And smack in the middle of Apollo 13 and Apollo 1 technical debates, Patrick radically changes subjects again.
Apparently we're not going to be talking anymore about the Cortright report that Patrick obviously didn't read, since he can't materially discuss what it contains or does not contain, didn't realize it really does describe the the experiments he said were never performed, and can't pony up to the status this work has in the relevant industries.
Apparently we're not going to continue our discussion about how the chemstry of combustion works, since his attempts to get others to do his homework have failed and his vague handwaving references to "high school chemistry" didn't impress anyone.
And apparently we're not going to see Patrick defend his claims in person with the people he's libeled.
No -- it looks like Patrick has found a new word, "chromakey," that's going to be his new whipping boy until he gets cornered on that topic and decides to change subjects. That's right, don't expect any closure on this new topic either. He'll backpedal and bluster as usual.
Never mind that Patrick previously said he "didn't do photos," which means he's woefully behind the curve on this topic too and needs to pretend he isn't playing catch-up as he asserts his dominance of knowledge and expertise. Never mind that I have photo analysis training from the Univ. of Michigan as part of their forensic engineering program, that my analysis has been referenced in Science (the foremost peer-reviewed scientific journal in the English language), and that I've been consulted on the subject on camera by National Geographic, Mythbusters, and others. I'm sure Patrick will favor us very shortly with claims of infallibility on this subject as well.
And he doesn't stop with Apollo photos and videos too. Nope, now even his fellow conspiracy theorists aren't safe: apparently Patrick has stone-hard proof that Bart Sibrel's famous punch-heard-round-the-Moon video is a cheap forgery too. Apparently in the 24 hours since his Cortright Report gaffe was broadcast to the world, Patrick has now become a world-class photo analyst, where previously he said he didn't have any expertise.
Of course I can put Patrick in contact with Bart Sibrel. Obviously I don't talk to him regularly, but I have his contact information and I have put people in touch with him before. Here's the hitch: Bart's appearance fee, last I checked, was $2,500, so if Patrick wants the pleasure of telling Bart to his face that he faked the Aldrin punch video, it's going to cost him. But somehow I think a guy who brags about his hand-made bicycle can afford to pay Bart.
As for fill lighting in the Apollo photos -- been there done that. National Geographic, one of the most recognizable forces today in photography, seems to consider me enough of an expert on the subject to ask me to demonstrate features of Apollo photography on camera under their illustrious name. And to be sure, we asked all the Moon hoax photo "experts" to come along too and show how their theories would still work. Naturally none of them rose to the occasion. Just like our illustrious doctor, not-doctor, bicycle champion, sextant expert, radar programmer, snowflake and bike engineer Patrick, these guys cower in the shadows (pun intended) and won't display their "expertise" without a safety net.
So obviously we won't be seeing Patrick being held accountable to Sy Liebergot, Gene Kranz, Jim Lovell, my engineer friends at NASA/Ames (where much of the Cortright report experiments were carried out), and my flight surgeon associates at Moffett. He won't agree to be in the same room as they without face-saving assurances.
So moving on to cinematography, what resources can we bring to bear? Well, again there's me. I'm a recognized expert on the lighting in Apollo photos. Patrick the Anonymous can try to contend with me, but he will typically just quote my entire post and then change the subject. No help there.
Keep in mind that the university where I taught has classrooms named after half the pioneers of the computer animation squads at Disney and Pixar -- why? because they all went to school with me here. I have contacts at Digital Domain, where I consulted the visual effects for the Apollo 13 movie (they needed to know which RCS quads would credibly fire). I'm sure Charlie Ziarko wouldn't mind talking about filmmaking, since he helps out with my site from time to time. He's long retired, but he still loves talking the biz. I did mention my association with Tony Frewin, who was Stanley Kubrick's assistant during the making of 2001 and some of his other visual-effect films. I still hang out with John Flynn, who is a video producer working in Hollywood. His DP Sasha Rendulic is fun to work with and can shed some light (pun again intended) on compositing techniques both then and now.
Between me and my Rolodex I'm sure we can find plenty of real-life people to hold Patrick's feet to the fire. Will Patrick agree to meet in person with these people? Time will tell, but you know where my bet is. I'm sure he'll make the same lame counterproposal -- that anyone is free to come perform in his little circus where he risks nothing, yet claims ultimate eminence.
