I decided I had to discuss the comment made by JayUtah in the thread titled A Humorous Video And My Response.

JayUtah said:
1.Let's examine the author's claims.
"The attention to detail is staggering."
No, not to anyone who has studied Apollo equipment and video footage. In the first one or two seconds the astute viewer should notice the first blunder -- the camera is hand-held! It was well published that the television camera for Apollo 11 would be mounted on the MESA (equipment pallet). The real Apollo 11 footage is rock-solid, as such a mount would suggest. Why would a NASA conspirator make such an obvious mistake?
My Reply:
This is really an idiotic comment. How can you compare something made in 65 and never shown to the public to the footage shown in 69 to millions of people. They don’t have to have the camera on the lander. Maybe they are just practicing and this footage was shot by some worker who was there just filming it so they could screen for mistakes before the real thing. Wouldn’t NASA want to spend some time trying to fix the footage and make it perfect.
JayUtah:
Second, the suit in question is not inflated.
My Reply:
How can you tell eagle eyes? I’d say there is no evidence of this. Support your statement.
JayUtah:
Third, the swinging light boom falls on cue, right in the most historically significant portion of the script. That the boom would fall *at all* is surprising. Riggers are much more careful than that. (They're liable if their equipment falls and hurts someone.) They're *entire job* is to secure lighting assemblies and other structures against just such a failure.
My Reply:
First of all though it did happen at the more historically significant portion I’d hardly say that this implies the footage was faked you never know when that kind of thing will happen it’s like a visual aid falling down during a big speech or you car refusing to start on the way to important meeting. Sometimes this type of thing just happens. Secondly even the most careful riggers make mistakes.
JayUtah:
Fourth, the astronaut reacts strangely. If we are to believe this clip, something happened on the set that was not expected. People react reflexively to the unexpected. The actor playing the astronaut doesn't whirl around to see what happened to his key light -- i.e., to see if it's about to fall on him. He leisurely turns around as if he knew the light was going to fall all along.
My Reply:
What did you want him to do scream OH MY GOD! His helmet would have blocked his view and it would have made it harder for him to hear the crash. Maybe he only saw a little bit of light and then heard a little thump. So then he knew the seen was screwed up and turned around to see what happened. Also just because there was a loud crash doesn’t mean he has to freak out it’s like when someone claps in your face some people react differently some don’t even blink others almost fall over back wards. This guy didn’t flinch so what. I would hardly call this conclusive proof.
JayUtah:
Fifth, the astronaut's drop to the surface is clearly in full earth gravity. The legitimate Apollo 11 footage has drops consistent with 1/6 G. Two grips rush in to help lift the astronaut back up to the ladder, implying it would be difficult or impossible for him to do it on his own. However, in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage we see both Armstrong and Aldrin leap almost effortlessly back up to the lowest rung of the ladder.
My Reply:
Again your wrong. This wasn’t the real footage shown in 69 this is 4 years earlier. This could just be practice. Then NASA realized they made a mistake and fixed it. Just because it doesn’t correspond to the 69 version does not mean it was faked. Secondly you say two grips rush in to help him and lift him back up on the ladder. So what. Since they already messed up the seen why let the man lift himself up the ladder if the seen is already bad. May have been hard for him to get up but not impossible. Some people just make things look effortless maybe he could too but he didn’t have to in this case.
JayUtah:
Sixth, the lighting design on the boom is clearly inconsistent with the lighting inferred from the video, film, and Hasselblad photography. The lighting rig in question would have cast three separate shadows and produced three distinct gradations of shade. This would have been apparent in the legitimate films and video, whereas the legitimate record is unquestionably lit using a single, very distant, point light source.
My Reply:
Again maybe they are just practicing you know this was never shown to the public as the real thing why? Maybe they realized look at all the shadows all the light sources we got to fix this.
JayUtah
Seventh, the framing and camera angle is wrong. The horizon was slanted in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage because of the angle of the camera mount on the MESA. The camera itself was tilted to one side. And so the astronauts in that footage appear slanted, consistent with the horizon. In this footage the astronaut stands upright (relative to the frame), and so do the grips and production assistants that run into the frame. And the lighting boom becomes plumb parallel to the frame. The horizon is slanted in this footage because the set piece is built slanted. Clearly the producers of this video didn't understand what they were seeing in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage.
My Reply:
Again maybe they realized we messed it up again and they fixed it. Maybe they screened it and people starting waving red flags you got to fix this and the result was played to the public in 1969.

As to the rest of the comments by JayUtah I’d just ignore them. He just did not think this through. I’ll respond to any other errors when they are presented.

So in essence your reply is "Of course nothing is consistent with the real video, they're probably just practicing".

How about ONE shred of evidence this is authentic?

I know this is completely off topic but it bugs me. I'm very sorry for doing this. The word scene isn't seen.

__________________
May The Dark Skies be with you.

And also, about the tilted frame. Why make it tilted in the first place. If they were practicing, why not just make it upright?

__________________
May The Dark Skies be with you.

Claiming this was just practice won't wash. The actor is in a suit, the set was made up just so, and all the details are supposed to be there. If this is a practice, then it is clearly either a dress-rehearsal or a "real" shoot; that is, a full run-through. Either way, it would be done as close to the real thing as possible. Therefore, the multiple lighting would not be used, for the reasons Jay said.

There are a large number of reasons to see that this was never meant to be real, and Jay has pointed quite a few out.

LOL. This is how you "respond" to "errors":

1. My Reply: Maybe they are just practicing.....
   
   My Reply:How can you tell eagle eyes? I?d say there is no evidence of this.
   
   
   My Reply: Sometimes this type of thing just
   happens.
   
   
   My Reply: This guy didn?t flinch so what. I would hardly call this conclusive proof.
   
   My Reply: This could just be practice.
   
   My Reply: Again maybe they are just practicing ....
   
   My Reply: Again maybe they realized we messed it up again and they fixed it.

For anybody keeping score, that's 3 "could"s and 7 "maybe"s in sparky's scathing rebuttal.

How could I have been so wrong? Looks like it could, maybe be conclusive proof.

But I found that many of them are not legitimate. As I pointed out maybe this was being screened and the guys down at NASA went even I can tell that's fake so they spent four years making it "legitimate"

Make that 8 "maybe"s.

I'm simply trying to state that there are any number of logical explanations that explain these errors but don't prove that they were faked. Look at the material with an open mind don't ignore me based on my choice of words. Maybe you should think about that. HA HA

No, it is you who has not thought this through. Have you ever seen an EVA suit inflated? It's looks completely different than what is seen in that poorly done fake. I suggest you go to the ALSJ, and look there.

__________________
~AstroMike

Hold on there your wrong again my boy. From the material I saw and what I have seen I can't agree with you.

I'm simply trying to state that there are any number of logical explanations that explain these errors but don't prove that they were faked. Look at the material with an open mind don't ignore me based on my choice of words. Maybe you should think about that. HA HA


[/quote]

Using the words "maybe" and "could" hardly constitutes a "choice of words" for you as your arguments depend upon them.

In order for any of your arguments to make sense, you have to assume that the moon landings were faked and go from there. The disparities between the actual footage and the fake have been outlined. We could all postulate ridiculous maybes about any implausable theory we'd care to make up. The fact is the overwhelming majority of evidence says that we did go to the moon. When it's obvious that the fake and the real videos were not made at the same time, with the same equipment or even by the same people it makes no sense to fly in the face of the evidence and go looking for maybe's to support your position. Saying the video was made four years earlier and thus was poorly made due to inexperience is just ridiculous. If you and your cohorts were to make a fake I would imagine it would turn out similarly, to give you the benefit of the doubt, but not NASA scientists. They would know the relevant areas of production required for authenticity without alot of trial and error.

You wrote: But I found that many of them are not legitimate. As I pointed out maybe this was being screened and the guys down at NASA went even I can tell that's fake so they spent four years making it "legitimate"

The guys at NASA said "even I can tell it's a fake." What? Are you serious? These are the experts, and possibly some of the sharpest minds of the time, why do you think them blundering goofballs? If anyone could spot a fake it would be them.

You have zero proof to substantiate any of the maybes. Why would you not see these maybes as anything other than a waste of time?





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Conqueror Worm on 2002-11-27 20:17 ]</font>

Why are you worried about the spacesuit? If it is 4 years earlier, they obviously didn't need to use the real suit or even inflate it if they were just practicing. If they couldn't even be bothered with a tripod (or even a table) to put the camera on, why bother with inflating the suits?

So tell me. Other than the fact it bears a remote resemblance to the real video, what is your evidence that this is authentic?

Here's how I know this video was a fake.

First and foremost the design of the Apollo EVA suits was not completed until after the Apollo 9 mission. During 1965 several contractors were still in the competion for the suit contract.

Second, the original design for the Apollo EVA helmets were changed after the Apollo 9 mission, so the moon hoax video needs to have the red color helmets.

What I really find interesting is that this supposed 1965 video had a completed LM design and EVA suit design even though the design for both these pieces of hardware was not even close to being completed.

"stevedahl" has been posting under a number of aliases, and has been banned every time. He is a troll. This thread is locked.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com