I guess I don't understand, in the imaginary hoax, why it would be so important to put a rock in one place on the set instead of another. Maybe filming took place over several days, and the rock had to be sent away for cleaning, so it was important to put it back in the same spot.

I'm not a psychologist, and I don't even play one on TV. But the people I know who are psychologists (or who play them on TV) talk about confirmation bias, the tendency to accept evidence which supports one's prior beliefs, and ignore or reject evidence which doesn't. That seems to be what's mostly going on in these moan hoax arguments.

Definitely. But it begs the question, how did they get those prior beliefs in the first place?

There are several theories about that, all of which may be true to greater or lesser extent in each individual case. One is the "mistrust all authority" mindset, which is closely related to the "big bad government always lies" perspective. There have been some indications that at least some HBs have religious leanings that make them doubt the validity of Apollo. And, of course, there are the psychological possibilities, such as "I'm the only one who's smart enough to have figured out THE TRUTH" or "I can get a lot of attention by challenging this sacred cow".

And some, of course, just want to make a lot of money by applying the P.T. Barnum maxim.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I've run into many that don't trust big G. But; to add to your list, I've also run into those who simply think, "if it's not that obvious, then I actually have to learn something to understand. Seeing is simpler."

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

That's "moon hoax."

Oh, wait... moan hoax. Huh.

Yeah, that works, too. Never mind.

(Welcome to BAUT, Surly!)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

That, and if I were feeling uncharitable, I'd say that the major proponents are benefiting financially by creating and continuing this insultingly inane controversy.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

Great.

Now I have to await the day that Adrian Monk will take a glance at an old Apollo photo and say,

"That's not right."


- (Avid Monk fan here)

__________________
"Time travel gives me a headache." - Capt. Kathryn Janeway

That, and if I were feeling uncharitable, I'd say that the major proponents are benefiting financially by creating and continuing this insultingly inane controversy.

It would not be uncharitable in the least; the major proponents are doing just that. Call up Bart Sibrel and ask him how much he charges to license any of his footage, or how much he charges for a personal appearance. Go get the tax records for AFTH, LLC (Sibrel's company that markets his Moon-hoax stuff) and see what their yearly net income amounts to.

Go ask David Percy and Mary Bennett a question and see if the answer is not, "You need to buy both our updated book and our video in order to understand all our arguments." That is, if you can get them to answer at all.

Go ask Ralph Rene why he will never appear on the same program as Bennett and Percy.

This is an industry, and I have seen evidence that several of the top players appear to be in it largely for the money. They thrive only on continued controversy that generates new readers and viewers. They have absolutely no desire to discover the truth or to reach any other conclusion, because then people will stop paying attention to them. They want to keep people just far enough off balance with innuendo and suspicion that they themselves remain relevant.

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

Fortunately, I often feel uncharitable.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

Football, Cricket, Rugby, Athletics etc

They all use perspective drawings to make adverts painted on the pitch look like they are stood vertical from the fixed camera positions.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Or, for more fun, e-mail him with some questions about his claims and see how far into a corner he will back himself before telling you to buy his video. That's what I did, and I got him to admit to having no idea what one of the sources for his claims was before he tried the sales tack.

For those who are interested, I asked him where he got the idea that the Russians had a 5:1 superiority in manned space hours, and if it included Project Gemini. He told me it came from a film made during the Kennedy or Johnson administration about the 'missile gap'. When I asked him how he then knew that included Project Gemini (no Gemini flights taking place until well after Kennedy had been assassinated) he told me I'd have to take it up with the guy who made the quote in the film. Conveniently, he couldn't remember the exact title of the film, or from whom he had borrowed it, so obviously I couldn't do what he advised me to. When I called him on this he told me to buy his video.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Me, too. I have even helped build sets (I am usually a camera person). I have worked in video, 16mm, and 35mm film projects; I currently play music for stage productions. I have never, not once, seen anyone mark a set piece like that.

I am not saying it has never happened...but I have never seen it; I have asked set designers and they have never seen it either.

That's te thing: if this technique is as commonplace as they claim it is, in a world where films and television are hurled at us like water from a firehose it shouldn't be hard for them to show examples of such prop and scene marking in other film and TV. Like all other arguments, however, supporting examples seem to be beyond them.

Frankly, I would expect any scene-setter to be hauled over the coals for leaving such obvious markings on any prop or piece of scenery that's supposed to be in shot.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Exactly. Set pieces in a film or stage production are constantly moved around as the director tries different "looks." The notion that they need to be marked so they will each be kept in one specific place is ridiculous. Plus, I agree, think of all the mistakes...we'd have letters appearing in films all over the place.

Well, the H.B. counter-counter-counter argument is probably that the Apollo Films were created by a bunch of NASA geeks and Army Training Film technicians. Who didn't know you weren't supposed to mark a prop. Or allow lights to be seen by the camera. Or any one of the other "mistakes" the H.B.s like to imagine they've found.

After all, the H.B.s bar is set so very low. When they look at the record from Apollo they see cardboard props, unconvincing low-gravity effects, shoddy lighting, and basically an Ed Wood standard of production.

I am assuming, therefor, that they find all the scenes in Space, 1999 meticulously accurate and completely convincing.

Their expectations are wrong, and their vision of what they should see blinds them to what they do see. Since the astronauts aren't, for instance, bounding twenty feet into the air with each step, then what movement they make is "obviously" wrong, presumably faked with wires....and with that idea firmly entrenched, they lose the ability to look closely at the actual motions recorded and ask just how a wire is supposed to accomplish them.

Meanwhile those of us who have had to hang an actor or two on a "wire" are scratching our heads and going "okay, maybe I could do that, but it would be TOUGH!"

I am always struck by that essential dichotomy in the minds of the H.B.; their self-perception as someone who sees more accurately, and more detail, than the average person; and the way in which they skim over (or fail completely to see in the first place) the actual kinds of details even experienced amateurs in the various associated fields are quite familiar with and have to work with every day.

From the H.B. "I can't believe how blind the rest of you are. He's obviously on a wire."

From those of us who have done theater, circus, gymnastics, climbing, or similar; "I can't believe you can't see how he is rotating about three axis. A wire can't do that."

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I am always struck by that essential dichotomy in the minds of the H.B.; their self-perception as someone who sees more accurately, and more detail, than the average person...

Delusional assessments of one's own expertise are not as uncommon as you might think, and constitute very amusing reading in the psychology literature.

From those of us who have done theater, circus, gymnastics, climbing, or similar...

I'll be hanging (not literally) with the cast and crew of the Cirque du Soleil show "O" next weekend. I'll be sure to ask them how easy they think it would be to rig (literally) the Apollo footage.

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

You'll love it JayUtah. I worked with Cirque in "Varekai" (of course not a performer) when they were in Austin.

Great crowd but if they pat you on the back, make sure it's the upper back

You'll love it JayUtah.

I know I will -- some of them have been my friends for almost ten years. Their lifts are made by the same company as the ones in my theater.

Great crowd but if they pat you on the back, make sure it's the upper back

Hm, sounds like one of those things that ought to stay in Vegas.

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

Once again, I am envious. About as close as I've come is hanging out (and even once helping to hang, err, rig) for the Pickle Family Circus.

But I'm posting for a different reason. And that is for the sake of the H.B.'s who do read this forum to see what "we" are saying about them.

I do not consider that I have the ability to see more clearly, more accurately. What I have is something more simple and more basic, and that is; a healthy skepticism regarding my own perceptions and my own ability.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Once again, I am envious.

Just good fortune. I've known these folks since they were all nobodies doing grunt work. A few of them have become quite successful in the meantime. I'm just glad my job doesn't require me to certify as a rescue diver. (Although, as one of my colleagues pointed out, it doesn't preclude that.)

I do not consider that I have the ability to see more clearly, more accurately.

Right -- most of us know what we know, and know what we don't know. I can go toe-to-toe with the automation guys there about embedded, life-safe control systems. But I know enough to stay out of the darn tank.

Conspiracy theorists seem to have the tendency not to realize that there are things they don't necessarily understand.

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