|
Project
Dec 19, 2010 10:30:20 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 19, 2010 10:30:20 GMT -4
I'm starting to work on a project I have been meaning to do for a while, and was wanting some suggestions. What are some Hoax claims that people can think of that haven't been been overly shredded and done to death and that might be fun to take to pieces in a film?
|
|
|
Project
Dec 19, 2010 12:06:41 GMT -4
Post by capricorn1 on Dec 19, 2010 12:06:41 GMT -4
I'm starting to work on a project I have been meaning to do for a while, and was wanting some suggestions. What are some Hoax claims that people can think of that haven't been been overly shredded and done to death and that might be fun to take to pieces in a film? The show stopper claims? That would be the "swarms of radiation"......the VA belts and inadequate shielding..... and the environmental claims of too hot and cold. A big photography analysis in visual would be good. One thing I would do personally if I had the resources....would be a like for like debunk of the two hoax films.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 19, 2010 12:37:19 GMT -4
Post by chew on Dec 19, 2010 12:37:19 GMT -4
-The behavior of dust in a vacuum and in an atmosphere. If possible, this should include blowing dust in a vacuum over a simulated LM footpad to see if dust should have accumulated on the footpad.
-Recreate Rene's leaf blower experiment but in an area with a few inches of dirt over the bedrock.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 19, 2010 13:42:44 GMT -4
Post by Glom on Dec 19, 2010 13:42:44 GMT -4
Radiation is the trickier one because it requires some expertise to debunk.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 19, 2010 17:00:25 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2010 17:00:25 GMT -4
I don't think radiation would be fun to watch in a film, either. Things like dust, you can film responses to in the comfort of your own home. Radiation gets trickier.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 20, 2010 9:02:23 GMT -4
Post by ineluki on Dec 20, 2010 9:02:23 GMT -4
What are some Hoax claims that people can think of that haven't been been overly shredded and done to death Quite frankly, nothing... ALL the claims of the hoaxers have been done to death.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 20, 2010 18:28:12 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Dec 20, 2010 18:28:12 GMT -4
I would like to see someone debunk the radiation argument using film, but sadly you need some very specialist equipment to do it - it becomes a pile of mathematics, heavy physics and data processing otherwise. Micrometeroids would be a good one - but again, how do you simulate it without access to some pretty hefty equipment?
Otherwise, I cannot think of anything that can be put into a film that has not already been covered by the Mythbusters and Jay Windley. Sadly, clueless wonders cannot understand the absurdity of Rene and Kaysing, so I'd think carefully about the return on it. Unless it is purely a personal challenge.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 2:07:43 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Dec 21, 2010 2:07:43 GMT -4
HBs are really an unimaginative lot so there may not be much to add in an effort to debunk them. But there is always something about Apollo that needs a further explanation and will address the HBs claim as well. One of the more interesting recent aspects has been the LM construction and how well it was suited for the lunar environment. With that you could address a host of HB claims.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 2:19:10 GMT -4
Post by Obviousman on Dec 21, 2010 2:19:10 GMT -4
How about showing the actual physics of a dust ejected from a wheel? You can't do low gravity, but you can demonstrate in an atmosphere and in a vacuum.
Actually, if you could find a financial sponsor, you could take an appropriate vacuum chamber in an aircraft that will conduct low G parabolas.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 2:20:59 GMT -4
Post by Obviousman on Dec 21, 2010 2:20:59 GMT -4
I think radiation is a good one, not because you can demonstrate it, but because you can consult several experts and get clear, unequivocal answers.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 14:58:07 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2010 14:58:07 GMT -4
But the whole point is to make a film anyone would care enough to watch. If it can't be demonstrated, it doesn't make for interesting film. Yes, the radiation claim is silly and easily disproven by anyone willing to put a little study into it, but if the point is "something that hasn't been done to death and would make interesting film," radiation is the wrong answer.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 15:14:56 GMT -4
Post by chew on Dec 21, 2010 15:14:56 GMT -4
Another vacuum one:
Film a Hasselblad camera in a vacuum exposed to radiant heat. Insert temperature probes on the inside and on the outside of the camera with the temperature displays on the outside visible to the video camera so we can see how the "scorching heat of the Sun in a vacuum" will melt the film.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 16:55:16 GMT -4
Post by inconceivable on Dec 21, 2010 16:55:16 GMT -4
Try to account for all 30 boilerplate vehicles to discount that they were used for acquiring footage and responsible for some of the Apollo lunar voyages. Also, try to account for all 23 full-scale mockups. Also. that the TTS wasn't used to fake communications of Apollo.
|
|
|
Project
Dec 21, 2010 19:31:17 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Dec 21, 2010 19:31:17 GMT -4
Try to account for all 30 boilerplate vehicles to discount that they were used for acquiring footage and responsible for some of the Apollo lunar voyages. Also, try to account for all 23 full-scale mockups. Also. that the TTS wasn't used to fake communications of Apollo. You are asking to have a negative proven. That can't be done, but as a conspirisist, you wouldn't care about that. Besides it would make a boring film to recount the entire record of each boilerplate. Instead, why don't you tell us exactly which mockups and boilerplates could have been convincingly used in filming a hoax. They were not all alike. After you make a claim, the debunking can start.
|
|