Faith, Materialism, Evidence and Layers

[Silicon]

Adding one more detail about moon landing fakery.

Look at the moving footage, people, for crissakes.

Don't look at a still photo on the internet. Look at the moving footage.


Look at the shots of the sand rooster-tailing from the wheels of the rover. Look at it! Have you ever seen dust move that way? It's moving without any fluid dynamics. That dust is not moving in air. It's moving in a vaccuum. That's pure newtonian dynamics.



Look at the movies of seperation of the LEM. LOOK! See all those thousands of bits of floating dust and ice? All of them twinkling and turning on their own centers of gravity? Also, not interacting with any airfield?

There was NO WAY to achieve this effect in visual effects before doing it in computer graphics.

You maybe, MAYBE could have done it around 1990. Shading, texture, lighting and motion-blur? Best-case, 1990.


Also, there's the fact that if the moon-orbit shots were miniature, that would have to have been the biggest sphere ever built, because they go on one full shot without cuts desending for miles.

And if one crater, ONE CRATER was off by even a quarter mile, ANY amateur astronomer with a backyard telescope could prove it with a snapshot.


And just like me, checking this against my knowlege and critical thinking, ALL science has people like me. Doing life-science? I bet there are millions of bird-watchers who are lay-experts, checking their bs detectors.

Doing physics? There are people who work with real lasers and real nuclear reactors and real particle accelerators every day(millions of them) and they know when something doesn't work.

Doing astronomy? Those folks in their backyards are watching you, reading your papers, and they know a thing or three about the sky, too.

I don't have to go to the moon to know that somebody did. I don't have to bounce lasers.

I MIGHT have to get up off my postulating, internet arguing, conspiracy-theory-chasing ass and learn a thing or two.


I bet folks on the internet could give you 1500 ways you could prove that man walked on the moon without actually going there and looking for footprints.

Of course, you won't make that search yourself, because somehow that would make you have to come to a conclusion. And somehow then you would think that means you're closed-minded.

 

[Suggestologist]

Well then, what's the point of living as a society? If no endeavor is actually real, no information is trustworthy unless you yourself can bang on it with your own hands?

Ah, you've unwittingly hit on an important point. The social reality. When a scientist or a group of scientists who have all replicated some study tell you that something is the "truth"; in order to accept what they said without your own personal experience of it, you must TRUST them. Notice that there is a huge difference between trusting a person and having personal experiencial evidence of some "fact".

You might argue that if their "facts" are wrong, then someone will eventually find out and tell me. But again, without personal experience, I must now Trust the debunker's experiment which purports to invalidate the first.

So, scientists rely on trusting one another more than their disembodied style of experimental reporting admits. Taking evidence on trust is not the same as personal experience that serves to confirm it in some way.

That's the wierd suggestologist uber-skepticism then.

What's the solution? Nobody report on any finding ever, because nothings worthy of any trust?

Nothing is worthy of too much trust until you've experienced it for yourself. That's correct. I put the moon landing having happened at a 95% confidence level; but I fear that others here are more likely to put it between 99.99999% and 100%.

How do you function!?! Do you wonder if your car will explode when you get in, because how do you know that the designer wasn't mistaken in his understanding of internal combustion?

No, because using a car is a test of the functioning of the engine; so this is not something I need to take on trust -- I have personal experience that it functions. But it is true that manufacturers often make small recalls to fix things due to faulty design of one sort or another; I also have personal experience of this.

How do you know that the electrician who wired your house didn't run wires too close to your plumbing and you'll get electrocuted in the tub?!!

I'm sure such things have happened. And I do make some visual inspection of such repair work, as well as asking some questions. My life of scepticism is not as paranoid as you paint it.

In a philosophy course, my teacher proposed the following follies:

To believe a falsehood,
To disbelieve a truth


I see that you have added a third:

For fear of believing a falsehood, you disbelieve all truths that do not present themselves as directly observable to a layperson.

I am not asking for direct observation, merely some form of direct verifiability. I don't need to know how my car engine works to test that it does work.

Any truths not directly observable without any understanding of a field, shall be discarded. Any observations by experts in that field should also be discarded. Any research into that field shall be deemed useless, as any scientific field of inquiry has been already mode-locked.

How do I know they are really an expert? There are creationists who have real credentials (yeah, most of them have fake credentials, I'm not talking about those). Do you accept them as experts just because they have a Ph.D.?

Mode-locking is basically the same idea as "punctuated equilibrium" -- which is my accepted theory of the evolution of science.

How can I prove man went to the moon, without going there myself? Hell, even if I DID go to the moon, how do I know that I wasn't drugged and hypnotized to THINK I went to the moon?!!?
How do I know I EXIST??!?!?!?
AAAAAAHHHHHHH

False memories produced by hypnosis and other methods which are not overtly hypnotic -- are things you might want to stay aware of. It is possible for people to believe they went to the moon, when they really haven't been.

"I" does not exist. "I" is a nominalization. An ever-changing sequence, a process, a pattern -- more than one in fact. What "I" is at one moment, isn't what "I" is at another. What exists are the collections of patterns that the patterns themselves call "I" -- when grammatically appropriate. Sorry, I read too much philosophy this morning.

COGITO ERGO SUM!!!

Ahhhhh.... whew....

Okay, assuming I exist, how could I prove man went to the moon.

Well for one, I COULD ASK THE GUYS THAT DID!
Assuming they don't lie.

Assuming they don't lie? Do you know what cues to look for that are highly indicative of lying in people?

For two, I could look at the photographs and the footage.

I work in the field of visual effects. Work with Oscar winners. And many of those shots STILL can't be done in miniature. Trust me, I worked on Armageddon. We had 100000 times the computer horsepower that the entire world had in 1969, and their shots STILL kick our ass. I won't bore you with lens theory, and working with miniatures, except to say, if those moon orbiting shots were miniatures, they'd need a film camera the size of an olive, a soundstage the size of new-jersey, a camera boom the size of the empire state building and a light 100 times as powerful as the sun itself.

Perhaps there is a configuration you haven't yet thought of that could explain how it could have been faked. Just like scientists who were overconfident of their ability to control for minimal cues and communication of information in parapsychology experiments; you may be overconfident of your ability to creatively imagine the configuration that would allow everything you say about the physical characteristics of the photos and videos to be true, yet still not really be genuine moon landing footage.

Think about Fermat's last proof. Mathematicians have been unable to imagine how Fermat could have had a proof that takes less than a few hundred pages to describe. Yet Fermat said he had a relatively short proof in mind. People are still looking for a short proof, attempting to creatively use their imagination to fit that configuration. In the same way, video and photo experts may simply not be able to creatively see the "tricks" involved in moon landing video and photos, yet.

They'd also have to have invented motion-control about 10 years before Star Wars. They'd have to have perfected the travelling matte and the optical printer (things that to this day haven't been perfected, we've discarded them and gone to computer).

All of these have-to's imply that they would "have to" do it the way you would have done it -- or the ways you know it could have been done. Is it possible they could have found other ways? They did invent freeze-dried ice-cream, after all.

Oh, and I know the people who were the best visual effects artists in the world in the 1960's. Doug Trumbull was the main guy. And even he couldn't do a travelling matte shot that didn't print-through.

No way in hell is that stuff fake.

Oh, but I'm an expert, and I might be mistaken.....

That's right, you could be mistaken. I don't argue that are mistaken, only that you could be; and I keep my mind open to the possibility.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggestologist said:

Ah, you've unwittingly hit on an important point. The social reality. When a scientist or a group of scientists who have all replicated some study tell you that something is the "truth"; in order to accept what they said without your own personal experience of it, you must TRUST them. Notice that there is a huge difference between trusting a person and having personal experiencial evidence of some "fact".

But the more scientists verify an idea, the more you trust them, right? Or is everything you can't replicate yourself some kind of giant conspiracy to fool you? Does your world consist of personally verified things and conspiracies?

And why do you trust yourself more than 1,000 scientists?

~~ Paul

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Well then, what's the point of living as a society? If no endeavor is actually real, no information is trustworthy unless you yourself can bang on it with your own hands?

...

What's the solution? Nobody report on any finding ever, because nothings worthy of any trust?



.......


For fear of believing a falsehood, you disbelieve all truths that do not present themselves as directly observable to a layperson.

Any truths not directly observable without any understanding of a field, shall be discarded.

I think a lot of what you touched on here is what I was trying to communicate in my post, if I may steal some of your phrases:

As a lay person that can not observe or "bang on " those discoveries that are observable by a small group of with the technology, I find that I am willing to trust science.

You make no mention of faith, so I will not try to attribute to you my own leap of faith in terms of accepting or trusting science.

When I read the findings which are done through a scientific process, I dare not say I consider them gospel, but that I accept their findings because science is a reliable tool, that is self-correcting, progressive, .

Reading the other posts covering what is involved in the science process (thanks to Stimpson J. Cats helpful contributions), I am reminded that science:

is a robust tool, the best tool that humankind has to understand the natural world

is constantly being verified as experiments are repeatable

is self correcting as new evidence is examined.
As only a temporary, provisional agreement is reached, after peer review, new evidence will determine if a claim or hypothesis stands up to the new evidence (this is something that I did not touch on in my origional post, but was reminded of in Stimpson's helpful posts).


origionally posted by Stimpson

You can't seriously be saying that you have to take the fact that people landed on the moon on faith, can you?

You know, I just may, if I have no way of observing or having access to the hard evidence. I may take a leap of faith.

In my limited exposure to science, I have participated in and applied scientific process (as a student, teacher and layman only), in the sense of hands on repeatable, verifiable, observable, falsifiable experiements. Some of these experiments were not able to be done a few decades ago by students, teachers, and laymen, but were by those with the technology and resources to do so.
These experiments were repeated and verified at the time, and a (provisional) concensus within the scientific community was reached in the past. The findings were communicated to, and read by, laypeople.

Perhaps I don't have enough evidence or I have a misunderstanding of science and scientific process.
Perhaps I am missing some contexts or clues that make science a self-evident reliable tool.
Perhaps I should stop and reconsider before making a statement such as: 'I have faith in science and in the scienctific process even though I can not directly observe or participate in the latest breakthrough communicated to laypeople.'

Does this put me in danger of being credulous of every new claim, outcome and test result that is forwarded that I as a lay person may read about? Dynamic has indicated on this thread that it does, but at least I have considered that I am credulous.

Lets assume here that the scientific community in scientific field 'x', which may be a small field, has reached provisional concensus on a claim or finding.

As a lay person with limited exposure to science (particularly field 'x' ) what options do I have?

I will list some, note some are not exclusive or independent from one-another:

Reject claims and reported findings because I can not directly observe the evidence, nor (with my resources) can I repeat the experiments that are relevant.
or "For fear of believing a falsehood, (I) disbelieve all truths that do not present themselves as directly observable to a layperson." - as Silicon adequately worded in a previous post.


Presume that the claims and findings or scientists are not trustworthy because scientists are controlled by a militaristic nation or by multi-national corperations and thus reject them or "everything (I) can't replicate (my)self (is) some kind of giant conspiracy to fool (me). (My) world does consist of personally verified things and conspiracies. (I) trust (my)self more than 1,000 scientists. ~ Paraphrased from Paul's post.

Reject science all together because it has been wrong in the past and science is constantly revising its claims and findings, or God and His word are constant and neverchanging and there are absolutes as demonstrated in His Word.

Largely having a misunderstanding of science and scientific procedure and how it is applied, I, as a layperson, should mind my own business as I am not qualified/competent to view the evidence and findings.

Having neither the ability to observe evidence and/or perform experiments relevant to the claims and findings I, as a layperson, should mind my business as I do not have the means to verify a repeatable experiment.


Presume to think that scientists believe that they have a monopoly on the truth, or that science can not ascertain truth as only God and His everlasting Word can give us insight into His universe.

Having neither the ability to observe evidence and/or perform experiments relevant to claims and findings, I, as a layperson, (untrained, unqualified and possibly lacking understanding of scientific procedure) take a leap of faith.

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggestologist said:
But the more scientists verify an idea, the more you trust them, right? Or is everything you can't replicate yourself some kind of giant conspiracy to fool you? Does your world consist of personally verified things and conspiracies?

And why do you trust yourself more than 1,000 scientists?

~~ Paul

Why don't you trust the Bible? Hundreds of millions of people do. If you're theistic, then I understand, of course.

Social structure is itself an implicit conspiracy. We do not have to be aware of engaging in a conspiracy, in order to enforce its implicit edicts.

We are recruited into society, and led to believe a set of social "truths". We then use these truths to both self-criticize and use our "normalizing judgements" to keep others in line with that set of social "truths".

An example: In our society, belching in public is thought to be rude. It doesn't have to be thought of as rude, but it is an edict of our society that when someone belches in public, we look at them funny -- the "normalizing gaze". This keeps them in line, makes them feel foolish, etc. When we belch in public, we may think badly of ourselves as well -- it depends upon how deeply we have bought into this social rule. Now, this all amounts to an implicit conspiracy to make belching in public a social ill, to stigmatize those who belch in public. How many people are aware that they are a part of this anti-belching conspiracy? Some people are, most people are not. End of example.

In the same way, scientists are part of a conspiracy of power. You should believe what they say (that's the social rule), even if they are talking about things of which they have no personal experience.

I'll stop paraphrasing now and provide a quote: "...[C]ertain speakers, those with training in certain special techniques -- supposedly to do with the powers of the mind to make contact with reality -- are priviledged to speak with authority beyond the range of their personal experience." This is a social rule of the scientist social conspiracy. And those who dare disagree with it will be made to look foolish. And Stimpson has made a marvelous attempt at enforcing it upon me.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

.....
Social structure is itself an implicit conspiracy. We do not have to be aware of engaging in a conspiracy, in order to enforce its implicit edicts.

We are recruited into society, and led to believe a set of social "truths". We then use these truths to both self-criticize and use our "normalizing judgements" to keep others in line with that set of social "truths".

wait a minute......

Which Wachowski brother are you? Is this the spoiler for the 3rd Matrix movie? Aren't you contratually obligated not to make this information public? Warner Bothers is not going to be pleased.

 

[Silicon]

All of these have-to's imply that they would "have to" do it the way you would have done it -- or the ways you know it could have been done. Is it possible they could have found other ways? They did invent freeze-dried ice-cream, after all.

[/B]

How do you KNOW they invented freeze-dried ice-cream?


HUH HUH HUH?



No, it's not possible they could have found other ways, because that suggests a technology that surpasses landing on the moon, or putting objects and people in orbit. It actually surpasses it by about 35 years.

Trust me, I know what 100 million dollars in visual effects looks like. I know how it's done, and I know how it was done in 1969. I know the guys who were the best in the business in 1969, still some of the best in the business.

To do the "effects" of the Apollo program alone, TODAY, in the COMPUTER, presuming that ALL the computers had already been invented, and you could just buy linux computers, and the software off the shelf.

To do all of that today, you'd be talking $100 million at least. And a staff of probably a thousand artists, maybe more, if you don't have close-up photography of the moon.

Take a look at the credits of Finding Nemo (less than 2 hours long, thousands of artists), and realize that the Apollo program produced hundreds of hours of footage.

Now imagine the orders of magnitude larger that community of artists would have to have been in 1969. Instead of thousands, you'd need millions of people. And those people would have needed to have been each one, an expert in the field of visual effects. Like BETTER than anyone alive today. And they would have had to learn that somewhere. So they'd have to be trained.

And then, they'd ALL have to forget that new way they figured it out. And they'd never work again.

Or do you mean they found a simple way to fake hundreds of hours of footage? Like somehow footage itself, of anything, even a guy sitting at a desk, doesn't require a set, or lights, or a camera, and someone to build all of that, and suspend objects from wires, and remove those wires, and come up with the methodology for removing those wires, and then remove the wires from hours and hours of footage with some new rotoscoping technique and an optical printer that doesn't leave matte edges, and that itself has to be built by someone who doesn't tell and never works again....

Yeah, a simple way to build miniatures of the ships and then suspend them while photographing them in a constant shot from close up to dozens of miles away, a difference of scale of 100 to 1 or more, all the while never cutting away, never transitioning, which would require a soundstage more than a mile in length, while a light illuminates it with nearly parallel beams of light that require an extremely distant light source,

That simple way would require a knowlege of, and the invention of a camera lens that would greatly surpass any lens known to science, only theoretical lenses modelled by computer out of infinitely plastic surfaces.. They would require a camera that would be smaller than any camera ever built, one so small that light itself would have a tough time getting into it. Or it would require the building of a soundstage so large as to take up one of the smaller states of the union.

ad nauseum....

There is no simple way. And if there were, the person who figured it out would have an intellect that made Albert Einstein look like Mortimer Snerd.

So, two possible explanations:

They got millions of people who are at least 30 years before their time in the technology of visual effects, or dozens of people who are 100 years or more ahead of their time in camera theory. Then made them all forget it.

OR

They got people who were EXACTLY at their time in the fields of science and engineering. And then, when they left NASA all worked in the private sector to bring that technolgy into the very computer you bang on today.


And it fails the fact that any fakery on the topography of the moon is falsifyable by anyone with a backyard telescope.

Ah, what's the use? You probably believe you are a brain in a jar. After all, the only thing you can prove is your own mind works.



Or DOES it?!!?

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Trust me, I know what 100 million dollars in visual effects looks like. I know how it's done, and I know how it was done in 1969. I know the guys who were the best in the business in 1969, still some of the best in the business.

To do the "effects" of the Apollo program alone, TODAY, in the COMPUTER, presuming that ALL the computers had already been invented, and you could just buy linux computers, and the software off the shelf.

To do all of that today, you'd be talking $100 million at least. And a staff of probably a thousand artists, maybe more, if you don't have close-up photography of the moon.

Person that favours Moon Landing Hoax:
shaking my head, in denial
shaking my head, in denial



Silicon , thanks for you perspective on how to pull off a moon hoax in 1969, with a $100,000,000 budget (1967 or 2003 USdollars ? ) , with access to computer technology and special effects 20 to 35 years ahead of their time.

If you meant 1967 US dollars, just multiply that figure by 4 as you double the value of a dollar every 18 years assuming a conservative estimate of 4% per annum inflation rate, getting a value of US$400,000,000 2003 dollars.

I had never though about the moon landing from this perspective, this is very helpful. Your insight, considering your experience in the field, is valuable. Perhaps you should consider passing this insight onto Phil Plait www.badastronomy.com who appears to be a part time movie buff.

case in point for your reference to movie making in 1969.

Stanley Kubrick's Academy Award- winning (for Special Video Effects, 1968)

2001:a space odyssey
done in Super PANAVISION (registered TM)
and METROCOLOR (registered TM).

The movie took over 3 years to make, released in 1968.

Occassionally when I watch it (and I watch it a lot) my belief gets suspended at certain points in the movie. I get a "feeling" of "Wow, its like they filmed that in space." But then again I and my senses are easily fooled .

The budget for 2001:aso was $10.5 million apparantly, considerable for the time. A budget of that size would not be seen again until E.T. (1982).

A $100,000,000 plus budget would not be seen for a movie until 1991, Cameron's Terminator 2:Judgement Day.


Buena vista's Computer Generated extravaganza, Dinosaur cost an amazing $200 million in 2000, tied with some movie about a sinking ship in 1997. Dinosaur has yet to break even.Movie Budgets

It looks like Silicon's guess of $100,000,000 is a good ball park figure.

Now in comparing 2001:aso to the footage from the Apollo program, there is no comparison. The Apollo footage wins, hands down. Kubrick and his crew were ahead of their time, but they filmed on earth, with all of the challenges of filming a space adventure on planet earth.

There is a "lunar" scene in the movie, that can not compare to the lunar landings footage. There is a Space Station (in geosynchrynous orbit?) portrayed with gravity generated by spinning the "wheel" shaped station.

If Stanely Kubrick can effectivley fake a lunar city, a lunar dig, and a space station, then NASA could just as easily fake their lunar landing and the International Space Station. The drawback being: not getting the awesome, effective footage that we see of the Apollo program.

But

If NASA is just going to fake lunar landings and International Space stations without artificially generated gravity, then, why not go all out and get a bigger bang for $400,000,000?
Why not just create a real space program for the same amount of money.

Oops, the Apollo program cost:

$19,408,134,000.


Apollo Budget 34% of Nasa's budget apparantly for the years it was running the Apollo program.

So, Nasa spent almost $20 billion dollars, and all they made was the most expensive movie series ever created, and it did not even get a nomination for an Academy Award!

Note that Apollo 13 (1995) had a $65,000,000 budget and it garnered Academy Awards!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggesto said:

Why don't you trust the Bible? Hundreds of millions of people do. If you're theistic, then I understand, of course.

Becaue the content of the Bible was arrived at in a different way from most scientific results.

Social structure is itself an implicit conspiracy. We do not have to be aware of engaging in a conspiracy, in order to enforce its implicit edicts.

Huh?

We are recruited into society, and led to believe a set of social "truths". We then use these truths to both self-criticize and use our "normalizing judgements" to keep others in line with that set of social "truths".

An example: In our society, belching in public is thought to be rude. It doesn't have to be thought of as rude, but it is an edict of our society that when someone belches in public, we look at them funny -- the "normalizing gaze". This keeps them in line, makes them feel foolish, etc. When we belch in public, we may think badly of ourselves as well -- it depends upon how deeply we have bought into this social rule. Now, this all amounts to an implicit conspiracy to make belching in public a social ill, to stigmatize those who belch in public. How many people are aware that they are a part of this anti-belching conspiracy? Some people are, most people are not. End of example.

All righty then.

In the same way, scientists are part of a conspiracy of power. You should believe what they say (that's the social rule), even if they are talking about things of which they have no personal experience.

Science is different from belching. This is demonstrated by the fact that science works all over the planet, whereas belching is frowned upon in certain societies and accepted in others.

I'll stop paraphrasing now and provide a quote: "...[C]ertain speakers, those with training in certain special techniques -- supposedly to do with the powers of the mind to make contact with reality -- are priviledged to speak with authority beyond the range of their personal experience." This is a social rule of the scientist social conspiracy. And those who dare disagree with it will be made to look foolish. And Stimpson has made a marvelous attempt at enforcing it upon me.

You are giving too much credence to individual personal experience as opposed to collective organized experience. Ponder what the world would be like if people could only express confidence in things they had personally experienced. For example, you could not be confident in expressing the very philosophy you are currently expressing.

I smell the belch of Postmodernism here.

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

There is no simple way. And if there were, the person who figured it out would have an intellect that made Albert Einstein look like Mortimer Snerd.

Now that Fermat is dead, no one knows of a simple way to prove his "last theorem".

Just because nobody knows of a simple way, doesn't mean one wasn't known to Fermat.

So, two possible explanations:

They got millions of people who are at least 30 years before their time in the technology of visual effects, or dozens of people who are 100 years or more ahead of their time in camera theory. Then made them all forget it.

OR

They got people who were EXACTLY at their time in the fields of science and engineering. And then, when they left NASA all worked in the private sector to bring that technolgy into the very computer you bang on today.

Oh, it's probably just alien technology. Alien camera techniques and set-builders helped them fake all that footage. Roswell, yeah. They found the cameras in the alien wreckage there.

Ah, what's the use? You probably believe you are a brain in a jar. After all, the only thing you can prove is your own mind works.

Are you saying it's impossible that one is just a brain in a jar?

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggesto said:
Science is different from belching. This is demonstrated by the fact that science works all over the planet, whereas belching is frowned upon in certain societies and accepted in others.

You're comparing apples to fruit. The prohibition on public belching is a social rule. "Science" is a society which has social rules.

When you say that "science works all over the planet", I have no idea what you could mean. Scientists all over the planet are all effective? Scientific experiments everywhere validate what they claim to validate? My watch works wherever I go on Earth?

You are giving too much credence to individual personal experience as opposed to collective organized experience. Ponder what the world would be like if people could only express confidence in things they had personally experienced. For example, you could not be confident in expressing the very philosophy you are currently expressing.

I smell the belch of Postmodernism here.

~~ Paul

Collective organized experience is a set of social truths, which often includes religious adherence. I don't think that your term means what you think it should mean.

And, I've experienced my "philosophy", so I'm within bounds.

If I fart while I'm asleep, do I smell the fart?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you say that "science works all over the planet", I have no idea what you could mean. Scientists all over the planet are all effective? Scientific experiments everywhere validate what they claim to validate? My watch works wherever I go on Earth?

I mean science works in China, even if the social rule involving belching is different there. As I said, science is different from belching.

Collective organized experience is a set of social truths, which often includes religious adherence. I don't think that your term means what you think it should mean.

Are you suggesting that it is only an agreed-upon truth that you'll smash flat on the ground if you jump off a tall building?

And, I've experienced my "philosophy", so I'm within bounds.

But have you ever had the experience of speaking with authority about something beyond the range of your personal experience?

If I fart while I'm asleep, do I smell the fart?

I think so, although you may not be aware of it.

~~ Paul

 

[Silicon]

Are you saying it's impossible that one is just a brain in a jar? [/B]

No.

I merely suggested that because it seemed like the theory that would be most appealing to you, because it combines:

1. an ego-centric view that any knowledge in the world is only worthy if is percieved by the mind of Suggestologist itself.

2. a cool, x-files like conspiracy theory. The biggest one possible!

3. the absolutely most complex, convoluted and least simple explanation for the world that Suggestologist percieves. Occam's razor in reverse? Or the MOST Razor possible, Nobody and nothing but Suggestologist exist! BE GONE phantoms of Suggestologist's mind!

Well, Suggestologist, you figured it out. Hello, I'd like to introduce myself. I am the Designer. I created the Matrix.

We have all been in on this, from the beginning. You are just a brain in a jar. Your memories of your mother? Implants. Yes. Everything's been a fabrication. That spider outside your window when you were a child? Watched her build a web all summer long. Then one day, a hundred little baby spiders climbed out. And they ate her.

We know all about it. It was all designed for you. Implants. Those aren't your memories.

Sorry, now that the experiment has been discovered, we'll have to throw your jar out. It's been fun. See you.

 

[Silicon]

Yeah, PPG.

The effects in 2001, a lot of them hold up today. Amazing stuff, some of which are still the best of all time.

The problem is, all the stuff that Kubrick and Trumbull weren't able to pull off, and the even harder stuff that was never attempted.

For example, you always see ships silhouetted against stars. Never against the moon itself or planets.

so you see this

But you never see this:

That's because the matting process would print the earth through the dark parts of the image of Kubrick's space-station. Also, you'd see the mounting rod, as that was hard to matte out over the planet. But easy to matte out in the dark starfield.

You never see shots where space-ships go from close up to very very far away in continuous shots. There's only so much soundstage you can build and light!

Parallel shadows that you get from a distant light source. This is really really hard. That's why the outdoor dig site is lit by those practical lights in the scene. They knew they couldn't fake it.

The 500-degree difference between sunlight and shade. Really tough to light for in a soundstage. Stages have walls, and light bounces. So again, they lit the dig with those big practical worklights.


The stuff that they attempted but weren't able to pull off were:

Floating objects. You can see the glass that the fountain pen is mounted to. Hell, you can see the fingerprints on the glass! The floating food trays are laughable, and the wires are plainly visible. Wire removal wouldn't be invented until Back to the Future II.

Moon gravity. This isn't even attempted in the moonbase interior meeting scene. Outdoors they merely walk slowly, rather than bounce and kick up dust. For From The Earth To The Moon, they devised an ingenious scheme to attach huge helium balloons to the actors, so they could jump like Neil Armstrong. Of course for that miniseries, they had computers to do the wire-removal, as well as paint out the giant shadows that those balloons cast on the lunar landscape.

Men walking in the foothills of the moon. This doesn't work, as it's obviously a shallow-perspective front-screen projection. The vanishing points are way off, and it's incredibly hard to light this kind of shot unless your screen image is brighter than the live action.



But still, one of the greatest effects films ever made. Too bad NASA had to top it 10000 times over the very next year.

 

[Suggestologist]

I mean science works in China, even if the social rule involving belching is different there. As I said, science is different from belching.

You're right. Science is at a different logical level from belching. Just as a society is at a different logical level from a social rule.

You haven't clarified what you mean by the very vague verb: "to work" -- as you mean it to mean regarding "science". I gave you an ample prompt in the previous reply to clarify this.

Are you suggesting that it is only an agreed-upon truth that you'll smash flat on the ground if you jump off a tall building?

I'm suggesting that the description and subjective meaning of an event is an agreed-upon "truth", the physical reality is the physical reality and no one had to agree on it.

However, I do not accept another person's report of "video-description" observation at the same level of confidence as my own personal "video-description" observations. By video-descriptions, I mean what one would see had an event been recorded on video (audio included) -- what some might call objective facts. Of course it can only be what I think I would see on a video recording -- unless it's actually been recorded on video.

But have you ever had the experience of speaking with authority about something beyond the range of your personal experience?

Yes.

 

[Suggestologist]

No.

I merely suggested that because it seemed like the theory that would be most appealing to you, because it combines:

1. an ego-centric view that any knowledge in the world is only worthy if is percieved by the mind of Suggestologist itself.

2. a cool, x-files like conspiracy theory. The biggest one possible!

3. the absolutely most complex, convoluted and least simple explanation for the world that Suggestologist percieves. Occam's razor in reverse? Or the MOST Razor possible, Nobody and nothing but Suggestologist exist! BE GONE phantoms of Suggestologist's mind!

It's actually too simple for my taste. Now, if I were a liver in a jar in a shark, crystalized within a diamond...

Well, Suggestologist, you figured it out. Hello, I'd like to introduce myself. I am the Designer. I created the Matrix.

We have all been in on this, from the beginning. You are just a brain in a jar. Your memories of your mother? Implants. Yes. Everything's been a fabrication. That spider outside your window when you were a child? Watched her build a web all summer long. Then one day, a hundred little baby spiders climbed out. And they ate her.

We know all about it. It was all designed for you. Implants. Those aren't your memories.

Sorry, now that the experiment has been discovered, we'll have to throw your jar out. It's been fun. See you.

Great, I get to go to the meta-matrix or is it the meta-meta-matrix; whichever. When do I get to visit the Vortex, that's where I'd really like to get to.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Yeah, PPG.

The effects in 2001, a lot of them hold up today. Amazing stuff, some of which are still the best of all time.

.............


But still, one of the greatest effects films ever made. Too bad NASA had to top it 10000 times over the very next year.

hey, cool stuff

never thought of the problems regarding matte and silhouettes, that sure explains a lot about the shots in 2001:aso.

Thanks for sharing

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggestologist said:

You haven't clarified what you mean by the very vague verb: "to work" -- as you mean it to mean regarding "science". I gave you an ample prompt in the previous reply to clarify this.

The results of science (technology) work everywhere. Science can be conducted everywhere. The process of science works everywhere.

I'm suggesting that the description and subjective meaning of an event is an agreed-upon "truth", the physical reality is the physical reality and no one had to agree on it.

So, for example, the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is an agreed-upon "truth"? Sort of, although no one calls it truth (there is no truth in science) and everyone knows there are competing interpretations.

However, I do not accept another person's report of "video-description" observation at the same level of confidence as my own personal "video-description" observations. By video-descriptions, I mean what one would see had an event been recorded on video (audio included) -- what some might call objective facts. Of course it can only be what I think I would see on a video recording -- unless it's actually been recorded on video.

So your confidence in the existence of Antarctica really is lower than your confidence in the existence of your house? (I assume you've not been there.)

I said:

But have you ever had the experience of speaking with authority about something beyond the range of your personal experience?

and you answered:

Yes.

And why do you think that you should not have done that?

I bet you've never seen your heart. Do you have one?

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Silicon

For From The Earth To The Moon, they devised an ingenious scheme to attach huge helium balloons to the actors, so they could jump like Neil Armstrong.

I want one of those. How huge are we talking here?

I also am finding your technical review quite interesting, and most convincing. My confidence in the genuineness of the moon landings now approaches 100% by at least three or four more decimal places.

 

[Silicon]

Here's the transcript of an online chat with the actors, the author and Astronaut James Lovell about the making of the series PD is the interviewer, TD is Tim Daly, actor; BC is Brett Cullen, actor; AC is Andrew Chaikin, author of the book:


http://www.ari.net/nss/apollo/html/actors/transcript404.html

Nasaniki asks: How did you simulate anti-gravity in filming the
series?

TD: A combination of high-tech teeter-totters and strong thigh
muscles.

BC: The way we did it....we had a teeter-totter when we were in
the lunar module to simulate weightlessness. We also did a
couple shots where we were hung from wires and they took the
wires out digitally. Working with Tom Hanks makes you
weightless anyway.

TD: Stop being such a suck-up, Brett!

AC: I watched them filming the moonwalk sequences in an
enormous hanger in California. The stuntmen and actors were
suspended from 50-ft long helium balloons to simulate the moon's
1/6 gravity. I tried it and it was pretty exhausting. After a half hour
I was wiped out. The balloon had a mind of its own.

PD: Great idea for a theme park - helium balloons!

BC: The interesting thing about what Andy is saying, Dave Scott
said he wished they had been trained this way to be on the moon.

TD: The theme park idea would never work because everyone
would breathe in the helium to make that stupid voice!