|
Post by ineluki on Feb 4, 2011 10:02:32 GMT -4
There are some really stupid claims in his email. Has any one come across anything dumber? It seems to be about average for the typical moonlandingdenying idiot.
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Feb 4, 2011 15:00:37 GMT -4
On further reflection, the best way to handle it is to keep this on a collegial level. Since you have to work with the guy, do everything you can to ignore that aspect of him. If you get into a long running argument with him it will spill into your work relationship. At that point others in your office will know and all they will see that you two are feuding over what is essentially trivial personal issues. There is no sense in damaging your position at work or getting into a situation where you dislike going to work because of some crackpot. In short, don't give him any room to bring you down. Politely ask him not to bring up the subject again and not to send you personal emails. Do not engage in any discussion over why you are making the request, just as politely as possible reiterate your desire to only have work related contact. Ultimately setting limits on the relationship is the only way to get his respect. Take notes of what you have said. If he does not respect your wishes and if his behavior in any way interferes with your life at work, take it to your employers human resources office.
|
|
|
Post by ravell on Mar 12, 2011 4:28:50 GMT -4
I ended up on this site through a web search, and this thread caught my eye with the plain stupidity and ignorance of Supermeerkat's coworker, and I couldn't resist registering for the site and writing down what I'd reply. I've adressed each point in turn: - kubrick released 2001:a space odyseyIndeed, in 1968 Stanley Kubrick did release the landmark movie. However I do not see what that has to do with the suggestion that the moon landings were hoaxed? Science fiction movies have been made before then and since of varying production, script and image qualities. - nasa need to make a show out of the moon landing to draw public attention and funding, so they change suit/ship designs to be similar to kubricksNASA relied on public funding for a large part and as such needed to keep congress happy. I'm not going to discuss the criteria congress used to establish the funding allocated to NASA, but the look of the spacecraft certainly wasn't part of that assessment. Furthermore, I don't see any similarity of note between the fictional space craft and any actual space vehicles. - kubrick shoots the moon landing in the same set a year later, after meetings with nasaI assume this refers to the set used by Kubrick at Stage H at Shepperton Studios, England where the Tycho crater excavation scene was shot? If so that would seem a poor choice to film, as examination of Apollo 11 footage shows no similarity to the scene in 2001 so the set would have to have been completely rebuilt for just that purpose, which makes the use of the same studio rather irrelevant. Also, the set would then have to be rebuilt for each subsequent lunar landing, as each was at a different lunar location and had very different vistas. - nasa mysteriously let kubrick use a million dollar camera on his next film, shot entirely in candlelight, there is only 1 of this camera in the world..Again I have to make an assumption that this concerns the three Zeiss lenses obtained by the production team which were made to NASA specification. They were certainly remarkable, having one of the largest apertures ever produced at F/0.7, but while certainly expensive the million dollar claim is utterly unsubstantiated. And we're obviously talking about 3 lenses, not one entire camera, so it's another example of poor research. I'd like to add the counter question, why would NASA have bothered to commission those lenses if they didn't intend to use them for the actual missions anyway? Did NASA commission them specifically to film the moon hoax? If so, why were the lenses so badly suited for film use and needing extensive modification to be usable as explained here? www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm- in The Shining, the boys jumper has apollo 11 written on it, and the symbol of two children holding hands = the nasa gemini projectCorrect, but what does that prove? Kubrick was a fan of spaceflight and enjoyed including a reference here of there in his movies? Many directors do this with favorite subjects, and many people are fans of space exploration. - theres proof the president agreed to shoot the fake moon landing, "just in case" the shuttle didnt make it, after billions of dollars and the countries international image and morale on the line, they just couldnt afford to NOT show the footageI'm yet to see this proof and can't comment on it's validity until I do. Any reference to this claim without the actual proof being spoken of is pure conjecture. -russia WAS waaaayyy ahead of USA in terms of space travel, usa needed to pull something out the bag to intimidate russia and prove their power, after they got their asses handed to them all over the place by the USSR already..The US was never far behind the Soviet Union, if they were behind at all. The US had a much more open policy with the space program, allowing the public to stay well informed on what was happening, in contrast the polit bureau which sanctioned and financed the Soviet space programs insisted no announcements would be made till after the fact, allowing the Russians to take far greater risks. The US missed the opportunity to launch the first satellite thanks to a number of booster failures and technical problems, additionally the US could have had the first man in space if they had taken the greater risk of sending up Alan Shepherd instead of the Chimpanzee test subject Ham as a final check. -photographic experts are said to have laughed at the footage, taking minuites to say, theres no f**king way that is realAgain, this is a completely unsubstantiated claim. I have never known a photographic expert to comment in such a way to NASA photography. Critique certainly, for methods used, crops made, exposures done and so on, but never ridiculed any images as fakes. -the footage was shot over 2hrs.. during that time the temperature on the moon would go from -50degrees, to over 100degrees, that change in temperature would completely destroy the filmThe temperature swing between the sunlit parts of the moon and the shade is actually much greater than that, regardless of whether the Fahrenheit or Celsius scale is used, which is not mentioned. But while this would indeed melt, or at least spoil the emulsion on exposed film, the film wasn't kept out in the open. It was housed in specially modified Hasselblad 500EL/M cameras. Since the moon exists in a vacuum, only heat transfer through radiation or direct contact conduction can occur, within the insulated camera body, the film would undergo very little temperature change thanks to this so would maintain a temperature close to what it began at inside the LM, where air could provide a more effective means of heat conduction to the film. -the footprints were calculated to be way too deep for the actual calculated weight and gravityAnother unsubstantiated claim. Calculated by who? Using what data and what were the results? Lunar dust has a consistency very different from most earth based materials due to the high silica content and lack of erosion to the particles. www.moonminer.com/Lunar_regolith.html-the detail on the suits would mean they had to use a flash to even get CLOSE to that kind of detail, but you can see there is no flash in the helmet reflectionAgain, I have to make an assumption about the claim here. This seems to refer to the images showing astronauts or the LM and rover better lit on their shadow side than the shadows on the ground. The lunar surface has an albedo of 7%, which means 7% of light that strikes the surface, is reflected back up. This explains why the shadows on the surface are pitch black, while anything raised above the surface is always lit to some extent unless the reflection from the surface is also blocked. This phenomena isn't restricted to just the moon and can bee seen in many photographs where the surface reflects some of he light. -you can also see they are using regular cameras with no protection on them, and theres no f**king way the cameras can shoot in moon-like conditions..Again, on what facts is the assertion made cameras can't work in moon like conditions? The cameras used by the astronauts themselves were modified, not off the shelf like the comment suggests. -also the flag blows in the windThe flag quite obviously moves with the inertia imparted on it from the astronauts erecting it on the surface, once these motions are damped out the flag is no longer seen moving with the exception of lift of of the upper stage of the LM, where exhaust gases are responsible if the flag was placed to close to it, as in the case of Apollo 11.
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Mar 12, 2011 7:40:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 12, 2011 8:55:03 GMT -4
Very nice! (Side track:) supermeerkat, you used the term "burning stupid". I love that description! Is it typically English? One that I enjoy using for those special occasions is, "You know less than nothing!!"
|
|
|
Post by comarre on Mar 12, 2011 9:29:51 GMT -4
I've adressed each point in turn: - kubrick shoots the moon landing in the same set a year later, after meetings with nasaI assume this refers to the set used by Kubrick at Stage H at Shepperton Studios, England where the Tycho crater excavation scene was shot? If so that would seem a poor choice to film, as examination of Apollo 11 footage shows no similarity to the scene in 2001 so the set would have to have been completely rebuilt for just that purpose, which makes the use of the same studio rather irrelevant. Also, the set would then have to be rebuilt for each subsequent lunar landing, as each was at a different lunar location and had very different vistas. Not to mention that the scenes in Tycho were the first to be shot (end 1965- early 1966). So exactly when was Apollo supposed to have been faked???
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 12, 2011 11:10:47 GMT -4
Very nice! (Side track:) supermeerkat, you used the term "burning stupid". I love that description! Is it typically English? I believe it was inspired by this:
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 12, 2011 12:02:42 GMT -4
Now I can see what's really going on inside those "vacu-cephalics"!
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 12, 2011 12:33:29 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, Ravell.
|
|
|
Post by ravell on Mar 14, 2011 6:48:50 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, Ravell. Thanks So exactly when was Apollo supposed to have been faked??? Only the 400,000 people who worked on Apollo know, and none of them are telling!
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 15, 2011 23:48:24 GMT -4
I am currently debating with a guy on Facebook (of all places) about the "Missing" rover tracks. I would like some feedback from here but I don't want to start a new thread if one already exists covering the rover. I'm trying to do a search through ApolloHoax and it keeps freezing up on me. If one exists, can someone provide a link please.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 15, 2011 23:56:32 GMT -4
It has definitely been discussed here... let me see if I can find it before Laurel does. Edited: There was some discussion of rover tracks in this thread: The Challenge to Jack White
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 16, 2011 0:51:59 GMT -4
Click on the Google link in my signature and add "rover tracks".
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 16, 2011 1:43:37 GMT -4
Click on the Google link in my signature and add "rover tracks". Good idea, Chew! The Proboards search feature is terrible, I know. Actually, I just remembered that there is an option in the forum settings to add a Google search box to the bottom of the forum... I'll turn that on (don't know why I hadn't before).
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 16, 2011 7:56:13 GMT -4
I am currently debating with a guy on Facebook (of all places) about the "Missing" rover tracks. I would like some feedback from here but I don't want to start a new thread if one already exists covering the rover. I'm trying to do a search through ApolloHoax and it keeps freezing up on me. If one exists, can someone provide a link please. You've probably already found it, but here's an 11-pager: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=2259&post=66792and I've PM'd you a post from the old ApolloHoax.
|
|