Now, there's a small (but not insignificant) portion of the population who believe the FOOTAGE of the moon landing was faked, not the landing themselves. Why? So that any unplanned events (astronauts die a horrible death on camera, UFOs parading in the background, etc.) Besides, the video feed from the first landing was so bad, it could easily have been faked. Was the landing faked? Probably not, but NONE of us are in a position to say definitively, simply because we weren't the ones up there.

Nobody is going to convince anybody else one way or the other. I have spent most of my life believing that the moon landings were real, simply because I didn't possess the critical faculties to doubt, and had no reason to doubt. Doesn't mean it actually happened, though. Many things we believe to be "real" are not, and we should always stay flexible in our thinking processes. My $.02

I agree. Both about the photographer's suit and the 1/6 G motion. I've rigged up my own 1/6 harnesses and tried to walk normally, and it's uncomfortable. The "Apollo lope" is the best method with or without suit.

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

...believe the FOOTAGE of the moon landing was faked, not the landing themselves. Why?

In my opinion it's only posturing. It's a "softer" position than claiming the missions themselves are fake, so it seems more reasonable compared to the classic theories.

...but NONE of us are in a position to say definitively, simply because we weren't the ones up there.

I disagree that one's presence also on the Moon is necessary to draw an informed conclusion that Apollo was real.

...and had no reason to doubt.

Do you doubt it? And if you do, is that doubt based on critical thinking?

...we should always stay flexible in our thinking processes.

Flexibility in one's thinking is not the same as correctness. A rational person doesn't have to be open to ideas for which there is no evidence, and against which there is considerable counterevidence.

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

Correctness is a highly ambiguous concept, and it varies with perspective and experience. Old theories are pushed out (stubbornly) by crazier theories, that ain't new.

Inflexibility of all kinds is unproductive (and dangerous), whether one's pursuit is yoga, or science.

I cannot prove the moon landings occurred, so I am not in a position to say with authority whether or not they happened as reported. I have no problem with not knowing for sure. I find most arguments against the landings to be highly amateurish and ill-informed - I feel they are looking at the wrong things.

Personally I believe we (as a country and a species) have possessed the technology to go to the moon (and beyond) for quite some time before 1969, and that the moon landings, if they did indeed occur, were more of a publicity stunt than actual hard science. (A cynical syphoning of the taxpayers, but a gloriously magnificent one.) But I don't feel the need to convince you, or anybody else. We all make up our own minds, with the information to which we expose ourselves.

Anyway, cheers!

Correctness is a highly ambiguous concept, and it varies with perspective and experience.

No. If the landings occurred, and you believe they didn't, your belief is entirely wrong. No amount of experience or perspective validates a belief that is at odds with fact. I agree there are some questions (e.g., whether some particular war was justified) that can have legitimately different answers. But questions of pure fact are susceptible to a strong notion of correctness.

I find most arguments against the landings to be highly amateurish and ill-informed...

I agree. That raises the issue why some people seem to want to believe in faked landings, even to the point of formulating absurd arguments to support them.

I feel they are looking at the wrong things.

Interesting; what do you believe are the right things?

...and that the moon landings, if they did indeed occur, were more of a publicity stunt than actual hard science.

Little doubt of that. One cannot study the history of Apollo without realizing the overriding political aim of the project. Kennedy wanted to upstage the Soviets. Not to say science wasn't done, but it could have been done better. The engineering could have been done better too, but it was very good. I still refer to Apollo principles in my work.

A cynical syphoning of the taxpayers, but a gloriously magnificent one.

A surprisingly small fraction of the U.S. economy was spent to go to the Moon. Apollo cost approximately $23 billion in 1970 dollars, including some $11 billion for the Saturn V (which was originally to be used for additional projects). This was spread over some 11 years, averaging about $2 billion per year. By comparison, welfare disbursements for 1969 alone were $75 billion. And let's not even consider the cost of the Vietnam War.

Given the widespread technology that has arisen from Apollo, I think it was money well spent.

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

I figured they had some kind of artificial gravity, maybe even something as crude as a prototype of the Discovery "centrifuge". There's no "outside" view to spoil the illusion.Even when I first saw the movie back in 1968, I thought the photographer's clothes, mannerisms, and being generally ignored by TPTB were a sly commentary by Kubrick on cinematographers in general. And maybe even directors.

For me the worst goofs were the Moon/Earth phases, going there and once there. Although for pure SFX, the stars winking out before getting to Discovery's hull were I guess the best they could do with mattes back then.

BTW, while on the subject, the movement of the stars behind Discovery is often cited as a special effects error. It isn't if one considers the POV camera in a "fixed" position far away and panning slightly as Discovery goes by.

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

It isn't if one considers the POV camera in a "fixed" position far away and panning slightly as Discovery goes by.

Except that this would create a change of aspect on the foreground element, which doesn't occur. The angle on Discovery remains the same, as if the camera is attached to it and moving with it. Further, the same moving-star effect occurs when the camera is inside the pod bay looking out.

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

I say its a factual error, but not a special effects one. these are SPECIAL effects after all. Their job is not to create reality, their job is to serve the story. And while it may not be factually correct, it would be an less enjoyable movie if the stars are stock still. Now, I can see the fun in picking apart a movie, but this is a movie. What we see around us is reality. I hope you can tell the difference, without resorting to pusillanimous nit picking,for no reason but to nit pick. What does this really specifically have to do with faking the moon landing anyway?

__________________

Do you believe World War II happened? Do you believe the Titanic sank? Do you believe the Roman Empire actually existed? Do you question everything you have not personally experienced, or is there something about the moon landings in particular that makes you question it, even slightly?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Swift, weren't you paying attention? You must be "open-minded" and have room for "skeptical doubt" about what you have "been told."

Now be a good boy and swallow your little blue pill.

One of our members, might have been Gethen, had a signature along the lines of "An open mind is like an open window; without a good screen, you get a lot of bugs to fly in".

You mean one of these pills?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Yeah, those red and white pills sure are blue aren't they, buddy?








ETA: I sure hope folks click Swifts link prior to reading my response...

Correctness is a highly ambiguous concept, and it varies with perspective and experience. Old theories are pushed out (stubbornly) by crazier theories, that ain't new.

Inflexibility of all kinds is unproductive (and dangerous), whether one's pursuit is yoga, or science.

Flexibility, pardon the double-entendre, only goes so far. Having a flexible notion of the correctness of the law of gravitation, for example, is in itself unproductive (and dangerous).

I cannot prove the moon landings occurred, so I am not in a position to say with authority whether or not they happened as reported. I have no problem with not knowing for sure. I find most arguments against the landings to be highly amateurish and ill-informed - I feel they are looking at the wrong things.

Some people are in a position to evaluate the evidence for the Moon landings, as well as the claims made against their authenticity. And some people are simply right, and some people are simply wrong, when it comes to such questions of historical and scientific fact.

Personally I believe we (as a country and a species) have possessed the technology to go to the moon (and beyond) for quite some time before 1969,

Indeed? Perhaps you could sketch out the evidence for this claim. I find that the record shows a clear progression in the scientific, technical, and managerial aspects required for such landings in the decade-plus prior to A11.

and that the moon landings, if they did indeed occur, were more of a publicity stunt than actual hard science. (A cynical syphoning of the taxpayers, but a gloriously magnificent one.)

The moon landings were both publicity stunt and actual hard science. Our knowledge of the Moon, and the evolution of the Earth, were dramatically transformed by the results of these landings. Taken as a whole, including Apollo's unmanned and manned precursors, the program is responsible for much of our understanding of solar system physics, and much of the managerial and engineering techniques and technology are still in use today in the industry.

But I don't feel the need to convince you, or anybody else. We all make up our own minds, with the information to which we expose ourselves.

The quality of the information obtained, and the training and experience going into evaluating the information, are critically important to drawing correct conclusions. Let's face it: lots of people make up their own minds and are flat wrong. For instance, many people still believe Iraq was behind 9/11. I will not get into a political discussion here, but whatever your political views, such a belief is simply wrong.

Anyway, cheers!

Cheers back!

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

That's why I mentioned the POV was far away, enough to "flatten" the image such that during the clip the aspect change wouldn't be noticeable.Yes, that's an error (unless the pod was rotating, which IIRC it wasn't).

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

An angular change is still an angular change, regardless of distance.

And none of these are strictly errors; they're deliberate departures from reality for storytelling purposes.

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

Now that I just don't buy, Mak. If it was artificial gravity, it would have to be (as you say) a centrifuge, because if they had a more advanced sort, they'd have used it in Discovery.

But having a centrifuge on the moon seems to me absurdly complicated and unnecessary. On the moon, things fall downwards; there's no need to make them fall any faster. Especially for a board meeting.

Incidentally, artificial gravity is vanishingly rare in films and TV. Whether one is on Earth, on the moon, Mars, or inside a freefall spaceship, objects will always fall towards the floor at an acceleration of 9.81m/s/s, because that's what they do in the experience of the production team. The only recent exceptions are Mission to Mars, Babylon 5, and maybe two or three Star Trek movies.

Just wondering, without checking, whether the scene on the moon in the conference center was shot as is as it was too much hassle to make it look moon side so to speak. You are trying to make it look convincing but taking it too far will spoil it. Same for the shuttle with the sandwiches.

You people have it all wrong. The moon landing was faked using computer graphics. The computers were created at Area 51 by reverse-engineering the spacecraft that crashed at Roswell. This alien technology was deliberately leaked to Texas Instruments and the founders of Intel at about the same time so that integrated circuits could be created. The purpose of this was to bring the technology to the human race slowly, but not too slowly. Whenever it seems as though Moore's law is not going to withstand the test of time, they leak more technology and amazingly enough different companies come up with the same amazing technology at the same time (i.e. IBM and Intel). The computers that are used at Area 51 are at least 50 years advanced from what we have now and host multiple AI programs, some of which track us day and night through credit card purchases, atm cameras, cell phones, and satellite reconnaissance imaging. Some of the AI are dedicated to designing flying machines, and created our new stealth aircraft as a diversion. This seemingly higher than high technology was the excuse they used to cover up testing of real anti-gravity flying saucer type aircraft along with tests for ground to space vehicles that regularly travel to a base on the far side of the moon where the Illuminati have their headquarters. There, they regularly commune with aliens from a galactic federation who consider us too primitive to be members of their state. Earth has been quarantined indefinitely and no aliens are allowed to come here, although the occasional renegade smuggler comes to make deals with corporate businessmen actively involved in smuggling drugs from Central America. Some Federation Aliens like our high grade drugs so much they'll pay a great deal for them. They also like Bobby McFerrin albums and "Don't Worry, Be Happy" is an interstellar hit in the alien underground. I just made all this up, and if you didn't realize that and thought I was giving out valid information, you are an *idiot*. (Uh, moderators? Can I be banned for being mean in general or do I have to specifically target someone? I'd hate to be suspended for two weeks for calling a moron an idiot. If this is a problem let me know and I'll come back and change the word to "genius" or "insightful" or anything else that is the opposite of gullible, rock head, sheet for brines, and all the other things that come to mind that I probably shouldn't post.)


Edit: Oh man... I left out the Kennedy's... you have just got to hear about what they knew. Those assassins were operating under the same alien mind control that is being used on us via vlf radio waves.

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast