|
Post by nomuse on Oct 5, 2006 5:37:03 GMT -4
I think "Nuclear Test Band" would be a cool name for a retro-pop group.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 14, 2006 17:59:10 GMT -4
I notice his website is subtitled "A Different Way of Thinking." No comment.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 11, 2007 16:25:20 GMT -4
The size of some of those worms, on the other hand.... Good thing there aren't intestinal parasites on Mars!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 11, 2007 15:00:18 GMT -4
And he gave the world bunnies on mars.
It's such a nice image, you know. Fluffy white bunnies bouncing around the green swards under the blue skies, snacking on the plentiful blueberries, maybe stopping every now and then to wipe off the solar panels of a mars rover with a couple of shakes of their fluffy tails.
Oh, and getting run over by said rover. Let's pass quickly over that part!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 11, 2006 17:01:05 GMT -4
"Shuttles to the Moon and maybe Jupiter and Mars, Maybe someday soon they'll be as plentiful as cars. Unfortunately, those tiles, Can not take, the re-entry..."
(Apologies to Bart Howard)
|
|
|
Crater
Sept 14, 2006 17:57:00 GMT -4
Post by nomuse on Sept 14, 2006 17:57:00 GMT -4
In an earlier draft he was "THX1138." Still that way in the ghost-written novel adaption.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 19, 2006 17:38:05 GMT -4
Am I the only one who is catching a whiff of IDW here? Maybe Kilter and he were roommates. The arrogance, the carefully unspecified degrees and credentials, the imaginary physics...
Whoops. Sorry, drifting towards ad hom there. Still, I am particularly liking the way he manages to light a scene of two astronauts and some lunar surface by using one source set at some arbitrarily close distance, and explains how this can possibly work by claiming that optics is so vastly complicated that no poster but he has any chance of understanding it.
My photometrics handbook disagrees.
Look, the film world is a place where things need to move quick and be right the first time. Even more so than stage, film lighting must be a world where empiricism rules. You don't want to be playing around with advanced concepts in optics for every shot; you want to send out that best boy electrician, run the stingers, and get those lights up so they can roll film.
So it rings far from true to me that a team capable of hoaxing the entire Apollo record would take risks and waste time being clever. I've said this before; get me one 4K HMI that I can set up at the far end of the sound stage and I'm happy. If you really must, a couple of inkies with extra-extra-extra diffusion (to wash out those tell-tale shadows) just to bring out a detail or two that might otherwise get missed.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 11, 2006 17:34:12 GMT -4
Oh, please tell me someone is saving some of these for posterior...for posterity!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 11, 2006 17:08:09 GMT -4
What I find interesting is the last couple of internet polls....at places like Unexplained Mysteries, even...seem to show the majority of posters accepting the Moon Landings as real.
Of course, in the die-hard CT circles they are never wrong...they just decide the question was never really that important.. You will never hear from them "Yes, I was wrong about Apollo" -- what you will hear is "Whatever, who cares. You NASA shills are all liars anyhow. Now, about those levies being blown up..."
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 5, 2006 12:59:59 GMT -4
I think I'd like a clearer idea of who came up with the claims addressed.
By simply placing the claims on the site (after a brief disclaimer), then proceeding to treat them logically, you may be inadvertently elevating them to the status of widely held general misconceptions. I would prefer to see them more in their historical context; that claims like the "Coke Bottle" one came out decades after Apollo, came from a specific person (with videos to sell), and has been since picked up by various other hoax believers.
Starting out with "here is the coke bottle story" makes it sound as if reputable scientists and even persons working in the space sciences have had serious and ongoing discussions about this idea. It gives it a false legitimacy.
Perhaps a larger disclaimer; perhaps, that, the majority of claims and the basis of misunderstanding that allows the gullible to fail for these claims is a failure to understand basic science.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 2, 2006 17:06:48 GMT -4
When I go into work today, I will be dealing with theatrical fixtures based around tungsten-halogen lamps. The filament in most of these glows at 3200 K, and the wall temperature of the quartz-glass envelope is at 600' C in normal operation. Yet, I work with my bare hands within a few inches of these things.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 2, 2006 6:44:33 GMT -4
Heh gwiz. That was my first thought, too....how hot is it inside each cylinder of an internal combustion engine?
But how can you reason with a man who, after (self-described) twenty years of exhaustive study of Apollo has failed to find out how the lunar rover was packaged...
(Actually, a better if more subtle point is, why don't the engines themselves melt from that horrible temperature! Hrm. Something keeps those pipes and valves from melting. And they are a lot closer to the flame than the astronauts.....)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 5, 2006 16:58:42 GMT -4
At the risk of... is Jack White legally blind? Any five-year old kid who can do the "find six differences between these photos" could find as many in this set with only a moment's inspection. Precision? Young's feet are a good six inches off. His body is twisted left, and bent further over. The flag is at a different angle -- it looks as it the photographer has moved to his right a little. Dish antenna, and a number of other visual details on the spacecraft, do not match up between the shots. Jack tries to fake it a little by using a small photograph and large lines, but they do NOT line up the way he seems to think they do. At least, not to any degree of "unerring" precision.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 5, 2006 15:48:32 GMT -4
Lionking, what postbaguk means about the wire is that, if you look at the inline gif he posted in this thread, the astronaut is visibly pitching and rolling as he jumps. There is no wire rig that I know of capable of allowing those motions. A wire, you see, can not attach to one's center of mass. There's a little problem of there being a body in the way (and in the astronaut's case, a suit and pack as well). The common wire systems are all _external_ to the center of mass of the person being lifted. A single wire gives you the ability to twirl (it supports you from above your center of mass). A double wire can give you ability to somersault (it supports on either side of your center of mass). You can not twirl _and_ somersault on the same rig; you'd be either crossing wires, or trying to climb a wire. (Well, okay, you could...double wire to waist picks, running up to bridle rig picked on center with a pivot. But you would still move IN PLANE of the first support; it would not allow you to tip forward and sideways _and_ twist at the same time.)
Here's the eyeball check. Go up to that gif again. Find ANY spot on the astronaut that is A) above his center of mass, and B) is not in movement relative to his flight path. There is none. It simply isn't mechanically possible to put a stiff suspension (aka wire or wires) on John Young and recreate that motion.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 9, 2006 17:56:51 GMT -4
There are threads for "The most ridiculous conspiracy theories." And believe you me, we've seen some! This is a thread about the Apollo program, and conspiracies directly relating to it. If you can't follow that much you have no business posting on internet forums.
|
|