|
Post by gonehollywood on Oct 1, 2009 1:29:28 GMT -4
On the subject of Jarrah... I was asked a question of which I am unsure of the answer. We're all aware of the copyright violations Jarrah has committed in the making of his videos, the use of footage without permission; but what about the audio? He has used popular music on a number of occasions; is that fair usage or is it another violation? His videos are being investigated already. I assure you. I wonder who has a senior contact at the RIAA
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 28, 2009 19:51:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 15, 2009 13:11:48 GMT -4
More to the point. IF you are using Cubrick, when did he do it and where? He hardly ever left the UK and woudln't fly. He was involved full time with other projects at the time of Apollo 11. Or is his entire movie career part of the hoax? Thanks for pointing this out captainswoop. It is a very important note. The filming of "A Clockwork Orange" took a year (just the shoot), not to mention the year or more it took in the development stage. He must have started that project around 1968-1969. Shooting began late 1969 or early 1970. Plus he was heavy involved with Dolby at the time to make this a Dolby sound film using wireless microphones - which was very advanced for the times. Yep, a true visionary was he. Unless he had a clone... before I ramble on, thanks again for pointing this out.
|
|
|
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 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 gonehollywood on Aug 14, 2009 17:32:07 GMT -4
Hey Echelon! Gonehollywood is talking about you! Thanks LunarOrbit, my IP has been duly logged. Hold on a minute, there is someone at my door........................
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 14, 2009 17:21:41 GMT -4
Thanks for the response, and of course on top of the film you have to add moon rocks, radio signals, the Saturn/Apollo hardware, which had to be real or the engineers buildng it would have noticed, and a shopping list of other items and its just a question of whether its impossible squared or cubed. Yes, you are right. All part of the set that would have to be built. Which is what I mean by enormous costs. Pow! To the moon, Alice!
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 14, 2009 16:13:33 GMT -4
Question for Gonehollywood. At the bottom of page 23 Johnsmith proposed this: This kicked off a discussion that spread over several pages about how the entire video that the hammer-feather drop is a part of could have been 'manufactured'. I was wondering if you would care to take a look and give your opinion on the ideas that Johnsmith threw out, and immediately disavowed? Dear blackstar: To go into that much detail would take mounds of pages. But I will state that the technology that was available at the time, could not have been used to pull this off. Today, it is a very different world. So, lets take a look of several things I have issues with: 1. How? What medium was used? It is has been stated that for a couple of million dollars, this could be done. Far from true. Estimates are that Kubrick's Space Odyssey came in around $11 million in 1968. I have heard claims that it cost closer to $25 mil. Okay, so let's pick the $11 million number. Kubrick was a genius, granted. Most people do not know that he also served as the special photographic effects designer & special photographic effects director on that film. The man was ahead of his time and he used all the technological film making advances available. Not to burst anyone's bubble - because I consider that film to be one of the great masterpieces of my generation. But have you seen the movie as of late, and compared it to the special effects movies of today? Look closely at it, not for entertainment value, but look at set construction (not very expensive), continuity, etc. There it is for all to see. There are a lot of issues with that film. It is, in fact, a film. The editing is bad. Fade to black followed by straight cuts, bad dissolves, etc.. - WATCH THE MOVIE. Kubrick used SuperPanavison 70 technology, which with it's optical lens was state of the art for special effects at the time. And as you watch you the film, you can tell it is a film. Further, let's take a look at Front Screen Projection technology: What is it? It's not a simple understanding, but I'll try: It is for producing a composite optical image, including a projector for projecting a portion of the composite image from a film transparency, a camera, a directionally reflective screen for reflecting the projected portion of the composite image and a beam splitter for centering the projected portion in the field of view of the camera. Forget the components that are involved, they are too many to go into here. But I will tell you that Front Screen Technology wasn't really even perfected until around 1989-1990. Why you might ask? In 1989 (or thereabouts) is when movie technologists finally caught on that it needed mirrors which could be moved behind the strobe relative to the film transparency to collect light generated by the strobe and direct it toward the film transparency. Before this time, it wasn't done. Further, computers in 1968 to control the sophistication that would have been needed to pull off a "fake moon landing" didn't exist either. Sure, NASA had access to all the top computers, if they didn't they wouldn't have made the flight. But, let's take a look from a film maker's world. A microcomputer for monitoring the key pad, the light tunnel closure means, position indication signals and the timing means, and for transmitting actuation signals to the electro-mechanical means, and actuating the firing means; whereby, upon command to enter a preview mode, the microprocessor actuates the electro-mechanical means opening the light tunnel closure means, turns on the preview lamp, times the continuous length of time for which the preview lamp is on and further actuates the electro-mechanical means to close the light tunnel closure means and extinguishes the preview lamp should the length of time the preview lamp is on exceed a preselected maximum; and further whereby, upon command to enter a picture taking mode, the microprocessor transmits actuation signals to the electro-mechanical means to close the light tunnel closure means, monitors the position indication signals of the light tunnel closure means and actuates the means for firing the strobes upon indication of closure of the light tunnel closure means. Shall I go on? Blah, Blah. These microprocessors did not exist back then, if they did, film makers certainly did not have access to them. Further, if the Apollo landings were to be faked, someone had to process the film. Who? I don't think many labs existed back then to correctly process this film. Technicolor or Metrocolor - perhaps. Which leads me to another a point I have made before: The cost to pull something like this off would be gigantic, even by utilizing todays technology. It would be easier, but it would still cost a sh** load of money. Not to mention the continuity errors that would somehow have to be fixed. Hmm - where would you fix continuity errors? In editing, best you can. But you can't fix certain continuity errors in editing. And I as I have pointed out - there are no continuity errors in any of the Apollo mission films I have seen. In, fact, it quite the opposite. If any one has ever been to a movie set before, they know that things are shot out of sequence, with Professional Actors, who sometimes, have many takes. Even then, the will are shot are very small segments at a time. By 1/8 to 3/8 of page in most cases, before we cut and reverse and blah blah blah. So, read the Apollo transcripts. Tell me how was that edited together when it was one continuous dialog for days and days and days and days. Moving on: Set construction. I won't go back into detail on this one, but it is one of my earlier posts. It was not possible to build a set in 1968 to recreate everything that would have been needed to "fake the moon landings" as a film without an incredible effort. And, do not get me wrong, by incredible effort - I really mean impossible. It would have taken the best of the best of the best - all of them working together on this. And the cost? Then we have the tight-lips. I have also stated that everyone knows Hollywood is a place where lips and mouths are kept closed. No one in this town gives up secrets. Do they? I can expand more on this later, but I think that anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge on film making would understand that this undertaking would not have been possible, especially in 1968. And even today, using the technology we'd have available, it would still cost a fortune. Movies are made for profit, let's not forget that point either. Seriously, I want anyone here to check out the best films (from a technological standpoint) from 1968 through 1975 and compare them with the Apollo landing footage. Only your eyes will know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 14, 2009 1:58:04 GMT -4
The Ech*lon (misspelled by intent - they are watching - replace * with e) monitoring system was started in the United Kingdom. Menwith Hill, or so I've heard. This is big, still exists today. Don't Twitter, you are all being monitored. :>)
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 14, 2009 1:15:39 GMT -4
Sorry I've been gone. Working on a set is sometimes grueling and I've spending 2 hours a day commuting.
So let's take a look at this video. I'll admit I do not have the hi-res version, so my analysis is limited to the low-res one.
I think one point that has not been addressed is the technology that exisited in those days, and by that I mean editing/filming technologies. I have watched this video about a dozen times and no continuity errors are in it. Now before anyone says anything, let me explain - I was a Continuity Supervisor for ten years before I became a Director/Writer. Surely, that accounts for something. And no - I do not see one continuity error in this film, and I believe, given the technology available at the time, I could spot them easily.
Secondly, I believe this "effect" could be done easily today using motion capture systems. However, as a Board Member of the Motion Capture Society, I can say that this technology did not exist back then. Not even the government had this level of sophistication in those days.
Before I ruffle feathers and some of you point out that perhaps motion capture systems did exist at that time, I will reply true. But they were 2D systems back then and very easily to tell the difference on film.
Third, no one has addressed the RF frequency issue to "fake" this video. RF positioning today are of higher frequency which allow devices greater precision than older RF technologies. The speed of light is 30 centimeters per nanosecond (someone on this forum can correct me on this, I'm not a scientist), so a 10 gigahertz RF signal enables an accuracy of about 3 centimeters. By measuring amplitude to a quarter wavelength, it is possible to improve the resolution down to about 8 mm.
Optical systems, frequencies of 50 gigahertz or higher would be needed, which did not exist back then.
So my question: How does one purport how this was filmed and edited, given the systems/technology of the time?
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 8, 2009 0:03:05 GMT -4
Hi gonehollywood, I've been here for a couple of years, although for most of that time I was inactive. But even in my relatively short active time, I have noticed that people tend to go into full-scale attack mode when they hear anything that even sounds like it might suggest support for a hoax. You seem to have gotten into a disagreement with a number of people (including me) about the scope of the laws of physics. I would argue that the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere, and there is overwhelming evidence for this. From a practical/engineering perspective though, the particular physical laws and properties that matter for a given application could very well be different in different places. For example, in flight through atmosphere, things like fluid dynamics are really important, whereas for flight outside the atmosphere, it is completely irrelevant. So if that's what you mean, then I can understand where you are coming from, although it seems to me that in many ways, the physics of spaceflight could actually be simpler (on earth, you have to worry about gravity and the atmosphere, in space, all you have to worry about is gravity). But, back to the original point, I think it might be useful to point out again that in your very first post, you stated that you don't believe the Apollo landings were faked, but that you were trying to understand how other people could hold this belief. In light of the disagreements about differences between heavenly and earthly physics, I think this original point may have been forgotten, so I thought I'd bring it up. I can't say what anyone other than myself will do (and most of the time, I can't even say that), but perhaps this reminder will help bring a more positive tone to this thread. We'll see. Cheers, Hb Thanks for the post. It is true. I don't believe in this HB thing. I am trying to get some "feeling" as to what makes these people "tick." And yet, the scientific community is very sensitive to this, for good reason. Research on a successful film is hard. Believe me, I know. So the slams are okay, in a way. I wasn't trying to insult anyone here, just trying to learn. Characters in a film have to be portrayed accurately or the film is dismissed. All sides of the argument have to be portrayed accurately or I would be irresponsible and my movies would not hit the heart of both sides. Because we all have heart, no matter what the belief. In the end, the members of this web site will see this movie in about two years from now, and everyone on here will understand. But for now, I must just thank them all, they are unknowing how they helped. But when they see the film, and believe me, they will, they will know who I am and what I am trying to accomplish. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 7, 2009 23:15:44 GMT -4
Hey, Gonehollywood? Will you tell me what films you've made? So I can avoid them? You have seen them all - to be sure. I'll bet enjoyed them. They are films, entertaining and that's all that matters. The next film I am working on... is well... something all of you will respect and embrace. Several on this board know what it is, but I can not discuss it, yet. But to be sure, it deals with HB'ers and the scientific community. And it gives the Scientists the respect they deserve, unlike what some get on this board. And gillianren, thank you for all your great posts. I have read them all. And my hat is off to you, as well as several others, who respect I have come to know. Best to all of you - keep up the great debate. I have learned much from all you.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 6, 2009 3:42:54 GMT -4
Well, I have been having fun searching out more moon landing hoax sites. Why is it that the vast majority of hoax sites and videos I come across all have speakers and narrators who have strong British accents? It it because there is some sort of "conspiracy" mental gene defect which is pervasive amongst those of Anglo-Saxon descent? Seriously, I really am trying to ask a serious question here. Consider this; perhaps people in the USA are more inclined to believe people with foreign accents. just ask anyone who goes to the USA with a French accent - pickup magnet? American's love the foreign accent, and will believe what those have to say. Maybe because their own government, with proper USA accents have been lying to them for years. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 6, 2009 3:35:51 GMT -4
On the one assumption: the idea that physical laws are universal is one of the basic philosophies of science. Unless given very good reason, we assume the same laws that can be tested in a lab are operating in the inaccessible and mostly invisible depths of a distant star. And, largely, the complex and detailed predictions and models we make based on those assumptions match the observations we make; indirect but extremely strong evidence that the rules don't magically change once you leave Earth. On the other, more important, and UNSAID assumption; most people do not understand the physical laws that govern their immediate environment. What we have is a gut-level, partly instinctive and partly learned familiarity with what happens within a fairly limited scope of conditions. And we don't even have access, in most of our lives, to the underlying physics. For instance; the laws of motion, which include such non-intuitive concepts as constant motion without an opposing force, are almost never laid bare within our direct experience. Most objects; rolling balls, flying arrows, whatever, that we encounter have mechanical friction and air resistance that makes their observed behavior very much unlike the Newtonian ideal. I was willing to take your original remark, GoneHollywood, as intended to describe that we have a gut instinct towards the environments we have directly experienced. My own touchstone would be rock climbing; there are specifics of how you stay on the face and move upwards that look odd and feel odd and appear counter-intuitive to those who aren't experienced climbers. How we climb appears a violation of how things "should" work, but is in reality obeying the actual physics of how things DO work. Similarly, there are two good ways of looking at and understanding the movements of an astronaut on the Moon; to understand the underlying physical principles in a deep enough way to circumvent the hard-wired instincts of a life in 1G and under 1 atmosphere of pressure, or to have been an astronaut. There is also a bad way to try to understand the movements of an astronaut on the Moon, and that is by applying only that terrestrial instinct, without intellectual mediation, and remarking on what "looks wrong" or doesn't "look wrong." To combine these; the effort of science is to find the underlying principles, and not be mislead by local effects. Such misleading tacks are like, for instance, trying to understand a star as an object that burns (without grasping that an oxygen atmosphere is a local effect). Understanding, and controlling for, the various other effects that surround the principle you are trying to investigate is one of the most difficult yet necessary things you must do to make proper experiments or observations. Nomuse: Great post. I can't understand how we, as rock climbers or scuba divers give way to experience that life on earth isn't so simple. Yet our instincts tell us such things. You can read my posts and tell that I am far, admittedly, from a scientist. But in space makes me wonder if our laws of physics are real to the universe. Sure, we can see a burning star and equivalent it to our understanding. And our math can "prove" such things. But that is here on Earth. All i have been trying to say is that, with our "applied' knowledge, it is accepted. But, really, who knows what goes on in space.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Aug 6, 2009 3:13:44 GMT -4
No fight here. I am a film maker. You are a PADI open water diver. I am a certified PADI Master Diver Trainer. Do you what that means? Okay so you have an argument for this. Again, no fight. I respect your posts. But when you state that you are an an expert in physics, I have to challenge that, because this post that you wrote still does NOT state the physics of the universe. So unless you are from some alien world who actually understands the physics of the universe, then I say you are grounded to EARTH physics, which you may be an expert in. Who knows? And because you are only an OPEN WATER DIVER, I say you no idea how physics applies to you under water, as I do. So get real. So your argument is that you are better suited to understand the continuity of physics in an environment astronomically distant from Earth, because you have potentially spent more time under water? Everywhere we have visited, in person and robotically, and observed from great distances via astronomy, implies that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Is the discrepancy here perhaps that you have a different definition of "the laws of physics" in mind than most of the rest of the forum? No. You are incorrect. I am saying that outside our little world, we have NO UNDERSTANDING of physics. We only know what we know here ON EARTH. It is very hard to explain to people who take what we know HERE ON EARTH as rock solid science for the rest of the universe. We simply don't know. We think we do, but come on, we really do not.
|
|