|
Post by nomuse on Jul 2, 2007 18:44:30 GMT -4
Awww. I wanted to see you hand-make several scales of LEGO!
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jul 2, 2007 18:50:01 GMT -4
There are several things you haven't refuted well. Having the attitude that you have refuted them doesn't fool anybody. I can list a couple hundred HB positions which have been successfully refuted by the scientific community. Can you list one NASA position which has been successfully and conclusively refuted by a hoax believer?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 18:50:38 GMT -4
I'd like you to answer one simple question for us, Rocky:
Why couldn't Apollo land astronauts on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jul 2, 2007 19:00:20 GMT -4
Why are you referencing a web site which apparently has no ethical problem presenting Photoshopped Apollo photos as authentic?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 19:03:57 GMT -4
Can you list one NASA position which has been successfully and conclusively refuted by a hoax believer?
He's tried to list several, but he won't listen to anyone who can spot the problem with the rebuttal -- he just disregards them as paid informants. And his notions of successful and conclusive incorporate the purely speculative; he believes one merely has to come up with any hypothetical alternative and one has thereby demolished NASA's claim, whether the alternative has any practical chance of success or not.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 19:10:45 GMT -4
Why are you referencing a web site which apparently has no ethical problem presenting Photoshopped Apollo photos as authentic? Actually that is Jim Scotti's web site. Jim is a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona and a moon hoax debunker (he is one of the good guys). Jim is also an artist. I'm sure he added the stars to that photo as a work of art and is in no way attempting to pass it off as authentic.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 19:13:19 GMT -4
Jim Scott's on our side. pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/ The existence on his site of photographs that may have been altered is not de facto evidence he intends them to pass as the originals. Deep-linking to a photo without its context is not a good thing. I have several annotated and altered photographs on Clavius that are quite honest and proper in their context, but taken out of that context and put in another might cause trouble. Since Jim has lectured against the hoax theories for a number of years, it would be wise to give him the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 19:29:51 GMT -4
In-camera effects are coming back into vogue. Among the cinematographers I have consulted, the push seems to be to restore the art to a photographical one rather than simply moving digital art done by poorly-paid offshore sweatshops.
There is also a practical advantage. Composite shots aren't generally available until late in the production schedule. That has two disadvantages: the shot must be planned out in detail prior to principal photography so that little can vary according to the director's and actors' inspiration; and errors visible only in the composite can often be difficult and expensive to correct (e.g., lighting).
Process shots and practical shots can be viewed on the playback immediately in their largely-final form. Everyone crowds around the playback cart and makes suggestions. Within the bounds of the practical set you can adjust for spontaneity.
And since all the action takes place under the same physical and lighting conditions (as it should if the illusion were instead real) all that will be faithfully reproduced down to the tiniest detail. Nothing aggravates an editor or effects supervisor more than a shot that seemed good until it was integrated and composited, whereupon some tiny detail fails to mesh.
Even in today's digital filmmaking world there is still considerable advantage to walking out of the location knowing that you have the shot in the can.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jul 2, 2007 19:41:20 GMT -4
Aha, so he is. That was a name I wasn't familiar with. Still, it seems like an odd choice for a moon hoax debunker to post Apollo photos on his site with stars added. Especially since the whole stars/no stars issue has been one of the HB hallmarks for so many years. [note to self: context is a good thing]
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 2, 2007 20:12:29 GMT -4
The lack of billowing behind the Lunar Rover could be simulated on Earth. The Rover would have to be in an enlosed environment or building completely filled with Helium. Dust particles and dirt sinks faster in a pure Helium environment than it does in normal air. The United States with its vast storages of Helium at the time and connections with Hollywood would have been the only country in the world to pull off something of this magnitude.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 2, 2007 20:14:49 GMT -4
Of course, you have evidence to show that dust falling in helium mimics dust falling in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 2, 2007 20:17:53 GMT -4
Yup. And as a side benefit, if you are doing significant RP you've got something for the actors to look at. Nothing harder than acting to the blue screen. But as you said, it does push the second unit's schedule WAY up -- they've got to be outputting finished footage before the main unit starts to shoot.
I expect as systems get better at automating match moves and traveling mats and so forth, it's going to be increasingly possible to send a near-finished comp into the viewfinder during the actual shooting. There may come a time soon where in addition to best boy et al there will be a team of digital wranglers right there on the sound stage. As the electricians hang up another inky to solve a problem, the digital lighting person will be dropping a virtual source into the virtual set to match.
(But I'm empty theorizing...I know some film people but I've never been near a film in the making.)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 20:29:28 GMT -4
The lack of billowing behind the Lunar Rover could be simulated on Earth. The Rover would have to be in an enlosed environment or building completely filled with Helium. Dust particles and dirt sinks faster in a pure Helium environment than it does in normal air. The United States with its vast storages of Helium at the time and connections with Hollywood would have been the only country in the world to pull off something of this magnitude. Dust will settle faster in helium because of its lower density, but it will not eliminate aerosolation in its entirety. This also wouldn't eliminate the problem of dust being perturbed by currents in the gas. The moving rover would generate turbulence in the atmosphere that would then be detected in the motion of the dust.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 2, 2007 20:34:20 GMT -4
Not to mention that to fill a stuido the size they would have needed would have taken 5 million cubic metres of Helium.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jul 2, 2007 20:40:16 GMT -4
The lack of billowing behind the Lunar Rover could be simulated on Earth. ... I believe that's pretty much what JayUtah meant when he wrote on the same page as your post about Rocky: ...he believes one merely has to come up with any hypothetical alternative and one has thereby demolished NASA's claim... Even if what you claim would work (which I doubt - Helium is still a gas) and if it were possible to do (which I doubt - size of room required and amount of Helium) - you don't have any evidence that it was actually done! Otherwise, it's just an idea (a bad one), which proves nothing. (...and this does not even cover whether you have evidence that Apollo itself could not have been done as generally understood.)
|
|