|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 11, 2009 7:32:37 GMT -4
Just to add to my point above, I work for a company that has an engineering firm contracted out to build us some hardware. I have sat through meeting after meeting where we have told them what we need and they have told us what they would have to build to achieve that. If we make suggestions that won't be compatible with our stated goals they tell us and correct it. They don't just build blindly to a drawing we give them. Similarly, if they give us something that doesn't conform to what we've told them we need then we go back to them and demand an explanation. Our system is nothing more complex than a point-of-care blood testing device. Can anyone seriously propose that something as complex as an Apollo spacecraft can be built without huge input from the engineering firms contracted to build it?
The companies selected to build the Apollo hardware were selected because they had the engineering, design and fabrication expertise to make the systems a reality. They didn't do this by blindly building whatever they were told to build and not being fully aware at every stage of what their system would and would not do. To suggest that they wouldn't know if they were building a manned or unmanned craft is simply ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by MarioCRO on Aug 14, 2009 18:45:37 GMT -4
even if you took todays film making technology to do it there would still be mistakes. let's use transformers or star trek for example. their special effects look believable and there are hundreds of mistakes in continuity, physics and bunch of other things. these films are good for entertainment but it could never fool the entire scientific community into believing that this was actually recorded in space.
these films are less than two hours long and there are hundreds of mistakes in them.
When you look at the Apollo images and videos you will find nothing strange (if you don't take HB arguments into consideration).
Do you really think that NASA had a guy on the set whose job was to mark every rock in every picture with a letter? Do you think that people who "faked this" would be so stupid to take pictures of a rock with a letter C on it and release it to the public?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 15, 2009 3:06:20 GMT -4
Do you really think that NASA had a guy on the set whose job was to mark every rock in every picture with a letter? Do you think that people who "faked this" would be so stupid to take pictures of a rock with a letter C on it and release it to the public? And therein lies the classic contradiction ... NASA had so much advanced (secret) technology and so many highly intelligent people that they were able to build a hoax that has fooled the world and scientific community for over four decades, but also had so much stupidity that ridiculous giveaways (like the C rock) are all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 15, 2009 3:44:13 GMT -4
And therein lies the classic contradiction ... NASA had so much advanced (secret) technology and so many highly intelligent people that they were able to build a hoax that has fooled the world and scientific community for over four decades, but also had so much stupidity that ridiculous giveaways (like the C rock) are all over the place. You can download for yourself a completely raw scan of one of the contact print negatives made from the original AS16_AS16-107-17446 photo taken on the moon which does not show the "C" at all. The "C" is a piece of lint or possibly a metal shaving which is partially folded on top of itself along the upper half of the letter "C". I now have this photo on my web page. See my signature for the link. You won't like my web page since I work with the raw scans and then proceed to debunk some of the HB claims.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 15, 2009 4:40:32 GMT -4
Have to say the C rock is a bit of a non starter, 26 rocks on the set? If, and a very big hooooooge if, you (well, me) were going to label rocks for a set, a-z is not exactly a goer. R0000001 might be (or should that be R0000003), but think this has cropped up before (JayUtah mentioned?? standing by to be corrected) and its more likely that IF its a set then its a large box marked "Rocks, Moon, medium, Grey, Non dusted".
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 15, 2009 8:49:34 GMT -4
I just wonder how hard would it have been for someone to find those older prints of the 'C' rock? A genuine skeptic would surely want to be sure their evidence was what it appeared to be. The HB's on the other hand just grab hold and refuse to let go. Also seriously can anyone imagine this incredibly complex conspiracy resorting to lettering rocks? Isn't the usual Hollywood technique to lay props out and photograph the set to ensure continuity?
|
|
|
Post by MarioCRO on Aug 15, 2009 9:01:08 GMT -4
You can download for yourself a completely raw scan of one of the contact print negatives made from the original AS16_AS16-107-17446 photo taken on the moon which does not show the "C" at all. The "C" is a piece of lint or possibly a metal shaving which is partially folded on top of itself along the upper half of the letter "C". I now have this photo on my web page. See my signature for the link. You won't like my web page since I work with the raw scans and then proceed to debunk some of the HB claims. we all know there is no C in the photo but these guys think that this is proof of a hoax. apparently NASA airbrushed the photo.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 15, 2009 9:02:34 GMT -4
I just wonder how hard would it have been for someone to find those older prints of the 'C' rock? A genuine skeptic would surely want to be sure their evidence was what it appeared to be. The HB's on the other hand just grab hold and refuse to let go. Also seriously can anyone imagine this incredibly complex conspiracy resorting to lettering rocks? Isn't the usual Hollywood technique to lay props out and photograph the set to ensure continuity? yes it is. the set masters take hundreds photos for continuity. I have never once seen a piece of a set labeled. Sets are usually built the day of/night before the shoot, except on large features. I just finished helping a friend on the set of her first feature and the sets were being built as we were shooting scenes in a different part of the studio.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 15, 2009 10:10:24 GMT -4
Hmm, so there's more going to be more than 26 props so labelling them with single letters makes no sense logically. Hollywood doesn't label props that way so it makes no procedurally(thanks for confirming that I had remembered that right Gonehollywood). There are older prints without the 'C' so its refuted physically. I'm not sure there's anyway it could actually be more wrong!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 15, 2009 10:28:39 GMT -4
So we have my system I use in work that is not used in film but no where near A-Z. Film is a different kettle of fish and completely different to mine and miles away from A-Z. Bet A-Z is not even used in the kids section in the library. So where would you use such a limited system? Apart from in hoax theories? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 15, 2009 11:55:51 GMT -4
Hmm, so there's more going to be more than 26 props so labelling them with single letters makes no sense logically. Hollywood doesn't label props that way so it makes no procedurally(thanks for confirming that I had remembered that right Gonehollywood). There are older prints without the 'C' so its refuted physically. I'm not sure there's anyway it could actually be more wrong! More than a million props would have to have been used. Let me explain: Take a look at this ONE PICTURE alone (provided by gonetoplaid - thank you gonetoplaid) from a fabulous piece of work being done: www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD_highres_AS11/roll_40/5910_cropped_color-balanced_vignetting_levels_curves.jpgZoom in on the lunar surface, anywhere in the pic. How many individual rocks do you see in this one picture alone. Can you even imagine trying to count them all? Much less label them. "Let's see, I'll mark this one with an "A", that one with a "B" and this one here with a "C". Hmm (scratches head), what happens when I get to "Z"?" Think about that. Oh brother........ Continuity is king, there is no continuity possible in this photo. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate this. And this is just one of thousands of pictures taken. Props indeed.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Aug 15, 2009 14:09:40 GMT -4
Easy A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1 ...
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 15, 2009 14:24:06 GMT -4
Its amazing that people believe that the rock was stamped with a letter "C". The letter doesn't even follow the underlying surface contours of the rock because in fact the letter simply is a piece of lint or possibly a metal shaving which got sandwiched between the original Apollo Ektachrome frame and the overlying film used to create a duplicated image via the contact printing method.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 15, 2009 14:25:26 GMT -4
Hmm, so there's more going to be more than 26 props... Well, technically, the "C" rock would be set dressing, not a prop, since a performer never picks it up.
|
|