|
Post by RAF on Jan 30, 2008 8:25:22 GMT -4
Conspiracy theorists don't seem to pay attention to the amount of dust displaced by footsteps. It is wrong to believe that once made, a footprint will remain undisturbed. It's part of the conspiracists misconception about how they think things should be. The footprints are SO defined in the Moons surface that I can see why they wouldn't consider how easily they can be "erased", but ignorance is really no excuse. The answers are available, if one only looks for them.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 30, 2008 17:06:22 GMT -4
He missed the shadows and a possible link to wind and a prop mark but hey ho. If I was contemplating a hoax then I would have the set for astronauts only. Hardly a no brainer. That way only activities by the astronauts are recorded, that is recording fails and successes in experiments without intervention of a crew. To complete it as set pieces with a crew placing items then dusting steps would run all wrong and not be as complete as a full simulation from start to finish for the purposes of recording. But I suppose that will be too far from the convenience to fit a hoax. Yes. It's not just bad astronomy most of the Hoax Believers are guilty of, but also Bad Film-making. Practically every time they explain an "anomaly" as something that would have occurred because the landings were being filmed on a set, what they describe is bass-ackwards to the way any real film would operate (and does operate), on any real set. Not to mention the lame "mistakes" they claim, which would flunk a student film. I mean...who the heck marks the visible side of a prop? But make no mistake; if you _were_ to create the Apollo visual record in a studio, you would do it in a very specific way. Here's the constraints; hours of footage, echoed frequently by still pictures (taken at different angles but of the same event). A need for consistency in placement of scenery and properties, not only that, but props that have a history; a d-bag will be deployed in one shot, discarded in another, visible in the following shots. A need, further, for a consistent back-story to each and every item and motion that appears; why did the astronaut step back, what is the gadget he just hooked up, where is the data from that gadget? The Hoax Believers seem to think you would tackle this shot-by-shot; in addition, film the motion clips in one place, then come back and do the stills as an entirely different set-up, actually compositing many of them after primary shooting was done. This is ridiculous. What you want is the techniques of cinema verité. Set up everything. Rehearse carefully. Then shoot the entire length of each reel as a single take, without stopping, without intruding upon the set with stage hands to move things around. Shoot the stills concurrently; in fact, for the true verité aesthetic, use the actual cameras in the hands of your astronaut-actors. And of course you set this up by building the most functional and real hardware you can (so you can get the camera as close as you want, so the actors can work with the items, so the stuff holds up physically to shooting.) Same for the set; light it the way it lights in the real world. Simulate the actual materials as best you can -- no styrofoam substitutes or plaster-cast footprints allowed. Anything that doesn't look "right," you can palm off as "the Moon really looks like that." Who else is filming there, that is going to contradict you? Of course, in the real world you'd have to recreate not just an environment that would convince the casual and the credulous, but the lunar environment that is understood by common observation and understanding. Which is to say; vacuum, 1/6 gravity (those are the toughies!) Shooting one clip at a time, re-dressing the set between takes, and doing the stills second unit is a continuity nightmare and nothing but a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 30, 2008 18:26:53 GMT -4
Outstanding post, nomuse!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2008 18:32:33 GMT -4
What you want is the techniques of cinema verité.
[cough] Cloverfield [cough]
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 30, 2008 19:16:18 GMT -4
The other thing that strikes me for a set up like that is the back up required to get it right in one go. Given that gear failures should be taken as is and included along with gaffs. Then, gravity and vacuum aside, you have one heck of a crew size and enough of a paper trail to keep most tax auditors happy for life. Personally I think if it was a hoax then someone would have blown the whistle long before now and the ever friendly USSR would have had someone in their pocket with the inside info and spilled the beans anyway.
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Jan 30, 2008 19:49:36 GMT -4
Shooting one clip at a time, re-dressing the set between takes, and doing the stills second unit is a continuity nightmare and nothing but a recipe for disaster. Even more so when you consider that "experts" like Duane Daman conclude that all you would need is a stage 120'x100' to pull it off. Clearly Daman has never worked a stage.....
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 31, 2008 4:07:23 GMT -4
Thinking further then its the signals needed to get to the moon to be sent back. Seeing as it was open to all to receive, amateur and hostile governments alike. So you have all associated transmitted and received signals to deal with through the tracking stations around the world. I believe they were also staffed by nationals of the countries they were located in? I don't think a satellite could act as a relay station to fake a moon base could be achieved? At the very least the gear needed to store and re transmit to introduce the correct delay and to be in the correct position at all times to mimic a base was probably not around. All this in real time from the minute the astronauts were strapped in.
So when someone claims its a set then I have to think that if it was a set then all of the above and requirements of a set and filming schedule and transmitting the signals to back it up is just a bit too far to believe. The hoax is the hoax.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 31, 2008 5:39:02 GMT -4
In a way it is a pity. I'd love to see a hoax believer clever enough to come up with a full and consistent explanation for how things were done. It would be quite an interesting story!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 31, 2008 9:36:07 GMT -4
I don't think a satellite could act as a relay station to fake a moon base could be achieved? At the very least the gear needed to store and re transmit to introduce the correct delay and to be in the correct position at all times to mimic a base was probably not around. A satellite would never work, either in 1969 or today. The only way to have a signal appear to come from the lunar surface is to have the transmitter on the lunar surface. Any satellite will have detectable movement.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 31, 2008 10:37:26 GMT -4
I don't think a satellite could act as a relay station to fake a moon base could be achieved? At the very least the gear needed to store and re transmit to introduce the correct delay and to be in the correct position at all times to mimic a base was probably not around. A satellite would never work, either in 1969 or today. The only way to have a signal appear to come from the lunar surface is to have the transmitter on the lunar surface. Any satellite will have detectable movement. Ah, to expand on my thinking here. Pretty sure during apollo that it was not achievable, thanks. Just trying to think out loud through the process. If for example it was feasible money no object, how big a logistical nightmare it would have been. So when someone says "ah, but they could have had a relay in space etc etc". But not feasible then or now. I started to think how a hoax would try to put it then would it work? Geostationary not possible for obvious reasons. Other orbit sats maybe but they move and then there are the problems of passing the signal off on crosses. That is it would have to be multiple birds in a complex orbit so that they appeared to be crossing the point on the moon where the transmissions are coming from and cope with transmissions from the ground but existing tracking stations might not be able to cope with the satellite movement and timing of the delays etc etc. Just too much of a hurdle even if it was remotely possible.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 31, 2008 11:28:21 GMT -4
Didn't Jarrah White postulate on the old Loose Change board a relay satellite in synchronous orbit smack between the Earth and the Moon relaying fake data to the Earth? It was fun watching that one being ripped apart! Edited to add: Ah! Found it! Jarrah's nonsense starts at post 12 on this page: z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=1410I just wish I had saved his "Polar Orbit" post. It would make a prime exhibit in a Hoax Believer Hall Of Shame. Edited to further add: Oho! It seems that the "Polar Orbit" post is post #28. I still remember how my jaw dropped when I saw his (now redacted) illustration.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 31, 2008 12:15:50 GMT -4
Yeah, since the Moon isn't in a synchronous orbit. He had a wierd setup going, with fake CMs, fake landers, LEO transmitters, relay sats, just a whole fleet of stuff all over the place. We tried to explain that anything in LEO will not support continuous LOS data and comms with a single ground station for hours on end.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 31, 2008 13:23:47 GMT -4
I remember Mike Dinn and some others tried to come up with a scenario for this. These are hard-core space comm and orbital mechanics gurus, and they couldn't do it. Jarrah White certainly isn't.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 31, 2008 14:05:24 GMT -4
It's amazing that on the one hand, HBs postulate communications,electronics and orbital wizardry on an unprecedented scale to support the hoax, and on the other hand they swear up and down that, at the same time, the computing and aerospace expertise to support a manned lunar landing was nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 31, 2008 15:08:36 GMT -4
Who was it that proposed a "chain" of relay satellites in orbit which would hand-off the signal, one to the next, to make it appear that the source was moving? It was probably here, but all the HB's tend to blur together in my mind after a while.
|
|