|
Post by mndwrp on Jul 7, 2006 10:54:45 GMT -4
hi guys im happy to see that there is some interest after all ! ;D as far as the actual project goes i havent had time to start anything concrete yet (i just bought a new house and am working long hours on a feature film..) i did, however, start gathering hirez pictures from the different apollo missions (the hirez hasselblad scans at apolloarchive.com are amazing!) im getting the hirezest cleanest pictures available to be able to go in and out of the pictures in great detail when explaining things like the crosshaires and shadows .. im also getting all the "bad" pictures of overexposed landscapes and accidental shutter releases just to show that they didnt take all perfect pictures .... so, slowly but surely, the project will go ahead .. but it wont be done overnight since i want it to be good ill keep you guys informed of the progress
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2006 11:45:25 GMT -4
... my idea would be to make such a film in the exact same format (we might have to dumb down the real science a bit) with narrator, but the goal would be to debunk most of the moon landing claims and try to bring some credible proof ...in an entertaining way A simple and memorable way to debunk the no-stars-in-photos claim might be to hammer the 30,000-plus figure I've used here: www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=102903#post102903(Post No. 11 if you get lost. You may gain by reading the posts above it too, because they are about the Fox TV programme in which Aulis were quoted.) It should be easy to illustrate that 30,000 is a BIG number in an entertaining way. You're welcome to use that idea any way you see fit -- I make no claims on it. Besides, you could also illustrate it in a way that laypeople with cameras could replicate, by taking a properly -exposed shot of the moon (which is just a rock in the sun) using the Sunny-16 rule (1/ISO @ f16). That shot will show no stars. Then take a properly exposed shot of the stars around the moon which will completely wash out the moon (and maybe completely fog the frame unless you have great optics). But you get the general idea...
|
|
Eddie Hitler
Mercury
Edward "Eddie" Elizabeth Hitler (at right)
Posts: 23
|
Post by Eddie Hitler on Oct 28, 2006 9:56:47 GMT -4
What an outstanding website. I laughed. Talk about debunking debunkers. Long live Armstrong!!
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 23, 2007 14:49:23 GMT -4
Has anything happened with this project? I'm a filmmaker and have been thinking about doing just this type of thing. I'm new here -- first post.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 23, 2007 17:33:52 GMT -4
Talk to Svector in the main moon hoax thread. He has produced a number of short videos that he has published on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 23, 2007 22:58:55 GMT -4
I'm still slowly (note this word very carefully) thinking up and writting down ideas for one too. It's evolving slowly. Oh, that remionds me, Jay, you still know any Apollo era engineers who would be interested in speaking on the LM abilities?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 23, 2007 23:37:33 GMT -4
Most people I know are on the CM side. I'll see if I still have Frank O'Brien's contact info. He's a DFA/DFM guy, but he might help us find some of the design engineers.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 24, 2007 2:32:47 GMT -4
Most people I know are on the CM side. I'll see if I still have Frank O'Brien's contact info. He's a DFA/DFM guy, but he might help us find some of the design engineers. Cool. While I'd like to get organised enough to do something by the end of then year, at least with a basic outline and who can be in it (depends on how much I have to pay for some) knowing my speed it'll be longer. Having the Apollo 17 DVD's helps, means that I have more footage to comb through and add in, like Jack's spectacular fall that ended up with him being dubbed "twinkle toes" by the capcom, especially if I can con someone in the know into telling people that it's not possible with a rig.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 25, 2007 9:16:49 GMT -4
...Jack's spectacular fall that ended up with him being dubbed "twinkle toes" by the capcom... The Twinkletoes tumble is one of the best Apollo 17 falls, but must rate a close second-best or first-equal to Jack's more spectacular tumble while trying to help Gene extract the core sample. First off, from a debunking point of view, there's the sheer difficulty of getting that core sample out of the ground (how could a robot have done it?), just like happened on Apollo 15, and the difficulty of operating the jack due to their one-sixth weight. Then there's the wonderful fall, with Jack booting the drill-stem rack into the "air" so that it glides slowly up and down again as his legs quickly flail. And finally there's Gene's later "Freudian slip" which would "prove" to any hoax-believer that the whole thing must have been filmed in a studio with some sort of magical fly-rig: Cernan and Schmitt are trying to extract the core sample. Schmitt loses his balance and spins to the ground. With legs flailing, he kicks the drill-stem rack on the way down.121:01:11 Cernan: (Both laughing) Okay, okay, okay. [Cernan - "This part -- where Jack spins around and falls [bad word deleted]-over teakettle -- was the funniest thing in the world."]See? They weren't "in the world," they were on the moon, as we are led to believe by the long, unedited TV transmission showing pans over large areas of lunar surface that are lit by a single light, minus any shadows cast by that fly-rig overhead. The "Twinkletoes" dialogue: Apollo 17 - EVA-2 - Station 3, Ballet Crater - Jack Schmitt gives the crater its name Spacecraft Films' Apollo 17 DVD No. 4 - EVA-2 - Station 3 - 20:09 and 25:50 144:50:46 Parker: Okay. We're ready now for your pan and don't forget your scoop. 144:50:52 Schmitt: I won't...Aaaahh! (Pause) [Jack has knocked the SCB over, scattering full sample bags. He drops to his hands and knees, facing upslope, gets the SCB standing upright, retrieves the sample bags, and stows them in the SCB without getting up.] 144:51:05 Schmitt: You don't mind a little dirt here and there, do you, gang? 144:51:16 Parker: No. [Jack leans back to get his PLSS over his heels and kicks upright. He makes it, but drops the SCB in the process. He goes to one knee to retrieve it but stumbles and falls on his chest. He gets up successfully and goes to the scoop.] 144:51:46 Cernan: Oh, dadgummit! (Pause) Well... [From later evidence, Gene is having trouble re-attaching the rake to the extension handle. Meanwhile, Jack's unused sample bags have fallen off his camera again.] 144:51:53 Parker: Hey, Gene, would you go over and help Twinkletoes, please? [Jack drops the SCB on the ground.]
A little later: 144:56:23 Parker: And be advised that the switchboard here at MSC (Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center) has been lit up by calls from the Houston Ballet Foundation requesting your services for next season. 144:56:34 Schmitt: I should hope so. 144:56:39 ... [On camera, Jack is going for the gnomon. In response to Bob's 'Ballet' comment, he does two, big, one-footed hops on his right leg, with his left leg extended up and back, flexed at the knee. He is on the outer slope of the crater, hopping toward the rim. After the second hop, he loses his balance and falls on his hands and knees. Clearly, he is playing. Fendell pans away.]144:56:46 Schmitt (Asking Bob about his ballet style): How's that? Note that without the help of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, it would be easy to miss that it was Cernan who said "dadgummit." Apollo-Nut's Heaven must surely be watching those DVD's on a big-screen TV with a laptop on one's lap with the appropriate part of the ALSJ on-screen. [If anybody can do that, please don't tell me. Not having either, I don't want to know. ] Check out the Apollo Astronauts - Joking Around thread at BAUT for more delightful bits to watch out for on the Apollo 17 DVDs.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 26, 2007 17:50:37 GMT -4
Apollo-Nut's Heaven must surely be watching those DVD's on a big-screen TV with a laptop on one's lap with the appropriate part of the ALSJ on-screen.I would, and have followed the dialogue for 15 by reading the ALSJ with it, but unfortunately my computer is set up so that the 29" wide screen is over my shoulder. Can't watch them both at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 27, 2007 21:02:22 GMT -4
Perhaps this could be a collective effort? I can write, shoot, edit. We could pick topics, produce a segment and use the same narrator to glue it together. Just a thought. That internets tube thing would make it fairly easy to collaborate.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 9:17:49 GMT -4
I wonder if taking a different angle on this wouldn't have some merit. We're always struggling to prove again and again and again that HB claims are nonsense. We are battling people who are either uneducated or delusional. Perhaps it would be more useful to do a video about HBs.
A video using humor to show that you have to be stupid or paranoid to be a hoax believer might be another way to attack the problem.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 6, 2007 13:00:53 GMT -4
Taking the low road is risky. Yes, most of the hoax proponents are woefully underprepared, and many of them go to great lengths to hide their unpreparedness from the reader. But that is merely the reason why they're wrong. The important condition still remains that they are wrong.
Now on matters of opinion or interpretation it can be helpful to look at the general character of the people offering an opinion. Opinions aren't facts, but ideally they're based on fact. And if one's pattern of opinions reveals a bias or trend, then it can be shown to a viewer and the viewer allowed to decide whether some person's opinion is morely likely based on a pessimistic or paranoid worldview or upon a sober examination of fact. Sometimes a horse laugh is indeed worth a thousand syllogisms.
But when the argument is over facts themselves -- even wrongly believed ones -- then the discussion ought to stay centered on facts. If you style this as a debate rather than a discussion, then you have to realize that having the facts on your side doesn't automatically mean winning the debate. How you approach and present those facts is meaningful.
The danger of a ridiculous approach is the likelihood it will be perceived as mean-spirited and derogatory. The conspiracists themselves, who are already in a paranoid mind-set, will be able to use that as ammunition to justify their paranoia. If you really are out to get them, they're not really paranoid.
You might lose points also with your potential allies, who might want to distance themselves from mudslinging while still agreeing with your overall aim. I think we're all secretly proud of Buzz Aldrin for giving Bart Sibrel what he deserves, but in truth only someone like Buzz could get away with that. You can only take the low road if people will forgive you for it.
The fence-sitters judge very carefully on presentation. If you ridicule people, the fence-sitters are bound to think you're just out to get people, not bring the universe back into balance.
People who are convinced by a debunking will naturally conclude that the hoax proponents are evil or stupid or both, but it's not necessary to draw that (or a similar) conclusion in order to reject the conspiracy theory.
Finally, where facts are concerned proving someone is dumb doesn't prove he's wrong. It commits at least the fallacies of ad hominem and ad bacculum.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 16:26:53 GMT -4
Then perhaps a more serious, balanced approach about the whole HB phenomenon? I'm looking for some different way to contribute to the cause.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Nov 23, 2007 5:49:32 GMT -4
It's been quite some time since I joined here and expressed interest in such a project, (a little space company got a big contract and changed my focus for a while) But I'm glad to see the idea has not died away completely. Especially since I've learned of the newest incarnations of such nitwittery, The Insidious Secret Space Program. (apparently going on since the early 60's, but I'll spare you the details of my sordid web-slumming for the moment)
So, I too, am still enamored by this idea, and want to give it some more thought and discussion. My notion leans toward walking some younger HBs through some simple, hands on type experiments that allow them to prove for themselves the realities of Apollo, and the value and processes of critical thinking.
As to what I could possibly bring to such an endeavor, I'm an illustrator and space artist with some animation skills, drop me a note and I'll send you a link.
Got a lot of reading to do around this site to get myself caught up. Nice to be back.
|
|