|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 11, 2006 20:59:31 GMT -4
Its obvious that the aliens were fully deployed in a search and rescue operation for the Robinson family aboard the Jupiter 2 . They got confused . Then went back to watching Daniel Boone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 12, 2006 18:16:06 GMT -4
How about the contradiction that NASA was responsible for the death of Thomas Baron because they wanted to keep him quiet about the flaws in the Apollo program, but they only killed him after he had testified before a congressional hearing and written and published a long report about the flaws in the Apollo program....
|
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Feb 12, 2006 23:13:10 GMT -4
What I meant is that he's going to make a lot of noise going down whether or not any diseases he gets are NASA's doing are not. "I got Herpes from that prostitute that was on the take for NASA!" I'm sure you can make similar SIbrelisms for the appropriate disease.
And so, the best thing for everyone involved is that he dies peacefully in his sleep. Even then, the woo-woos will make a bunch of noise, but probably not as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Feb 17, 2006 9:55:07 GMT -4
Stargazer:
Isn't it some contradiction that he is still allowed to post here?
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 17, 2006 11:27:02 GMT -4
This isn't really a "contradiction" but thinking about the "Apollo 11 astronauts saw aliens" stories and the alleged break in transmission I've realised that if these aliens were operating on the moon, for whatever reason, (and why would they have been there?) then they would surely have been able to monitor Earth TV and radio broadcasts and they would surely have known about the Apollo programme? If they had wanted to keep their presence on the Moon secret from us then they would have had several months warning to re-locate and to ensure that there was no evidence of their activities. If they had wanted to monitor the progress of the mission, they all they would have to do was monitor the transmissions. Surely any alien civilisation capable of interstellar travel would find it comparatively easy to monitor us from close range and leave us unawares? Well voyager, (if there were aliens), this all depends on their level of intelligence. I mean, we went to the moon to, but that doesn't make us able to listen to other lifeforms' talking. |
|
|
|
Post by voyager3 on Feb 17, 2006 21:09:57 GMT -4
This isn't really a "contradiction" but thinking about the "Apollo 11 astronauts saw aliens" stories and the alleged break in transmission I've realised that if these aliens were operating on the moon, for whatever reason, (and why would they have been there?) then they would surely have been able to monitor Earth TV and radio broadcasts and they would surely have known about the Apollo programme? If they had wanted to keep their presence on the Moon secret from us then they would have had several months warning to re-locate and to ensure that there was no evidence of their activities. If they had wanted to monitor the progress of the mission, they all they would have to do was monitor the transmissions. Surely any alien civilisation capable of interstellar travel would find it comparatively easy to monitor us from close range and leave us unawares? Well voyager, (if there were aliens), this all depends on their level of intelligence. I mean, we went to the moon to, but that doesn't make us able to listen to other lifeforms' talking. No we don't have the technology to do that, but if some extrasolar civilisation was so advanced that they were able to travel from their home system to ours, then surely reading our broadcasts would be child's play to them? |
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Feb 19, 2006 3:23:09 GMT -4
Good point, interstellar travel is a great deal more complicated than what we accomplished with Apollo.
However, none of the technologies involved in interstellar travel are really involved in signal/language decoding, so it is completely possible that they couldn't understand us. Perhaps they put all their efforts into just getting around, much as we put all of our efforts into getting to the moon.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 21, 2006 13:46:29 GMT -4
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I couldn't remember it from this thread.
1. Dust behaves like dust in a vacuum because the whole thing was faked in a vacuumed stage.
2. The fluttering flag is due to wind on the stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 21, 2006 13:55:45 GMT -4
Which reminds me. This is more of a question than an observation. The HBs make a lot of noise about the flag fluttering and all that. Do any of them say word one about the solar wind experiment fluttering? Since it's just a big piece of thin metal foil, it would flutter as much as a flag would.
Fred
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 21, 2006 14:36:51 GMT -4
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I couldn't remember it from this thread. 1. Dust behaves like dust in a vacuum because the whole thing was faked in a vacuumed stage.2. The fluttering flag is due to wind on the stage. When that vacuum starts blowing a fierce gale, it's something to behold! N |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 21, 2006 18:29:10 GMT -4
Do any of them say word one about the solar wind experiment fluttering?
That would require them to have done enough research to know what the solar wind experiment was, while a flag is something any fool can identify.
|
|
|
|
Post by thestargazer on Feb 22, 2006 11:50:29 GMT -4
"The computers of the time couldn't have done the calculations required to design a working spacecraft or run the systems on that spacecraft if it had been built..."
versus
"Well the landings were faked using the most advanced special effects technology available anywhere, even more advanced than what Kubrick used for 2001 or Lucas used for Star Wars."
(Lucas used computer-controlled camera positioning systems, any one of which probably had more calculating power in a single IC then half the Apollo 11 CM's computer components.)
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 22, 2006 18:10:34 GMT -4
Hrm. That almost qualifies as a contradiction there, also;
NASA could afford to make the most difficult, consistent, professional science-fiction film ever made, with a length exceeding the entire Star Wars series plus the Aliens films.
But they could only afford cardboard and scotch tape for the LM prop.
(The reason most HB's don't see this as a contradiction, is they have no awareness of how many different jobs, people, and how much money goes into a major film. They also seem unaware that outside of Ed Wood, most prop people and set builders go out of their way to make the stuff NOT look like cardboard and scotch tape).
|
|
|
|
Post by drjohn on Feb 22, 2006 22:13:26 GMT -4
Bart Sibrel: The only place you can see the entire uncut footage of the Post Flight Press Conference is through his site NASA: Order the uncut Post Flight Press Conference footage at their site. And I did just that |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 23, 2006 13:52:49 GMT -4
The reason most HB's don't see this as a contradiction, is they have no awareness of how many different jobs, people, and how much money goes into a major film.
These days every feature film is the equivalent of a medium-sized company in any other industry. And while there is some pork, most of those people are strictly necessary. And especially with a technically demanding "movie" like 30+ hours of moonwalks, you need those kinds of resources.
Not only do these people seem unaware of what goes into a major motion picture, they seem unaware of what goes into any major endeavor.
They also seem unaware that outside of Ed Wood, most prop people and set builders go out of their way to make the stuff NOT look like cardboard and scotch tape).
I can vouch for that, although there are some caveats. I build sets and props, and I've been on many film sets.
The caveat is that "good enough" is the appropriate standard. Making something look convincing on a TV screen or a motion picture screen, or from 50 feet away on a live stage, is not a matter of excruciating attention to detail. You put no more effort into something than is strictly required to achieve the effect. It is, after all, a business and you have to run it efficiently.
I think I mentioned having consulted on scenery for a new show at Kennedy Center in Washington DC. They want to try a new technique where they use billboard printers to print backdrops as enlargements of original conceptual artwork, rather than to try to scale it up. We took some measurements, did some visual acuity computations, and worked out that we only need to print the backdrops at 20 dpi in order to achieve a convincing effect. Higher resolution doesn't improve the effect, and it costs more.
I've been on the set of "The West Wing" and "Everwood" and many other television shows. When you're there in person, everything looks rather ghetto: the carpets are dirty, the paint on the walls is chipped, and the ceilings are actually stretched muslin. I've been in the real White House, and the sets are a poor facsimile. But they're good enough because television doesn't provide much resolution. A good set and prop person knows how much he can get away with.
But it always looks good. That's the criteria. It may be cheap, and it may look like crap up close, but if it looks good on screen or onstage, then you've done your job. I do most of my work for a theater where the front row of the audience can be as close as one meter from a prop. And so my work has to meet a higher standard of realism. The other theaters for which I've done work put the audience no closer than 25 feet from the nearest element, and so you can slap a coat of paint on some roughly assembled plywood and it's just as convincing.
And Rick Sternbach -- the father of Star Trek technology and an Apollo fan of the highest order -- told me that there are shuttlecraft in TNG that, in some shots, are merely plywood cutouts painted in trompe l'oeil. That, forced-perspective, and other chicanery are important tools of the trade.
Only very occasionally does the actual crapulence manifest itself on screen. And then only a few people notice. In the epic Lord of the Rings there are some close-ups of the Rohan sets that show texturing having been done by flinging thinned paint at it from a distance with a big brush, creating patterns of droplets. That's a good technique if you're not up close and personal.
But the alleged crapulence of the lunar module is fully contradictory with the notion of it being a prop. A prop only has to look good. It doesn't have to work. A real spacecraft has to work; it doesn't have to look good.
|
|
