasn't there a relatively recent one where some students created a circle and admitted it the next day. They showed how they created it, the plans that they had drawn up, the tools used, yet the crazies were STILL wandering about saying it was supernatural in origin. :o
For some, there's money involved. They make $$ writing books, lecturing and so on.For others it's as if they HAVE to believe that the world doesn't work the way that it does. Witness the recent Mayan end-of-the-world hub-bub....you can guarantee that the majority of the ardent believers will be away off amusing themselves with another conspiracy/end-of-world scenario.
-
You see the same behaivour in crop-circle believers. Even when Bower and Chorley came out and showed how they made them, the adherents kept banging on about plasma vortices, spaces-craft etc. etc. Wasn't there a relatively recent one where some students created a circle and admitted it the next day. They showed how they created it, the plans that they had drawn up, the tools used, yet the crazies were STILL wandering about saying it was supernatural in origin. :o
For some, there's money involved. They make $$ writing books, lecturing and so on.For others it's as if they HAVE to believe that the world doesn't work the way that it does. Witness the recent Mayan end-of-the-world hub-bub....you can guarantee that the majority of the ardent believers will be away off amusing themselves with another conspiracy/end-of-world scenario.
And they cling so hard to all the dubious long-debunked claims so strongly they even include them in their "challenge": Challenge 2012 - Crop Circle Challenge (http://www.cropcirclechallenge.co.uk/challenge-2012)
-
And they cling so hard to all the dubious long-debunked claims so strongly they even include them in their "challenge": Challenge 2012 - Crop Circle Challenge (http://www.cropcirclechallenge.co.uk/challenge-2012)
Now who does that remind us of (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=425)???? At least these guys have published some rules....
-
Though I question the validity of quite a few of those rules. Why does the field have to be so wet?
-
Though I question the validity of quite a few of those rules. Why does the field have to be so wet?
Probably to make sure that they have a decent chance of retaining their £100K! :D
-
And they cling so hard to all the dubious long-debunked claims so strongly they even include them in their "challenge": Challenge 2012 - Crop Circle Challenge (http://www.cropcirclechallenge.co.uk/challenge-2012)
While not as bad as some recent websites linked, ow, gold on purple, ow, my eyes! :o
-
The truth emerges, in which a falling light ruins Neil's first step.
I love this one because it still makes the rounds of conspiracy theorists even after the obvious reference to the "Mr. Gorsky" joke, and the coming-clean of the London studio that made it. After a month of letting it go viral, they posted a page at the original URL that said basically, "Here's who we are, here's how we made it, and please don't take it seriously." The die-hard conspiracy believers keep falling all over themselves trying to show that it's still "somehow" a genuine outtake clip.
"Provenance" is an other concept HBs don't seem to get.
-
Yeah, some of them probably do think Rhode Island is also a hoax.
-
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg)