|
Post by gillianren on Jul 20, 2009 19:59:58 GMT -4
Instead of debating on film, a responsible film maker would do the opposite. Show both arguments and let the viewer decide for him/herself. I disagree. (To quote people, use the little button labeled "quote" in the upper right corner.) Sometimes, there aren't two reasonable sides, as is true here. A reasonable documentary about the Moon landings should not show the hoax-belief side, because it's just wrong. A reasonable documentary about the Holocaust shouldn't show the deniers' side. And if you're making a documentary about something so blatantly obvious, why should you give the side that's impossible equal weight?
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 20:10:16 GMT -4
Reasonably stated. But I am a film maker. And if you look at any great film, it always shows both sides of the coin. Please let us not talk about the Holocaust, but, in most films on the subject manner it does depict the NAZI's beliefs. Without it, you would not have a film.
To respond to the second part of your statement, nothing is blatantly obvious or there would be no conspiracies.
All I am saying is that to be a responsible film maker you must show both sides. Sure, many have done and made millions, Michael Moore is the most successful at it. In my opinion, it does not make it right.
One more thing - we are not on this forum to debate film making. This is a forum about going to the moon. Please keep that in mind. Thank you.
If you want to talk about film making, then hit me with a private message. I'd love to talk about it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2009 20:17:19 GMT -4
One more thing - we are not on this forum to debate film making. This is a forum about going to the moon. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. If you want to talk about film making, then hit me with a private message. I'd love to talk about it. You can also start a thread in the "General Discussion" forum.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 20:21:12 GMT -4
Reasonably stated. But I am a film maker. And if you look at any great film, it always shows both sides of the coin. Please let us not talk about the Holocaust, but, in most films on the subject manner it does depict the NAZI's beliefs. Without it, you would not have a film. To respond to the second part of your statement, nothing is blatantly obvious or there would be no conspiracies. All I am saying is that to be a responsible film maker you must show both sides. Sure, many have done and made millions, Michael Moore is the most successful at it. In my opinion, it does make it right. One more thing - we are not on this forum to debate film making. This is a forum about going to the moon. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. If you want to talk about film making, then hit me with a private message. I'd love to talk about it. You can start such a discussion in the General Discussion area. We've had many threads discussing our favourite music, films etc. though it has been awhile. I even started a thread about whats in my junk drawer! For abstract stuff, check out the "Inexplicable" thread. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=521We have a member who is also an amateur filmmaker - Reynoldbot - but he hasn't been on here for about a year. I also like to talk about art - I love to paint and draw. Check out my art thread - apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=481In short, you can talk about almost anything on this forum - just start the thread in the appropriate area...
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 20:25:26 GMT -4
Thanks Bob B.
But I think if making a film maker thread on these boards is reasonable, then it should stick to the questions about the Apollo. Making a film in 1969... to that end. Not about film making in general. There are other places to do that, I am not here on this board for that reason. I am here about the conspiracy dudes... well, you've read the posts.
But thank you again! You people here are super cool!
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 20:30:37 GMT -4
Ginnie;
Who are you? You are about as whacky as I am. Kudoos to you. What the h*** is in your sock drawer?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 20, 2009 20:40:59 GMT -4
nothing is blatantly obvious or there would be no conspiracies. This does not follow. Conspiracy theories do not have to be based on anything rational and the proponents of them are very good at denying the blatantly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 20:48:56 GMT -4
Ginnie; Who are you? You are about as whacky as I am. Kudoos to you. What the h*** is in your sock drawer? Thanks for the compliment. Junk drawer - take a look for yourself - i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/junk.jpgI must admit that lately I haven't posted many detailed posts regarding the Apollo missions. Since I'm no expert, I have to do a lot of research to do that. When I first joined I'd take photos (to disprove the parallel shadows theory or light reflection), make charts, and have about four books in my lap about space and such, plus gathering info off the web. I've been so lazy about doing this recently because we've covered just about every hoax claim in the last two years. It would be much easier for me to just point anyone to an existing thread. But so as to not hijack this thread I must post something relevant to the topic at hand... I can see that on the web HB's are just claiming the LRO pictures are photoshopped and all that nonsense... I don't think anything will ever convince them of the real deal. In fact I don't think they actually want to know the truth. They are quite comfortable where they are.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2009 20:59:17 GMT -4
In a way, I don't get why so many people think the LRO pictures will be the "end of the conspiracy theory". I mean, if NASA releases pictures of the landing site, to a conspiracy theorist's mind that's just a lame attempt by a lying organisation to show that it wasn't faked. And it's Photoshopped too, of course.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 21:00:48 GMT -4
nothing is blatantly obvious or there would be no conspiracies. This does not follow. Conspiracy theories do not have to be based on anything rational and the proponents of them are very good at denying the blatantly obvious. I don't agree, sorry. I find the CT's to be based on and perpetuated on ignorance. There is nothing blatantly obvious about man going to the moon, when you stare at the rear of the coin. And these peeps feed on it. Look at these actually proposed theories: How can you not admit that even JW has interesting facts. Hey, the guy did some research and that it was people feed off of - how it is presented! One percent fact mixed with 99 percent misinformation. That is not film making.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 21, 2009 0:25:49 GMT -4
I don't agree, sorry. I find the CT's to be based on and perpetuated on ignorance. There is nothing blatantly obvious about man going to the moon, when you stare at the rear of the coin. And these peeps feed on it. Look at these actually proposed theories: How can you not admit that even JW has interesting facts. Hey, the guy did some research and that it was people feed off of - how it is presented! One percent fact mixed with 99 percent misinformation. That is not film making. You know, we've dealt with these people a long time. Ignorance only holds up as an explanation for so long. You think no one's told Jarrah White (no, he doesn't have interesting facts; that requires having facts) that he's wrong? He gets told all the time. However, we're all paid NASA disinformation agents (really; we do get accused of that), so we're just perpetrating the lie.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 21, 2009 4:10:45 GMT -4
Thanks all. Good points. You've heard this story somewhere before? I swear this really happened to me. Did you tell it somewhere else on the web perhaps? I wasn't suggesting anything one way or the other by that statement, it's just tickled the back of my brain if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 14:54:21 GMT -4
I don't agree, sorry. I find the CT's to be based on and perpetuated on ignorance. There is nothing blatantly obvious about man going to the moon, when you stare at the rear of the coin. And these peeps feed on it. Look at these actually proposed theories: How can you not admit that even JW has interesting facts. Hey, the guy did some research and that it was people feed off of - how it is presented! One percent fact mixed with 99 percent misinformation. That is not film making. You know, we've dealt with these people a long time. Ignorance only holds up as an explanation for so long. You think no one's told Jarrah White (no, he doesn't have interesting facts; that requires having facts) that he's wrong? He gets told all the time. However, we're all paid NASA disinformation agents (really; we do get accused of that), so we're just perpetrating the lie. And the HB's arguments are entirely in the negative, they pick at oddities in the photgraphs to prove they were faked, they don't offer evidence of where or when they were faked. They say moon rocks were 'made in ovens' but they never publish a schematic of those ovens, or even a description of the process. They sneer about 'film sets' but how many of them are out scouring Nevada for some piece of left behind detritus. If they believe what they are saying then the HB's are incredibly lazy, if they don't, well you know what that makes them...
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 21, 2009 23:17:45 GMT -4
You know, we've dealt with these people a long time. Ignorance only holds up as an explanation for so long. You think no one's told Jarrah White (no, he doesn't have interesting facts; that requires having facts) that he's wrong? He gets told all the time. However, we're all paid NASA disinformation agents (really; we do get accused of that), so we're just perpetrating the lie. And the HB's arguments are entirely in the negative, they pick at oddities in the photgraphs to prove they were faked, they don't offer evidence of where or when they were faked. They say moon rocks were 'made in ovens' but they never publish a schematic of those ovens, or even a description of the process. They sneer about 'film sets' but how many of them are out scouring Nevada for some piece of left behind detritus. If they believe what they are saying then the HB's are incredibly lazy, if they don't, well you know what that makes them... My point, well made. Film makers should be responsible - thank you for this post.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 22, 2009 14:32:21 GMT -4
My point, well made. Film makers should be responsible - thank you for this post. Which means not bothering to present "both sides" when there's only one. A good documentary about Apollo talks about Apollo. It doesn't waste its time debunking that idiot Jack White. Incidentally, I watched a documentary about the Zapruder film the other day that didn't seem to take a side. It was basically, "Look. Here's the film. Here's how we scanned it to get a better picture. Here's the picture over and over again."
|
|