• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Belz... said:
You watched "Capricorn One", I take it? :)
Click to expand...

I did, but the YT links aren't anything to do with "Capricorn One"

They are from a British (Anglia TV) mockumentary called "Alternative Three" broadcast on ITV in 1977 as an episode in a fictional (but real sounding) series called "Science Report".

The show was originally supposed to have aired on April 1st 1977 as an April Fool joke, but there were problems and it could not be aired until June of that year. However, such is the disconnect between conspiracy theorists and reality that some became convinced the show was real, even after Anglia announced it was an elaborate joke. The delusional CT nutbars reckon the show was part of some NWO disinformation campaign, insisting that making it look like a hoax was a trick to hide "Tha Twoof" in plain sight.

There is no shortage of stupid in Conspracyworld!!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I did, but the YT links aren't anything to do with "Capricorn One"

They are from a British (Anglia TV) mockumentary called "Alternative Three" broadcast on ITV in 1977 as an episode in a fictional (but real sounding) series called "Science Report".

The show was originally supposed to have aired on April 1st 1977 as an April Fool joke, but there were problems and it could not be aired until June of that year. However, such is the disconnect between conspiracy theorists and reality that some became convinced the show was real, even after Anglia announced it was an elaborate joke. The delusional CT nutbars reckon the show was part of some NWO disinformation campaign, insisting that making it look like a hoax was a trick to hide "Tha Twoof" in plain sight.

There is no shortage of stupid in Conspracyworld!!
Click to expand...

I have just finished the book, which I bought out of amusement - I remember watching the program when it went out. It was very poor. On the back it is classed as 'Fiction'.
 
smartcooky said:
Are you talking about "Capricorn One" or the "Alternative Three"?
Click to expand...

Alternative three :)

It does the usual thing a conspiracy theory does - weaving in actual facts with complete fabrication, and keeps up the pretense that it is a genuine expose of bad people doing bad things, but it fails on the science (amongst other things). Even the dedication is to supposedly 'disappeared' scientists. What it claims to be is an expansion of the original 'documentary', with things in it discovered later and with material supposedly suppressed by the secret powers etc etc.

The 'fiction' label attached to both the broadcast and book is also part of the attempted suppression of the truth, which somehow didn't extend to actually approaching the publisher and forcing it off the shelves. Given that 'they' have the power to murder people by telepathic instruction you would think that would be pretty straightforward.

The conceit is clever and consistent, but the content is balderdash.

It also repeats the "Those babies are huge" story several times as if it is reported fact, which is interesting for the history of that story if nothing else.
 
Someone is finally making the Moon Hoax film that should have been made instead of Capricorn One, what if they did try to fake it, but shall we say made a total dogs breakfast of it....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkErpwIoy4U


...look to seeing Hoax peddlers falling all over themselves to analyse this 'confession'.
 
I just found this video from a year ago regarding some of the hoax theorist' s lighting issues. It's interesting that they discovered that a lot the illumination in the "faked" iconic image of Aldrin descending the ladder was reflected from Armstrong's suit.


By the way, if they threw in the LRV, I'd totally buy that 'Walking Around on the Moon' game.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
I just found this video from a year ago regarding some of the hoax theorist' s lighting issues. It's interesting that they discovered that a lot the illumination in the "faked" iconic image of Aldrin descending the ladder was reflected from Armstrong's suit.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, has been the right answer for the nearly 20 years since that claim was first made. There exists an attempt at locating the "additional" light source based on photogrammetric rectification. It seems very convincing to the layman, and even reasonably intriguing to the knowledgeable reader. But of course the ruthlessly rigorous scientist will want to see the error analysis, which, in this study, was completely fudged and hidden away. A proper restatement of the error analysis shows that the "fill" light source was located to within a tolerance that handily included Armstrong's space suit. The reader isn't told that the error bars exist, much less that they include a known light source.
 
JayUtah said:
Which, of course, has been the right answer for the nearly 20 years since that claim was first made. There exists an attempt at locating the "additional" light source based on photogrammetric rectification. It seems very convincing to the layman, and even reasonably intriguing to the knowledgeable reader. But of course the ruthlessly rigorous scientist will want to see the error analysis, which, in this study, was completely fudged and hidden away. A proper restatement of the error analysis shows that the "fill" light source was located to within a tolerance that handily included Armstrong's space suit. The reader isn't told that the error bars exist, much less that they include a known light source.
Click to expand...
Just another example of applying terrestrial expectations to an alien environment. Hell, even that term will be glommed onto by HB's as an admission of aliens on the moon.

There is no win with such wingnuts.
 
Tonight the moon is a thin crescent sliver. I saw it not long after sunset and the unlit part of the moon was clearly visible as grey against the black of the sky. A beautiful example of bounce/fill light at a very large scale.
 
I still don't get why people don't debunk the "multiple light sources cause the non-parallel shadows" and the "multiple light sources cause the fill-light observations" rubbish by pointing out the simplest fact of all. Debunks range from uneven ground to perspective distortion for the former, to Armstrong's suit and lunar surface albedo for the latter.

However, for the lay person, this can seem a little difficult to follow. The simplest debunk is that multiple light sources MUST result in multiple shadows. Anyone who has been to a night-time sports event at a stadium with lighting towers will have seen this for themselves.

imageGen.jpg


If there are NO multiple shadows, there are NO multiple light sources.

If this Apollo scene...

photo05.jpg


was shot using multiple light sources, it would look more like this...

photo05a.jpg
 
smartcooky said:
I did, but the YT links aren't anything to do with "Capricorn One"

They are from a British (Anglia TV) mockumentary called "Alternative Three" broadcast on ITV in 1977 as an episode in a fictional (but real sounding) series called "Science Report".

The show was originally supposed to have aired on April 1st 1977 as an April Fool joke, but there were problems and it could not be aired until June of that year. However, such is the disconnect between conspiracy theorists and reality that some became convinced the show was real, even after Anglia announced it was an elaborate joke. The delusional CT nutbars reckon the show was part of some NWO disinformation campaign, insisting that making it look like a hoax was a trick to hide "Tha Twoof" in plain sight.

There is no shortage of stupid in Conspracyworld!!
Click to expand...

I remember seeing that. Was difficult to believe, then during credits .... production or copyright date,,,, April 1. The journalism and engineering students I hung around with, we all burst out laughing.
 
One of my favorite YouTube users has a new video up about the "admission" in a video about the development of the Orion spacecraft.

 
smartcooky said:
I still don't get why people don't debunk the "multiple light sources cause the non-parallel shadows" and the "multiple light sources cause the fill-light observations" rubbish by pointing out the simplest fact of all. Debunks range from uneven ground to perspective distortion for the former, to Armstrong's suit and lunar surface albedo for the latter.

However, for the lay person, this can seem a little difficult to follow. The simplest debunk is that multiple light sources MUST result in multiple shadows. Anyone who has been to a night-time sports event at a stadium with lighting towers will have seen this for themselves.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/imageGen.jpg[/qimg]

If there are NO multiple shadows, there are NO multiple light sources.

If this Apollo scene...

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/photo05.jpg[/qimg]

was shot using multiple light sources, it would look more like this...

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/photo05a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The first time I saw the claim that shadows pointing in different directions meant multiple light sources, I thought, no, that's stupid, if there were multiple lights there would be multiple shadows. It makes me think that the Apllo hoax believers all live in their Mom's basement, in a room with a single bare light bulb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom