|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 23, 2009 5:53:05 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." Thank you for the post. Well done. I'll explain a bit my thought process on this subject. The Apollo missions are history. To do a documentary on the missions would only show one side, of course, because it is HISTORY. Now let's that break that down to the "debunk." Please, I am going to ramble a bit, but follow this logic: When I was a teenager I had a class assignment to turn in. It was assigned that I would write about George Washington. Okay, we all know about the HISTORY of GW. So I asked my father about this assignment. Luckily for me he had book that was published, in about 1810 as I recall, about the life of GW. I read that book. One of the claims of the Author was that GW only became President because he was the leader of the Army and he sent that Army to Phily when these meetings were taking place about who would govern the USA. Basically, the Author claimed that GW said that he was going to be President or the Army would be sent in and he forcefully take over. Shocking. Who knew? Is this true? Okay, this is a conspiracy for sure. Flash forward to today. I want to make a documentary about this subject matter. Never heard of before. I have never found another source reference that states this to this day. As a film maker, I would have to show the following: Washington as history knows him and Washington as I believe he is. Present evidence pro and con to this fact. Show the audience that my facts make sense and back it up. Let the audience know that GW was not the man everyone thought he was. Present it carefully and get a reaction out of them, but show them both sides of the tale and let them decide for themselves. In reality, I am not saying that I believe this Author. But was written in 1810 or there abouts. But I would have to prove that history is false by being a responsible film maker and show the "truth" as the public knows it, and then "debunking" the the facts of the truth. The CT's do not this. Anywhere. They only point out what they deem is obvious. Not the counter-point argument, they don't "de-bunk" anything. I have been on these websites and studied their material. None of them do it. Not a single one of them. That is what I mean and I hope you all understand this. By the way, I read the Apollo 11 transcripts, no way, in my opinion, could this have faked. I'm now reading the Apollo 7 transcripts - - very entertaining. Now, there's a story.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 23, 2009 13:47:49 GMT -4
No. No, it isn't. Five minutes of real research would show it to be just as ludicrous as any other conspiracy theory out there. The army was nowhere near Philadelphia, not least because it had been disbanded, at least of the most part, years earlier. Washington didn't even want to be President; he took the job because they convinced him that no one else could. To present this evidence as anything remotely resembling possible is just as irresponsible as presenting the Moon hoax stuff. There aren't two sides here, and to present it as though there are is bad documentary-making.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 23, 2009 22:31:34 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, gonehollywood, and I hope you stick around a bit.
Because, personally, I find the hoax believer's misperceptions about the movie business fully as laughable as their misperceptions about basic science.
I'm only a theater tech, though. Most of what I know about the movies comes from watching the commentaries on DVD's! So I would be very interested to see if someone with experience in the business finds the "giant stage lights" and "talkative stage hands" and so forth of Jack White (as a for-instance) as hilarious as I do.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 24, 2009 1:22:15 GMT -4
I would be very interested to see if someone with experience in the business finds the "giant stage lights" and "talkative stage hands" and so forth of Jack White (as a for-instance) as hilarious as I do. To say nothing of prop rocks with conspicuous alphabetical markings.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 24, 2009 15:13:16 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, gonehollywood, and I hope you stick around a bit. Because, personally, I find the hoax believer's misperceptions about the movie business fully as laughable as their misperceptions about basic science. I'm only a theater tech, though. Most of what I know about the movies comes from watching the commentaries on DVD's! So I would be very interested to see if someone with experience in the business finds the "giant stage lights" and "talkative stage hands" and so forth of Jack White (as a for-instance) as hilarious as I do. Thanks. I intend to. A lot of things I hear these people saying out there doesn't translate most of the time to the technologies that we had back then. Then to build a soundstage of something of that magnitude would have required, as you can imagine, quite a bit of talent. And as claims are made, it came from Hollywood. That in itself is laughable, nobody keeps quiet about anything in this town. You can't even wipe your nose without the rumor mill flying. Unless, of course, all the stage hands, carpenters, union reps, etc.. have all mysteriously disappeared. I think I'll look into that someday, when i have hundred of hours on my hands to go through all those records of stage crew members vanishing or dying in 1970. wink.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 24, 2009 23:50:14 GMT -4
I'm actually thinking the hoax believers may have an idea with suggesting Kubrick. See, how they describe how it was done has auteur all over it. Instead of using tested and familiar techniques, the hoax film-makers seemed to want to re-invent the wheel. Well, you wouldn't get that with a bunch of careful dour men sensitive to the magnitude of what they were attempting. But you would get that with a playful, egotistical director who was more interested in his own art than in making the hoax work.
But this thought only leads to another. Of course there would be some dour government supervisors, likely military men, overseeing the construction of the hoax film. I'm imagining the Apollo version of General Groves, dealing with someone even more flamboyant and wacky and "Hi, I'm a giant security risk!" than Oppenheimer.
Just some rambling thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 25, 2009 1:07:22 GMT -4
Apollo is just too complex, too many people intimately involved, too many details, it's just inconceivable that they could keep so many millions (billions?) of man hours absolutely secret...to say nothing of the deception of the vast majority of that involved population.
Meanwhile, the worldwide scientific and engineering population has no issues with the history as stated...
There's no way a "limited few" knew of the hoax. The rest were designing moonships. Where were they deceived in their professional education and training?
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 25, 2009 1:39:06 GMT -4
Apollo is just too complex, too many people intimately involved, too many details, it's just inconceivable that they could keep so many millions (billions?) of man hours absolutely secret...to say nothing of the deception of the vast majority of that involved population. Meanwhile, the worldwide scientific and engineering population has no issues with the history as stated... There's no way a "limited few" knew of the hoax. The rest were designing moonships. Where were they deceived in their professional education and training? Hey scooter - yep. The problem with these HB's is that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND what it takes to build a set of that magnitude. Hey, I have an idea, let's call the Army Corps of Engineers - they could do it. And they could, rather quickly and efficiently. But, not when it comes to making a movie set. There are so many differences between what they do (and well, I might add) and what truly is needed for filming a movie. Way different.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2009 17:29:45 GMT -4
Okay, I just found this one, somewhat NSFW. www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/How vexing is it that Cracked regularly provides intelligent summaries of CT thinking? This is one that I think a lot of fence-sitters ignore, given how accurate the "who'd have to be lying" lists are.
|
|
|
Post by andreas on Oct 19, 2009 15:51:47 GMT -4
Why the hoax theory? Were the pictures available beforehand? I think I have an interesting answer to both of these two questions, which are linked together. About one year ago I saw a suspicious picture of Apollo 11 what provoked me to go further in depth of this case. I still consider the Apollo 11 landing possible due to several serious indications (e.g. Lunar Laser Ranging, Solar Wind Collection Experiment, Lunar Stones), but I am strongly convinced that the pictures originate from a studio on Earth. The clue is not to take a magnifying glass and investigate on pixels but rather to lean back and have a look at the shape of the landing site which ends abruptly in a very short distance. In a more or less flat area – as the sea of tranquillity – the visibility on the Moon would be more than 2km (more than one mile), and not only about 50m as it can be seen the most obvious on the following picture: www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5928.jpgThe close and low horizon which is far below a natural horizon is even better visible on the “live video” which was broadcasted on the occasion of the first Moon landing in 1969. This would mean that both, the pictures and the video had been prepared beforehand. I have set up a detailed argumentation in a paper which can be found under www.apollophotos.ch, then click to the English Version. PS: I deal only with Apollo 11. I would like to have this case solved first.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 19, 2009 16:31:50 GMT -4
The clue is not to take a magnifying glass and investigate on pixels but rather to lean back and have a look at the shape of the landing site which ends abruptly in a very short distance. In a more or less flat area – as the sea of tranquillity – the visibility on the Moon would be more than 2km (more than one mile), and not only about 50m as it can be seen the most obvious on the following picture: www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5928.jpgThe ground was not as flat as you think - the terrain was undulating. What you see in the referenced photo is the crest of a rise.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2009 17:03:10 GMT -4
In a more or less flat area – as the sea of tranquillity...What is your evidence that the Sea of Tranquility was that flat and that your estimate of visibility is accurate for the landing site?
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Oct 19, 2009 17:37:42 GMT -4
May be the circumference has anything to do with it? (Earth: 12756 km, Moon 3475 km).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 19, 2009 23:09:08 GMT -4
On your site you say: With the knowledge that all these are studio pictures, all detail discussions about unnatural illumination, the waving flag, missing traces from the rocket engine and other possible inconsistencies are now superfluous and clarified in all.So its a done deal then? Looks like you've made up your mind... BTW here are some horizons from other Apollo missions: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Oct 20, 2009 3:47:24 GMT -4
You are mistaking clarity with distance. Judging distance on the moon is difficult because of the lack of atmosphere. The way objects blur and fade here on earth is a big part of how we percieve distance, and it just doesn't happen on the moon. Because thinks look crisper the brain logs them as being closer and smaller than they actually are. There's a well documented incident, the "house sized boulder" incident, which demonstrates this well.
|
|