PDA

View Full Version : Fake Apollo 11 Clip



DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 07:25 AM
What is the story with the clip promoted by Bart Sibrel and others featuring the Apollo 11 astronauts alleged to be in low earth orbit during the very same time they are en route to the moon. There is a supposed transparency of the earth placed over the window and it is suggested by some this was how shots of the earth from cislunar space were faked. I is there a good reference debunking this.

AGN Fuel
2011-May-10, 07:30 AM
It has been debunked many times, and a search will produce lengthy threads discussing it. I must point out though that it is one of the sillier claims (and that is saying something). Any claim that the CSM being in low-Earth orbit during the time it should have been in cislunar space, would need to address why every amateur astronomer around the world wasn't able to foil the grand conspiracy by the simple act of going outside and looking up.

PetersCreek
2011-May-10, 07:31 AM
That "clip" was a short film by hoax proponent Bart Sibrel called, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. I believe you've already been referred to the Clavius website. There you'll also find a review (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny1.html) of the film. Really, I and I'm sure others will strongly recommend you spend some time at the Clavius site, run by BAUT member JayUtah. You'd be hard pressed to find a better site.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 07:41 AM
The Clavius thing is good. I checked it out previously and again recently with encouragement from this group.

moog
2011-May-10, 02:50 PM
There is a good examination of the image of the earth from the tv shown, photos taken at the time and the actual weather that day over here :
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=884

And another vast thread where Apollo images of the earth are compared against weather satellite images.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132

If it was a transparency there were a lot of them needed and they all matched the actual weather patterns at the exact times the images were supposed to have been taken...

Note: Those threads are very image heavy

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:59 PM
Moog, fabulous references. Thanks so much.

PetersCreek, now that I've seen a bit more as to what is out there, Clavious strikes me a superficial, not bad, but not very well detailed, much better available from others interested in the same. Thanks for your help PetersCreek. DoctorTea

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 03:35 PM
Clavious strikes me a superficial, not bad, but not very well detailed...

In other words, extremely detailed. Jay completely destroys almost every Moon hoaxer argument.

...and if you intend to be taken seriously in your criticism, the very least you could do is spell Clavius correctly.

Tensor
2011-May-10, 04:02 PM
PetersCreek, now that I've seen a bit more as to what is out there, Clavious strikes me a superficial, not bad, but not very well detailed, much better available from others interested in the same. Thanks for your help PetersCreek. DoctorTea

Superficial? My opinion would be that you only took a superficial look at Clavius.

In the photography sections, I would challenge you to find another moon site that explains the field of view on cameras, fiducials, the fields of view for the lens and how to calculate the size of objects by using those things. Along with the trigonometry that goes into the calculations.

In the sections that describe the Van Allen Belts and radiation it goes into the energy levels of, and the flux of the individual particles. This is used to explain why the protection offered by the CM was more than adequate to protect the astronauts.

That's on just two of the pages. I would suggest you look at that site in more depth.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 04:42 PM
You are probably correct Tensor, if I looked more closely, it may strike me as better. I did not spend a lot of time on Clavius. My point was that I liked the reference(s) moog gave me better. Should have put it that way. For this particular issue, the Apollo 11 fake film, the references moog gave worked better for me personally in terms of debunking the clip. The Clavius stuff/presentation was good, but not as good. thanks, DoctorTea

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 05:08 PM
The references Moog gave you were much more limited than Clavius. Inasmuch as they cover a single issue.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 05:37 PM
Yes, agreed Gillianre, just worked better for me. What can I say, lots of detail in one limited sense, Best, DoctorTea

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 05:55 PM
Yes. If you had any other question, that thread would be essentially useless.

Garrison
2011-May-10, 06:04 PM
Yes. If you had any other question, that thread would be essentially useless.

You mean for example if he wanted know about whether Astronauts could see stars from the Lunar surface, or the mechanics of the MythBusters lunar photography experiments?

NEOWatcher
2011-May-10, 06:07 PM
You are probably correct Tensor, if I looked more closely, it may strike me as better. I did not spend a lot of time on Clavius. My point was that I liked the reference(s) moog gave me better. Should have put it that way. For this particular issue, the Apollo 11 fake film, the references moog gave worked better for me personally in terms of debunking the clip. The Clavius stuff/presentation was good, but not as good. thanks, DoctorTea
I think this is a good example of why we have a hard time with some of the things you are saying.
You say you didn't look closely, yet you still say it's not as good.
You are looking for a specific answer, and you seem to put down a site designed for all the aspects.
Clavius is excellent. Yes; it doesn't get down into the nitpicky details of all the arguments. If it did, we would probably be hearing about how horribly large and boring the site is.

Please use these references as a research tool rather than expecting solid answers to your questions. They are thorough enough to learn what keywords an phrases to use for a more detailed search. They are also good in giving you an idea of where to go off the net for details.

There are plenty of times that people point me to sources from these discussions, and what I find in those sources is information for other searches on my own.

Swift
2011-May-10, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Gillianren
Yes. If you had any other question, that thread would be essentially useless.
You mean for example if he wanted know about whether Astronauts could see stars from the Lunar surface, or the mechanics of the MythBusters lunar photography experiments?
<palm into forehead (http://images.wikia.com/tvtropesmirror/images/f/f4/Picard-facepalm.jpg)>
No please, don't go there. No yelling movie in a crowded firehouse. Let's all play nice.

Amber Robot
2011-May-10, 06:59 PM
You are probably correct Tensor, if I looked more closely, it may strike me as better. I did not spend a lot of time on Clavius.

So do you admit you were being disingenuous when you said Clavius was "superficial"? You admittedly did not spend enough time looking at it to make an informed judgment of the site.

Abaddon
2011-May-10, 07:30 PM
You are probably correct Tensor, if I looked more closely, it may strike me as better. I did not spend a lot of time on Clavius. My point was that I liked the reference(s) moog gave me better. Should have put it that way. For this particular issue, the Apollo 11 fake film, the references moog gave worked better for me personally in terms of debunking the clip. The Clavius stuff/presentation was good, but not as good. thanks, DoctorTea

Clavius totally demolishes the most prevalent Hoax Proponent arguments, methodically, and with rigorous logic. Hoax proponents don't like that much, particularly when it is done free gratis, with no hidden agenda.

Swift
2011-May-10, 07:50 PM
This thread is for the discussion of Bart Sibrel's clip. You can reference other websites. But I think we have had enough of reviews of Clavius, good, bad, or indifferent (and yes, it is an excellent site). This is becoming a serious derailment. If no one has anything further to say about the film clip, we could just stop posting and let this thread fade away.

Abaddon
2011-May-10, 08:24 PM
What is the story with the clip promoted by Bart Sibrel and others featuring the Apollo 11 astronauts alleged to be in low earth orbit during the very same time they are en route to the moon. There is a supposed transparency of the earth placed over the window and it is suggested by some this was how shots of the earth from cislunar space were faked. I is there a good reference debunking this.

You could do worse than view these: A five part series dismantling the HB claims far better than I could.

http://www.livevideo.com/svector

ETA: It addresses Sibrels claims, and lays them to rest. Well worth a view.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 10:24 PM
Thanks all. Clavius is good. I thought the other references were more helpful for this one particular problem for me. Clavius is definitely more comprehensive in a good way. I liked the details of the other web site though, albeit details limited to one particular aspect of the films analysis. Anyway, no big. thanks, DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 10:28 PM
I agree with the moderator. I have lots of options, received good advice. thanks, close the thread as far as i am concerned unless others want to pursue the topic for whatever reason. DoctorTea.