Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 159
  1. #11
    Frank
    Guest

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    There was one part of this program that sticks in my mind: An interview with a conspiracy theorist talking about the "missing stars" - a film shot which shows a starless sky. Now the camera operator who shot this interview must have known that this was a simple exposure issue. So must the producer, editor, and anyone else with any smattering of video/film experience. And yet the program could find no way to explain the missing stars.

    I agree... its extremely shoddy on the part of the producers to let that slip through... BUT... exposure is just a "theory" as to why stars cannot be seen in video and photos.

    The debunkers have great pleasure in bringing out the standard line "The moon conditions are different to Earth's" to explain everything from why flags wave when there is no wind to why shadows don't run parallel on the moon..... even though there is only 1 light source..... yet when it comes to why there are no stars on the film they are more than happy to use the opposite theory for proof as to why it can't be seen on the moon. Because we can't on Earth. The problem with debunkers are that they are worse than us conspiracy theorists... because conspiracy theorists look at the facts... and make up their own minds.... where debunkers usually have a passion for the subject which clouds their judgement and they can basically make anything look like it was possible.

    Stanton Freidman said it best... when he said people are very easy to fool because humans have massive egos. Everyone walks around thinking "I can't have been fooled... if it really didn't happen I would know about it" and thats why the Government can keep someone secret for so long. They don't need to come out and debunk the rumours and come up with reasons...... because they have heaps of fanatics out there that will happily make up the stories and find reasons behind anything.


  2. #12
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    As a video editor I know how easy it is to edit someone's responses to make it look like they are fudging the issue. The Fox documentary used an old tactic in journalism - get a specific accusation from one side and then insert a vague, unrelated explanation from the other side. Did we actually get to hear the interviewer ask the question? No, because the question was most likely intentionally vague, in order to ellicit the vague answer they needed for the edit. I've worked in television news and I know this tactic well.

    Regarding the remote-controlled camera, your explanation illustrates how conspiracy theorists frequently get basic facts wrong. It does not take 7 seconds for a signal to get from the Earth to the moon - it takes approximately 1 second. And NASA does not "guess" when the rocket is going to launch. It is part of a carefully planned sequence.

    Tom Hank's series "From the Earth to the Moon" included a piece about how the remote camera worked, why it was used and the pressure on the camera operator to get it right. It answers all your questions.



  3. #13
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    You said: "exposure is just a "theory" as to why stars cannot be seen in video and photos."

    Errr, no it's not. It's a simple fact. I'm not sure if you noticed but this website deals in film and video camera operations. We know what we're talking about when it comes to exposure.

    Anyway, try this test. Take a manual film camera out on a starry night and set it to normal daylight conditions (that's what conditions the astronauts on the moon were working in). Now try taking a photo of the stars. What happens?

    Incredible but true.... no stars!

    You also mentioned the non-parallel shadows, further demonstrating how well you understand these things. Have you ever actually stood between two long shadows and seen if they appear parallel? Thought not. Try it some time, but be warned - you might feel a bit foolish about all those times you told people shadows should be parallel.

    By the way, it's called perspective.

    In summary, moon conspiracy theorists do not generally look at the facts at all. When they do, they get the facts wrong (your own messages are evidence of this).


  4. #14
    Frank
    Guest

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    So you are telling me it is a "carefully planned sequence"? Have a look at the video again.... by panning the camera up like they did... you got to see about a quarter of a second extra footage.. if that... as you see it leave the top of the screen. Why the hell would NASA "Carefully plan this sequence" just so we can see an extra 1/4 of a second of the module lifting off? and I am being generous with the 1/4 second too.

    A "Carefully planned sequence" is a nice all too familiar reason... to disprove a theory... people swallow it whole... yet it makes absolutely no sense as to why they would go to all of the trouble of having a remote control camera pan up to see this thing leave... when they could have left it stationary and had almost exactly the same video.


  5. #15
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    I fail to see why you think a carefully planned sequence is out of place in a rocket launch. Perhaps you think they light a fuse and then stand back and wait? Of course the sequence is a "familiar reason" - that's because a rocket launch is exactly that - a carefully planned sequence.

    I am a professional media producer with 10 years experience directing live television shows. I have looked at the video clip you refer to and there is absolutely nothing about it that gives any reason for suspicion. It is a great shot and one which, as a television director, I would have happily devoted resources to acquiring.

    You came into this forum and made it clear that you do not understand even the most basic elements of photography such as exposure or perspective. Instead of seeing an opportunity to ask knowledgeable people for their opinions you instead tell us how cameras and television production should work.

    Sorry Frank, like the moon hoax theory as a whole, your ideas simply don't hold water.

    Forgive me for being blunt but this moon hoax nonsense really does get tiring for those of us who understand the issues. I can understand why people fall for the hoax when they first hear it, but 10 minutes searching on the internet provides enough proof that the moon hoax is itself a hoax.


  6. #16
    sbpsen001
    Guest

    Re: Fox's

    I am not being jelous of NASA or anyone who was involved in the "moon landing" mission, but I would like to know how was it made possible that Neil's photograph be taken from the front if he was the first to land on the moon.

    According to me, if the whole thing was true, NASA would send another crew to land on the moon yesterday. Money is what they have it can't be a problem.

    Let's not try to convince ourselves otherwise, landing on the moon is atleast impossible for now because of the radiation and magnetic storms taking place on the sun.

    What we should be doing now is just to find out why was NASA lying about the whole thing.

    Let's wait for atleast another century before the actuall landing.

  7. #17
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79

    Re: Fox's "Did We Land on the Moon?"

    "I would like to know how was it made possible that Neil's photograph be taken from the front if he was the first to land on the moon."

    The camera was mounted on the spacecraft exterior and operated remotely. Very simple.

    "According to me, if the whole thing was true, NASA would send another crew to land on the moon yesterday. Money is what they have it can't be a problem."

    According to anyone who knows what they are talking about, that's not true.

    "Let's not try to convince ourselves otherwise, landing on the moon is atleast impossible for now because of the radiation and magnetic storms taking place on the sun."

    Another fallacy. Do some research (and I'm not talking about reading some hoax theory websites, I mean real research).

    "What we should be doing now is just to find out why was NASA lying about the whole thing."

    No, what we should be doing is exposing the frauds who make money perpetuating the hoax theory.

    "Let's wait for atleast another century before the actuall landing."

    Sorry dude, but there are at least three planned missions to the moon in the next couple of decades. Sadly, even when they all get there, some morons will still claim it's all a hoax.


  8. #18
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79

    Re: Frank

    Hey Frank, while I was over at BadAstronomy.com I happened accross a thread discussing you. Seems you are known for recycling these arguments in different forums!

    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12749

    -dave



  9. #19
    Aaron
    Guest

    Re: Fox's

    How can i get a copy of this documentary?

  10. #20
    MOONGUY
    Guest

    Re: Fox's

    I have been trying to get a copy of the Fox special about the fake moon landing. Anyone know where to get one on the internet? Help me out. My daughter is 10 and she now said it all looked fake.

    Thanks!

    Richard

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube