Brilliant debunk video of hoax claims - HBs take note (if you can)

[dwight]

This is a new video which does an amazing job of explaining why the TV technology of the day was not up to faking a moon trip:

http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof

Enjoy!

[raven]

Interesting. I've wondered something similar, though I wasn't certain because I am somewhat ignorant of the video technology of the time.
Of course, some conspiracy theorists claim it was done with wire work as opposed to slow motion, but this has problems of its own.

[Echnaton]

That was great.  His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.

[Sus_pilot]

That was great.  His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.

Of course, someone at Gizmodo thought it was on anti-gay comment... sheesh.

The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste.  In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping. All that work and here we sit. It's like Columbus coming back to Spain with a few samples, a couple of drawings and saying "Don't bother going back - all I found was wilderness..."

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

The YouTube video of this has had it's comments disabled, which is a shame, as I'd like to see what the stupidheads of YouTube would make of it.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Are there any HB comebacks to this?

[LunarOrbit]

Are there any HB comebacks to this?

There were a few comments by hoax believers on the Gizmodo article, but not as many as there might have been a few years ago.

[Mag40]

The YouTube video of this has had it's comments disabled, which is a shame, as I'd like to see what the stupidheads of YouTube would make of it.

If I was a betting man.....I'd say that would be why they have been disabled.

[ka9q]

A wonderful debunk from somebody who obviously knows cinematography. But it could have been even stronger with just a little more physics. For example, he examines the notion that the Apollo 11 video at 10 fps was produced by playing back 30 fps film at 1/3 speed.

The actual ratio to simulate free fall in 1/6 g, is sqrt(6) = 2.45:1 or 1:0.408, but any change in speed messes up non-free-fall motions such as that of astronauts' limbs; you can't get them both right at the same time. Nor does scaling the film rate scale up the astronauts' muscles as would be required for them to move as they do.

His point about how phony government conspiracies like Apollo push aside the real ones was marvelous.

[ka9q]

The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste.  In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping.

If you are referring to his "global dick-wagging contest" line, I didn't interpret it quite that way. When he says it, he's showing mostly military weaponry, not NASA hardware, though one shot is of a B-52 carrying the X-15.

But we have to be honest here; Apollo was part of a global dick-wagging contest between the USA and the USSR, even if we'd like to think it was something much more. Sometimes it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And so it all came to an abrupt end, surprising only NASA and its supporters like us.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I particularly liked this comment, which I believe concisely sums up the HBs:

The problem was never incontrovertible evidence. Anyone with a firm grasp of logic and observation can figure out the truth. The people who choose not to believe are rejecting proof. They are making a decision that is in every way completely illogical. Offering more proof, or a better crafted argument is not going to make a person of this mindset change their mind, because the very foundation of their mindset is the rejection of proof. If you tell someone that two and two equals four, and they respond that no, it does not, you can try to demonstrate to them that two apples and two apples together equal four apples. If they reject that demonstration, showing them two oranges and two oranges added together equal four oranges will not change anything.

They are fundamentally broken human beings.

[Sus_pilot]

The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste.  In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping.

If you are referring to his "global dick-wagging contest" line, I didn't interpret it quite that way. When he says it, he's showing mostly military weaponry, not NASA hardware, though one shot is of a B-52 carrying the X-15.

But we have to be honest here; Apollo was part of a global dick-wagging contest between the USA and the USSR, even if we'd like to think it was something much more. Sometimes it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And so it all came to an abrupt end, surprising only NASA and its supporters like us.

That didn't bother me because its fundamentally true. It's the notion that it was a waste to go to the moon. No, as I said, the waste was to go and then stop exploring.

We are becoming Homer's lotus eaters.

[Echnaton]

That was great.  His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.

Of course, someone at Gizmodo thought it was on anti-gay comment... sheesh.

Oh well, there is one in every crowd.  The Homo comment was a clever double entendre. 

[Echnaton]

We are becoming Homer's lotus eaters.

If I didn't feel so good I might object to that statement. 

[Peter B]

I note that about 3:15 in we get a quick scroll of Dave Cosnette's UFOs Aliens website. Oh, the nostalgia...

But yes, an excellent video. Thanks Dwight.

ETA: Ooh! I've just reached Earth (see left).