The only descriptive word I can come up with is cheap.

I agree. It would be similar to the amateur art films made up of clips from the Prelinger archives that armchair filmmakers have been knocking out for years just for the heck of it. I don't recall offhand a single scene in A Funny Thing Happened... that is not stock footage, except perhaps Buzz Aldrin threatening to sue. If all one has to do is sit in the editing bay rearranging old movies, there can't be much expense involved, unless he started with absolutely nothing and is trying to count his capitalization expenses as part of the cost of the film.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Interesting, I was told by Sibrel's assistant that "over $750,000 has been invested in producing the DVDs to date." They can't even make up their mind how much it cost.

Sibrel's assistant attempted to address other concerns of mine as well. You can read our brief exchange at http://home.utah.edu/~mjm23/Bart_Sibrel/BS.html

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths!

I wonderer if there's some way to contact the current owner of the Zapruder film to see if BS did in fact pay for its use. There are a lot of folks out there who don't pay much attention to conspiracy stuff and who are blissfully unaware of the existence of BS and his little production.

Then again, the huge production costs cited by BS may include attorney fees and court costs.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Not only the Zapruder film. In his stock footage of various launch disasters, I have yet to figure out what connection the Snark, Matador, and Navaho air-breathing missiles, and the Lark anti-aircraft missile, have with the Apollo program. At least with the Navaho, the booster's liquid fueled engines laid the design foundation for the Redstone, Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas powerplants.

It's ironic that BS actually shows a successful launch in his opening sequences. It's a silo-launch of a solid fuel ICBM, probably a Minuteman. As soon the missile reaches the edge of the screen, BS, apparently thinking no one will notice any difference, cuts to an Atlas missile in flight, which appears to be an early test vehicle, given that the sustainer engine is not firing. This of course blows up.

Not only does he pad the film length with an interminable slow-mo during the Zapruder clip, but he also uses the same footage of the Titan pad explosion twice. Ditto with the Polaris upper stage destruct, except here he flips the film and zooms in.

Now, if, instead, he had used real-time footage of successful launches, especially of vehicles directly related to Apollo, this would have been one very long film!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Yeah ...

And, it Would Also, Be GOOD!

Unfortunately ...

Good, and Bart Sibrel, Don't Tend to Go Together; Unless, Of Course, that's Good, at Taking a Punch!

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

It doesn't matter if rockets before or after Apollo failed, all that matters is that the Saturn rockets used for Apollo succeeded and it would be totally ridiculous to deny that. Thousands (millions?) of people witnessed the launches of the Saturn rockets, so obviously they worked.

In addition to misleading the viewer by showing only rocket failures, Sibrel is misleading in assuming that unmanned test vehicles are necessarily engineered the same way as manned vehicles and thus failure rates can be directly compared.

Reliability in the "high nines" is difficult and expensive. If a project has a fixed budget and is unmanned (i.e., it has an acceptable loss rate) then the best overall choice is a moderately engineered vehicle deployed in redundant missions.

If you can build a rocket for one million dollars that has a reliability of 90%, you can have ten of them for ten million dollars. If you want 99% reliability, that extra nine percent of assurance isn't going to increase the price by a mere nine percent; more like double or triple the cost of the vehicle. So for ten million dollars you can only get three or four of them. If you have three targets to hit and three missiles, you get a 99% chance of taking out each target, and a 97% chance of taking out all three targets.

But if you have ten missiles and three targets, you can assign three missiles to each target with one hot spare. Even though each missile individually has only a 90% success rate, all three assigned to a target would have to fail in order to omit destroying the target. The chances that three such rockets will fail is 0.1% for a per-target chance of success of 99.9% and an overall 99.7% chance of success.

ICBMs are intentionally built to a lower degree of reliability than a manned launch vehicle. To say the latter is impossible because the former behaves as expected is specious.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Truely amazing

I did my own little film with stock NASA footage on my PC, and all it cost me was my time. Even the music came from a CD given free with my newspaper.

I wish I could have got $30 :wink:

I never heard Jay say what he thought of it when I posted the link here

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

Well, you didn't say that you think that some shadows are wrong...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

mathyou9,

You ought to write his assistant back and ask for a free copy of the "Astronauts Gone Wild" so that can make a fair judgement of the punching video.

JUst send an email

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

I never heard Jay say what he thought of it when I posted the link here

Sorry, I didn't mean to snub you there. Pretty good effort. It's definitely got a groove to it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Can I just say "hi" to jay?

He's so cool, and I don't think we have ever been in the same discussion


Hi!

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

I think Jay replied to one of my posts once. I'll never wash that computer screen again.... :P

LOL! I'm just a guy, folks.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

!!!










OK time to heave theese fanboy's out of the way....


back to discussion...

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

And can express himself better than any engineer I've ever met.

And you have incredible patience

I don't believe so. Penn and Teller use the same tactic on their show Bulls...! In their first episode they say how they can't call the people they're debukning liars and scammers because, despite being true, it would tangle them up in court for libel (or is it slander?). However there are no laws against calling them MFers and their products/ideas/whatever BS.

It's a great show if you haven't seen it. I'm currently going though the first two seasons now (yay Netflix)

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.