• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

A Critique of Sibrel's Moon Hoax Video

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,487
Location
WA USA
I critiqued Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". Each time the narrator said something stupid I grabbed a video frame and captioned it with the dubious claim. At first I overlaid the caption across the captured image, but it was hard to read so I changed the ratio from 16:9 to 4:3 with the caption at the bottom of the frame.

Since I only used several dozen frames of his 46 minute video, I figure it falls under the Fair Use Act. Most of the video is public domain footage from NASA anyway.

Speaking on video is not one of my strong points. My stutter comes out a bit. The end contains the sources I used to refute the claims in the video. Please tell me what I can do better and if let me know what mistakes I made. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFpHBOD3-4
 
Last edited:
I'm about halfway through and there's one point I'd change, not in the content but in the presentation: as each new still frame and caption appears, the voiceover begins instantly, so the viewer has no time to glean what Sibrel's initial claim was because you're having to read one thing and listen to another at the same time.

In fact, I'd also consider putting "Claim:" at the start of each caption to make it clearer those are Sibrel's claims and the voiceover is your comment on them. It's not necessarily obvious.
 
Thanks. So perhaps I should start each caption for example with;
Claim: The Soviets had a 5:1 advantage in space.
Click to expand...

Would a five second pause before my voice-over be good? I figured that most people would be watching on their phone or computer and be able to press pause to read the caption.
 
Ranb said:
Thanks. So perhaps I should start each caption for example with;

Would a five second pause before my voice-over be good? I figured that most people would be watching on their phone or computer and be able to press pause to read the caption.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen the video yet. But I would suggest that you read the stated claim as you show the slide.
That way you don’t have “dead air” and the viewer doesn’t have to read at a speed that fits your slideshow.
I think a continuous commentary will probably hold your audience better.
Watch how news programs do this for hints. They have science and research behind the manner in which they do their presentations on screen. Even if you just have the slide and a headline.
 
I think I'll try paraphrasing the claim, then start with my message.

Thanks for the suggestions. This is going a ton better than the last time I asked for advice on one of my videos. :)
 
To be fair, the last time I asked for a critique of a video, it was for one on gun control. One of the forum members replied with a post that implied I was acting in a criminal manner. When I objected he called me a pig. This can be a tough forum at times. :)

ETA; This is one of my covid-19 stay at home activities.
 
Ranb said:
To be fair, the last time I asked for a critique of a video, it was for one on gun control. One of the forum members replied with a post that implied I was acting in a criminal manner. When I objected he called me a pig. This can be a tough forum at times. :)

ETA; This is one of my covid-19 stay at home activities.
Click to expand...
In that case, “you’re a pig”.

Or have I misread your ETA?
 
Good deconstruction of Sibrel's lies and obfuscation, I'd add only a few points:

- People often make claims about the lack of specific shielding, and they seem to think that because it doesn't have the label "radiation shield' then it isn't one. Anything that stands between the a radiation source and target is a shield, it's just a matter of degree.

- The Soviets were actually quite amenable to the idea of a joint lunar mission, but Kennedy's assassination scuppered it when the Kruschev adminstration just didn't gel with LBJ.

- It's always worth remembering that there was a pre-internet age. All you needed to do to get NASA photographs and documentation was write and ask, just as Sibrel did! Popular media and scientific journals of the time are full of Apollo imagery - and not just the famous photographs.

- There is evidence of scouring and discolouration under the LM engine bells, which was described during the missions and documented with photographs.

- Astronauts did indeed mention stars a lot, and not just in navigation terms. Apollos 15-17 also spefically photographed stars on high speed film (not just the UV imagery done by Apollo 16). Venus was also recorded by Apollos 12, 14 and 16. http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

- there are examples of the flag moving without any apparent astronaut contact. Vibrations from movement conducted through the lunar surface and electrostatic forces are perfectly reasonable explanations for it, whereas 'it was all done in a studio' is not.

- The footage of Earth doctored by Sibrel is not just available on the internet, it was broadcast on TV and subsequently appeared on newspaper front pages, as is the case of many other live TV broadcasts where Earth is shown and where its appearance can be verified by the contemporary satellite record. http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1a.html

If you were to re-do the video, I'd echo earlier comments about allowing a little more time before you start to speak, and also to slow down your delivery a little to allow the viewer to absorb the imagery as well as focus on what you're saying :)
 
Thanks for the input Threadworm. I've already labeled each caption as "CLAIM:" and will re-record my narration to allow the viewer time to read the caption. My narration will also briefly re-cap the claim.

I haven't really read anything about the claim that JFK wanted to scrap Apollo and do it with the Soviets but I did look at a few videos including one by Amy Shira Teitel. I'll keep looking for sites devoted to Apollo opposition.

I did look into what made up the layers of the LM and CM hulls, but to keep it simple I just said aluminum and other material was used.

Right now is the internet age, Sibrel has access to the same info I do so he can wade through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal also. :)

I'll take a look at the later missisons for star photos.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I critiqued Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". Each time the narrator said something stupid I grabbed a video frame and captioned it with the dubious claim. At first I overlaid the caption across the captured image, but it was hard to read so I changed the ratio from 16:9 to 4:3 with the caption at the bottom of the frame.

Since I only used several dozen frames of his 46 minute video, I figure it falls under the Fair Use Act. Most of the video is public domain footage from NASA anyway.

Speaking on video is not one of my strong points. My stutter comes out a bit. The end contains the sources I used to refute the claims in the video. Please tell me what I can do better and if let me know what mistakes I made. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFpHBOD3-4
Click to expand...

OK, since you asked for criticism, I shall give it. Do not take it the wrong way.

First off, I was unaware you had a stutter, and the soundtrack was fine and absent any stutter. At worst, you had an occasional hesitation. I really do not think you need have any concern there. So do not worry yourself about it.

The content was good, you hit most of the most common hoax claims. Not all of them, but such a task to hit all of them would be hours long, and I guess your aim was to hit the most common in a short video. That's OK. One can only hit so many in a short video. I might have emphasised different issues, but let us admit, the Apollo hoax clowns are a target rich environment.

The only criticism I can come up with is the monotone presentation. I would suggest getting some more feeling into it. Svector did that decades ago with a robot voice (links if you want them). How? I could type my thoughts, but that would be useless. Just watch what he did.

In short, it hits all the buttons. It's the monotone that is a failure for me. Were I you, I would record the audio with more emotional engagement.

If Svector can do it with a robot voice, then you can do it with your own voice.
 
abaddon said:
OK, since you asked for criticism, I shall give it. Do not take it the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the input. As long as criticism is constructive, I like it-ish.

Based upon feedback from other viewers I deleted the original video and replaced with an updated version. Still the same voice though. :) Unfortunately that is the tone of voice that comes out of my mouth when I am reading from something I prepared. I am more natural when speaking face to face.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxpweYalUd4
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
Thank you for the input. As long as criticism is constructive, I like it-ish.

Based upon feedback from other viewers I deleted the original video and replaced with an updated version. Still the same voice though. :) Unfortunately that is the tone of voice that comes out of my mouth when I am reading from something I prepared. I am more natural when speaking face to face.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxpweYalUd4
Click to expand...

Have a friend sit in and listen while you record. Don't perform, talk to your audience. Novice newscasters are often told "talk to the cameraman, not the camera" to make sure they keep their voice engaging. If you can't have a live audience, or even a live streaming audience, try talking to a picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom