PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions for Lunar Legacy Ep. 2??



Svector
2007-Mar-06, 07:40 AM
I'm starting to compile a rough storyboard for my next production and thought maybe you guys might have some suggestions as to which hoax theories you'd like to see broached, as well as any other content you think might be interesting to include.

It'd be absolutely fab to get some interview footage of Jay and/or Phil, but that may be shooting a little too high, I don't know.

I already know I'm going to do some earth/moon gravity comparisons using the Apollo footage that shows falling objects. It should be interesting to contrast rate of acceleration in earth gravity vs. lunar gravity, then validate both examples with the formula showing projected distance over time. I plan to use known camera fps rates to measure distances in the Apollo footage, unless Jay or someone knows a more accurate method.

I've also been having runins with several YT'ers lately regarding the Jack White photo comparison of the South Massif from Apollo 17. In case you don't know, this is the (in)famous example where one of the original NASA stills was cropped to provide an invalid comparison, and make the mountain appear to be larger in one photo. There seems to be a whole group of people who just cannot, or will not, come to grips with the reality that the comparison method was flawed, so I'll likely do something with that as well.

I also had a few people express confusion about why earth kept disappearing from the windows during the 30:28 TV transmission, so I may revisit that to tie up a few loose ends.

And.....I know (almost) everyone absolutely loathes Synthetic Phil, my narrator. My speaking voice is just ok. Not anything that's going to get me hired doing voice work however. If anyone would like to take on the role of narrator for a worthy cause, PM me and we'll discuss doing some .mp3 samples perhaps. :D

So there you go gang. Let the ideas flow! I like the idea of making this more of a collaborative effort, as it will no doubt expose me to some angles I would've never considered otherwise. All input is appreciated!

postbaguk
2007-Mar-06, 01:19 PM
Sounds like a cool idea.

One suggestion I would make from the off would be to tone down the "ad hom" aspect that some of Episode One demonstrated. I think it would carry far more gravitas and authority if it concentrated on the HB methodology and conclusions, rather than HB proponents themselves. Examples: the opening sequence showing Bart Sibrel's birth to be one of mankinds greatest mistakes, and the dubbed laughter at one point.

I thought Parts 4 and 5 did a great job of showing how both Sibrel and Percy were wrong, and also showing footage that was very good evidence for Apollo 11 being in TLC rather than LEO.

As a suggestion, how about something on the space-radiation aspect? Van Allen belts, cosmic particles, solar wind (TLC and on moon), lunar surface secondary gamma radiation, and CMEs.

Oh, if you intend covering moon rocks, I have a photocopy of an article written by Wernher Von Braun in the May 1967 edition of Popular Science magazine entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica", in which he explains why he and other NASA members visited Antarctica.

Joe Durnavich
2007-Mar-06, 03:10 PM
And.....I know (almost) everyone absolutely loathes Synthetic Phil, my narrator.

I like Synthetic Phil! I hope he doesn't get put out of work.

Joe Durnavich
2007-Mar-06, 03:13 PM
...in which he explains why he and other NASA members visited Antarctica.

Can you post a brief summary?

Svector
2007-Mar-06, 06:07 PM
Sounds like a cool idea.

One suggestion I would make from the off would be to tone down the "ad hom" aspect that some of Episode One demonstrated. I think it would carry far more gravitas and authority if it concentrated on the HB methodology and conclusions, rather than HB proponents themselves. Examples: the opening sequence showing Bart Sibrel's birth to be one of mankinds greatest mistakes, and the dubbed laughter at one point.


Heh. I actually agree with you on the Sibrel point. As I stated earlier, it started as more of a goof than anything. After I got deeper into it, I started wanting to make a more serious attempt at something resembling an actual documentary. Of course, humor is one of the hardest elements to gauge because everyone's perception of it differs so widely. But you're right, and I did actually feel kinda bad about little Baby Bart at times. It was a cheap shot, but my guilt was at least partially alleviated when I remembered the emotional distress and anguish he's brought upon several of our astronaut heroes.

I disagree about the canned laughter part. I thought it was appropriate for the scene.


I thought Parts 4 and 5 did a great job of showing how both Sibrel and Percy were wrong, and also showing footage that was very good evidence for Apollo 11 being in TLC rather than LEO.

Thank you. Four and five were my favorites too. Hey, it only took me four chapters to get to the meat of the argument, right? :razz:


As a suggestion, how about something on the space-radiation aspect? Van Allen belts, cosmic particles, solar wind (TLC and on moon), lunar surface secondary gamma radiation, and CMEs.

Great idea. Yes, I'd planned on going into more detail about the "Van Halen" belts. :lol:


Oh, if you intend covering moon rocks, I have a photocopy of an article written by Wernher Von Braun in the May 1967 edition of Popular Science magazine entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica", in which he explains why he and other NASA members visited Antarctica.

Wow, really? That would be a great addition! Do you think you could send me a scan or a fax of it?

Svector
2007-Mar-06, 06:09 PM
And.....I know (almost) everyone absolutely loathes Synthetic Phil, my narrator.

I like Synthetic Phil! I hope he doesn't get put out of work.

Really? Ok, that's one vote for Phil. I think that brings us to 1 for, 87 against.

:shifty:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-06, 07:03 PM
...but that may be shooting a little too high, I don't know.

For now that's all you can shoot, because my good vid camera is on the fritz. But I do like the idea.

I plan to use known camera fps rates to measure distances in the Apollo footage, unless Jay or someone knows a more accurate method.

Pay very close attention to your source material. Not all the digital versions of the sequence camera footage are faithful to the original frame rate. You'll probably want to work from Spacecraft Films and verify with Mark Gray whether any frame-rate conversion was done on the clip in question.

Converting from 24 fps film to 30 fps video typically follows one of two processes, each of which poses a different danger to analysis.

One method simply doesn't convert the frame rate. Since the sequence camera footage has no integrated sound, there's no synchronization requirement. So each frame of film becomes a frame of video. The time slices between frames are still uniform, but shorter. So if you use the frame rate as an objective time base, be careful that your 24 fps hasn't been sped up to 30 fps.

The other method notes the simple integer ratio: every 4 frames of film represent 5 frames of video, or an interval of 1/6 second. So six times a second, one of the 4 film frames is duplicated as a 5th frame, keeping the overall length of the clip intact. But in addition to the sped-up time base, you have a discontuinity across the duplicated frame.

In case you don't know, this is the (in)famous example where one of the original NASA stills was cropped to provide an invalid comparison, and make the mountain appear to be larger in one photo.

You mean this one?
http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html

There seems to be a whole group of people who just cannot, or will not, come to grips with the reality that the comparison method was flawed...

Jack White is among them. It's such a good example of his tactics because he makes this same mistake over and over again, despite having been repeatedly warned that he must first normalize the photo scales before making any direct size comparisons. At this point most of us have concluded that White is either hopelessly incapable or maliciously deceptive.

Several years ago I upgraded my 27-inch TV to a 57-inch HDTV. Did Ted Koppel's head actually get bigger when that happened? If I matte out everything but the original 27-incher's window, does it matter than I can now see only Koppel's nose?

I'm sure a video will be a more effective persuasion.

I also had a few people express confusion about why earth kept disappearing from the windows during the 30:28 TV transmission...

Um, because it wasn't tacked to the window?

Studio demonstration comes to mind. Make a mockup of the CM window and put a tennis ball out there away from it. Or better, do it at night and use the real Moon, if you can get the exposure to work out. Then move the camera around "inside" the CM to generate similar camera angles. Belabor the point that it's consistent with viewing a distant object through a window, which precludes any of Sibrel's or Percy's "tack something to the window" claims.

And.....I know (almost) everyone absolutely loathes Synthetic Phil, my narrator.

I once worked on a project narrated by (no kidding) James Earl Jones. But I'll never be able to get him again -- it was a total fluke. He's very nice to work with, but I have to say it's extremely creepy to hear Darth Vader say your name.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-06, 08:04 PM
One suggestion I would make from the off would be to tone down the "ad hom" aspect that some of Episode One demonstrated. I think it would carry far more gravitas and authority if it concentrated on the HB methodology and conclusions, rather than HB proponents themselves.

I agree, but it's not as no-brainy as you think. Of course we aspire to a higher discourse and we purport to respect the facts above hype. And ad hominem attacks give hoax believers something to latch on to instead of the facts. Remember they just want to have something to gripe about, and they'll take the easy shot.

But on the other hand, lots of hoax believers idolize Sibrel and Percy, and more of their arguments than you think boil down to whether they're really as honorable and expert as they've led you to believe. And they aren't. The world needs to see these men for the charlatans they are.

I have a photocopy of an article written by Wernher Von Braun in the May 1967 edition of Popular Science magazine entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica"...

I'd love to read that. Any chance you can scan it and e-mail it? If not, I'll hike over to the library and pick through the microfilm.

Extravoice
2007-Mar-06, 08:48 PM
Sounds like a cool idea.

One suggestion I would make from the off would be to tone down the "ad hom"... the opening sequence showing Bart Sibrel's birth to be one of mankinds greatest mistakes...

Maybe I'm showing my age, but when I saw the baby my mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Thalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide) baby. I only spotted the name tag after experiencing a moment of confusion after I realized the baby was not deformed.

Neverfly
2007-Mar-06, 09:31 PM
Maybe I'm showing my age, but when I saw the baby my mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Thalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide) baby. I only spotted the name tag after experiencing a moment of confusion after I realized the baby was not deformed.

Not by Thalidomide at least...

Svector
2007-Mar-07, 02:35 AM
Not by Thalidomide at least...

LOL. That poor kid. I just pulled him out of a Google image search. God, I hope his parents never see the video! :doh:

Svector
2007-Mar-07, 03:42 AM
...but that may be shooting a little too high, I don't know.

For now that's all you can shoot, because my good vid camera is on the fritz. But I do like the idea.

I have a cheapo mini-DV I use sometimes for 2-camera shoots. What if I Fedexed it out to you with a list containing a few generic talk-show type questions? Would you be willing to set it up on a tripod and do a sitdown interview with yourself? :p


Pay very close attention to your source material. Not all the digital versions of the sequence camera footage are faithful to the original frame rate. You'll probably want to work from Spacecraft Films and verify with Mark Gray whether any frame-rate conversion was done on the clip in question.

Right-O. I fully plan on taking the various frame rates and conversions into account. I know there were differences in frame rates even among the original video equipment, depending on which mission you're talking about, and the DAC also had a changeable frame rate, so I understand it's a bit of a slippery path.


In case you don't know, this is the (in)famous example where one of the original NASA stills was cropped to provide an invalid comparison, and make the mountain appear to be larger in one photo.

You mean this one?
http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html

That's the one. I knew you'd be intimately familiar with it, but I figured there might be a few folks here who had never seen it. To me it's one of the most blatant examples of trickery on behalf of the HB's.


There seems to be a whole group of people who just cannot, or will not, come to grips with the reality that the comparison method was flawed...

Jack White is among them. It's such a good example of his tactics because he makes this same mistake over and over again, despite having been repeatedly warned that he must first normalize the photo scales before making any direct size comparisons.

Did White ever accept blame for the deception?


Several years ago I upgraded my 27-inch TV to a 57-inch HDTV. Did Ted Koppel's head actually get bigger when that happened?

ROFL! In that specific case, I'd argue that the increase in Koppel's head size was probably only partially due to your TV upgrade.


I also had a few people express confusion about why earth kept disappearing from the windows during the 30:28 TV transmission...

Um, because it wasn't tacked to the window?

No, because of the PTC roll. If you'll notice in 30:28, earth moves out of view on its own - not because of any camera movement. I attributed that to the roll maneuver. They supposedly stopped it for 33:59 so they could get a steady shot of earth out the side window. Do you have a different understanding of that portion of the timeline?


I once worked on a project narrated by (no kidding) James Earl Jones. But I'll never be able to get him again -- it was a total fluke. He's very nice to work with, but I have to say it's extremely creepy to hear Darth Vader say your name.

Wow, cool. I can almost hear it...

"JAY - I AM YOUR FATHER! TOGETHER WE'LL RULE THE GALAXY ...err, umm...except the parts with deadly Van Allen radiation....AS FATHER AND SON!!!"

;)

JayUtah
2007-Mar-07, 04:39 AM
I have a cheapo mini-DV I use sometimes for 2-camera shoots.

I have 3 cheap mini-DVs. If that's all you want, just send a script.

...the DAC also had a changeable frame rate, so I understand it's a bit of a slippery path.

The prescribed setting is almost always in the flight plan.

Did White ever accept blame for the deception?

He doesn't see it as deceptive.

No, because of the PTC roll.

Oh, that. Yes. I thought you were talking about the normal camera movements.

Wow, cool. I can almost hear it...

Then there was the time I met Chewbacca. Jay: 5' 4". Peter Mayhew: 7' 3".

Svector
2007-Mar-07, 07:14 AM
I have 3 cheap mini-DVs. If that's all you want, just send a script.

Wow, that would be amazing. Consider it "locked in" then. I'll PM you when I get close. I might even kick in a return mailer for the tape. ;-)


Did White ever accept blame for the deception?

He doesn't see it as deceptive.

Naturally. Far be it for an HB to set aside ego and look at something rationally.


No, because of the PTC roll.

Oh, that. Yes. I thought you were talking about the normal camera movements.

Actually I thought it was just camera movement after I saw it the first few times, but then I realized there must be something else in play, so 10 minutes of research and guess what? An actual logical answer!

You'd be amazed (or maybe not) by the number of YTHB's whose eyes glossed over when they noticed the "moving earth" and thought they'd finally found that elusive NASA hoax mistake they'd been searching for. Most of them simply couldn't believe earth could be visible through two different windows within such a short span of time. lol


Then there was the time I met Chewbacca. Jay: 5' 4". Peter Mayhew: 7' 3".

OMG. He seems like such a gentle giant in the interviews I've seen. What was your impression of the guy?

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-07, 12:23 PM
I have to say it's extremely creepy to hear Darth Vader say your name.

I read an interview with JEJ a while back in which he was asked what his all-time favorite role is, and he said it's definitely Darth Vader. He said he used to use "Darth Vader" as his CB radio handle, but he had to change it, because it was freaking too many people out. "They thought they were really talking to Darth Vader." :D :D :D

JayUtah
2007-Mar-07, 09:45 PM
What was your impression of the guy?

You mean from the knees down?

Svector
2007-Mar-07, 10:20 PM
What was your impression of the guy?

You mean from the knees down?

Right. Or as far up as you could see before atmospheric haze became an issue.

:rolleyes:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-08, 12:53 AM
He's a nice guy -- very approachable, and I'd love to work with him professionally. This was at a party in Las Vegas, and I have to hand it to him -- the Wookie certainly knows how to have a good time! As to being a gentle giant, the gentleness comes, I believe, from being a giant.