A humorous video and my response

[JayUtah]

I wrote the following response to a URL that was posted to the ApolloHoax Yahoo mailing list.

The URL is http://www.moontruth.com/

Amusing, and almost certain staged -- by which I mean, staged in order to appear to be a "blooper" from the Apollo 11 EVA. I believe this was shot recently, by the conspiracy theorists themselves, or perhaps as a prank.

Let's examine the author's claims.

"The attention to detail is staggering."

No, not to anyone who has studied Apollo equipment and video footage. In the first one or two seconds the astute viewer should notice the first blunder -- the camera is hand-held! It was well published that the television camera for Apollo 11 would be mounted on the MESA (equipment pallet). The real Apollo 11 footage is rock-solid, as such a mount would suggest. Why would a NASA conspirator make such an obvious mistake?

Second, the suit in question is not inflated.

Third, the swinging light boom falls on cue, right in the most historically significant portion of the script. That the boom would fall *at all* is surprising. Riggers are much more careful than that. (They're liable if their equipment falls and hurts someone.) They're *entire job* is to secure lighting assemblies and other structures against just such a failure.

Fourth, the astronaut reacts strangely. If we are to believe this clip, something happened on the set that was not expected. People react reflexively to the unexpected. The actor playing the astronaut doesn't whirl around to see what happened to his key light -- i.e., to see if it's about to fall on him. He leisurely turns around as if he knew the light was going to fall all along.

Fifth, the astronaut's drop to the surface is clearly in full earth gravity. The legitimate Apollo 11 footage has drops consistent with 1/6 G. Two grips rush in to help lift the astronaut back up to the ladder, implying it would be difficult or impossible for him to do it on his own. However, in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage we see both Armstrong and Aldrin leap almost effortlessly back up to the lowest rung of the ladder.

Sixth, the lighting design on the boom is clearly inconsistent with the lighting inferred from the video, film, and Hasselblad photography. The lighting rig in question would have cast three separate shadows and produced three distinct gradations of shade. This would have been apparent in the legitimate films and video, whereas the legitimate record is unquestionably lit using a single, very distant, point light source.

Seventh, the framing and camera angle is wrong. The horizon was slanted in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage because of the angle of the camera mount on the MESA. The camera itself was tilted to one side. And so the astronauts in that footage appear slanted, consistent with the horizon. In this footage the astronaut stands upright (relative to the frame), and so do the grips and production assistants that run into the frame. And the lighting boom becomes plumb parallel to the frame. The horizon is slanted in this footage because the set piece is built slanted. Clearly the producers of this video didn't understand what they were seeing in the legitimate Apollo 11 footage.

"The intention is clearly to fool viewers into believing that it is genuine."

Correct, but not as the author suggests. I believe the intent is to fool viewers into believing they're seeing actual "behind the scenes" footage of faking the Apollo landings, when in fact they're seeing something manufactured as a prank, or by conspiracy theorists themselves.

"But we do know that the original non-digital footage was destroyed ..."

How unfortunate. Now we must take the conspiracy theorists' word for it that this footage is genuine. Does this sound familiar? The standard pattern for conspiracy theorists is to make farfetched, astounding claims and then to give farfetched, outlandish excuses for why their evidence cannot be verified by third parties. Yet strangely these are the same people who say we must question everything and not take things for granted, or trust people who say they're telling the truth. Conspiracy theorists argue for more disclosure and better accountability in their leaders, yet they are the worst offenders when it comes to providing that same level of accountability themselves.

" ... certain (dangerous) people are very angry that this clip has leaked."

Cloak and dagger: the hallmark of a successful conspiracy theory. The most common excuse given why evidence cannot be verified or corroborated is that the publishers would be in very grave danger if they revealed their sources. Of course the danger is pure presupposition -- entirely circular. This footage is presented as an attempt to argue that the moon landings were hoaxed. The presupposition of danger rests on that proposition being assumed true -- consummate begging of the question.

The question now is why the "dangerous" source of this material allows it to be viewed by anyone on the Internet, downloaded, and passed around for free. Why hasn't the author met with an unfortunate accident? Why hasn't the web server been hacked or sabotaged? Clearly the real owner of this video clip wants it spread far and wide.

This is a classic conspiracy argument. The opponents to the conspiracy theory are always characterized as "dangerous" and subversive when it serves as an excuse for why more information can't be disclosed, or actual people interviewed and questioned. But apparently these all-powerful forces are completely inept when it comes to keeping self-proclaimed whistle-blowers from publishing books and videos containing the allegedly damning evidence.

"Our source is well placed to vouch for the authenticity of the footage ..."

Forgive us if we don't take your word for it. If we can't know the name of the source and his connection to those who produced the video, we cannot judge its authenticity. And given the extraordinary implications of the video, we cannot simply assume it to be genuine. The unwillingness of a proponent to reveal his source artificially creates an ambiguity -- a vacuum of information which works, in this case, in the conspiracist's favor.

It's always the case that the climate is just lenient enough to allow the conspiracy theorist to publish "damning" evidence -- and even charge money for it -- but so restrictive that the sources can't be revealed to third parties.

"[The source] had links with the makers of 2 recent documentaries, one for the BBC and one for CNN about the moonlanding conspiracies."

So far the only "documentaries" produced on the subject have been attempts at preaching the conspiracy theory. So it appears this author is saying his source for the video is (fanfare, please) ... the conspiracy theorists.

Am I the only one who finds it suspicious that this one-of-a-kind, too-good-to-be-true evidence can be traced no farther back than people who have a financial vested interest in promulgating the hoax theory, and who happen to have access to video production facilities? Doesn't that say an awful lot about where this mysterious footage probably originated?

"We cannot possibly reveal his identity, and probably never will be able to."

Of course not. That would allow us to question him and draw our own conclusions about his credibility. The author clearly wants us simply to accept his claims without question. We've already dealt with the fallacy of anonymous authority above.

"The footage has been buried for over 30 years."

There's no evidence of that. It's either been known -- at least to somebody -- for at least 30 years, or it's been discovered recently and therefore we don't know just how old it is.

"All the original stock, except this cut, was destroyed."

There's no evidence that any other similar footage exists, much less what its disposition may be. The author is very good at spinning a tale, but not very good at providing evidence to back up the claim. All he has is a few seconds of video, and a nice story to tell about it.

"We ... approached almost every large TV network owner to sell the rights. Without exception they were interested and offered to buy it. ... Then, also without exception they changed their minds and started to try to find out who we were. At that point we stopped dealing with them."

Two words: "Alien Autopsy". Remember when Fox aired their shocking footage? It took the world by storm and was cited as irrefutable evidence of alien visitation. Then the sky fell. The pranksters who produced it owned up to it and showed how they did it. Fox had bought a huge white elephant, bought into it, and suffered the consequences. Not that Fox cares too much about whether the stuff it airs is strictly true, but other networks do.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. People who are going to put their credibility on the line -- not to mention their financial success -- by airing a controversial video want to know they're making a reasonably good investment. They aren't going to air a few seconds of video that implies Apollo was faked, and then have a bunch of college students from Wisconsin admit they made the whole thing up. It's perfectly legitimate to want to know who's selling the video and where it came from before signing the check and agreeing to air it.

"It was made in 1965, judging by the camera it was shot on - an Ikegami Tube Camera."

That's an unsupported inference.

We'll take the author's word on the camera that was used. It is obviously a vidicon-based camera, judging from the smearing that the swinging light boom leaves behind. But vidicon cameras were manufactured well into the 1980s and widely available. I'd like to know how the author was able to determine the precise model and date of the camera just by looking at the video that was produced. There's no reason to conclude the footage was shot in 1965. It might just as easily have been shot last week with a camera made in 1965. Vidicon-based video cameras in good working condition are not hard to come by.

The willingness of the author to jump to an unsupported conclusion makes it less likely we can trust him to interpret other elements of evidence that pertain to this claim. And remember, we can't interview the participants ourselves, or see any of the evidence that establishes the video's authenticity. We're limited to taking the author's word for it, and our author seems to like overextending his evidence.

"We have evidence that the footage was shot outside the US - possibly in Europe, by a foreign crew."

Where is this evidence? The pile of evidence this author claims to have, compared to the evidence he is willing to produce, is astounding. Why does the author conclude it's being shot by a European crew? The voices in the video are speaking colloquial American English.

Besides, let's accept for the sake of argument that this film was shot in Europe back in 1965 with the intent of passing it off as Apollo 11 EVA footage. Remember, the political aim of the Apollo program was to prove America's technical prowess to the world. If you're going to shoot a pro-USA hoax video, it's best not to do it in another country, using a foreign crew. What assurances do you have that they'll be loyal to your cause? The story presented here just isn't plausible.

"They [NASA] have refused to comment."

Which is the standard procedure for NASA regarding claims of this type. There is simply nothing here to address. The strength of the author's claim relies upon his being able to prove all the things he says about this video, and to show it's not a recent forgery, as is likely the case.

"But we have recently heard that they are stepping up efforts on a huge PR campaign to convince us all that the Apollo moonlandings all took place."

Now the author can't make up his mind. At first it's suspicious that NASA hasn't responded. Now it's suspicious that NASA is making a substantive response. There's the standard tautological reasoning that precludes a meaningful test of the hypothesis. If NASA says nothing, they're hiding something. If NASA says something, it's to hide something.

And to be more accurate, the (now aborted) campaign was not to assure us that Apollo succeeded, but to point out that the counterarguments -- that NASA faked it all -- lack appropriate scientific and logical grounding. That's not exactly the same thing.

In conclusion, we're presented with a video that has all the indications of something prepared by someone who didn't know a whole lot about Apollo video, and linked back to the conspiracy theorists themselves. It's riddled with errors and, frankly, just too conveniently good to be true. And the accompanying discussion is the same old story we've been told for 25 years: I can't given you any evidence in support of my claims, but I assure you they're true.

JRKeller also wrote a response which added several very good points. I'm not violating copyright by posting my review here, but I would be by posting his so I'll let him decide whether to cross-post, summarize, or whatever.

[g99]

I just saw the video!! HAHAHA!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif I mean come on!!!! That was bad even for a prank. Plus, is the guy in the space suit wearing sneakers? It looks like white sneakers to me, but the film is too small to really know for sure.

Also underneath the lander and to the left of the ladder you clearly see a spotlight. It might be me, but any real govt. made video will cover this up.



Really good responses Jay!!!

P.S. what is the link where the two of you posted your responses? I would like to read other responses to it.
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002


Edited to add the lgihting error.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-14 23:17 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-14 23:18 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

I'll steal a bit of Mr. Keller's thunder. He notes, among other things, that the font in the title is inconsistent with that used in the 1960s, and further that the titles were added by the television stations -- not by NASA.

I added that the font is also anti-aliased, which was not a feature of the early video toasters. This suggests it was added with modern software techniques, i.e., Photoshop. But it's clearly intended to be part of the "original" so the author must answer for how his 1965 video contains modernly rendered text.

Further, the text is not monospaced, as was the requirement in the early video toasters. It's proportionally-spaced, centered text. It was clearly added with a software tool.

There is no doubt in my mind that this video clip is a modern production, perhaps using an older vidicon camera. Clearly a lot of thought and effort went into it, but not nearly enough to have it passed off as a "genuine fake".

[jrkeller]

It is my recollection that the "LIVE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE MOON" tagline was added by the TV stations and not NASA. The TV stations
got the same live feed as NASA did. In other words, the saved NASA tape would not have "LIVE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE MOON" on it.

The graphics/font for the "LIVE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE MOON" tagline seems much more advanced that what was available in the 60's.

Neil Armstrong has stated several times that he did or at least wanted to say, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" I've heard it said that he did say the "a" but it's lost in the noise of the transmission. Why would you practice it with poor English?

The lamps that fall down look like your standard hardware store type. If you are trying to fool the world, you would use lamps that producea solar spectrum.

Why would all those people come on to the set? Now there is a possibility that someone's foot prints would be visible.

[Conqueror Worm]

All the other evidence aside, it's just too ridiculously convenient that the blooper happens during the only widely recognizable seconds of apollo 11, even the whole apollo program and perhaps all of NASA. "One small step..." is roughly equivalent to "For God so loved the world..." when considering the layman's knowledge of the respective sources. For the majority of people, this one sentence probably sums up their entire knowledge of the apollo missions. What are the odds that such an obvious blunder would happen at just the right moment and be the only piece of damning film evidence to survive a 30 year cover-up? It's the HB lottery, chance favors the Hb and hates the scientist.

[AstroMike]

If you're interested, you can compare it with this actual clip of Aldrin stepping on the Moon.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1094228.mpg

Cheers.

[g99]

Now that i have seen the actual video i take back my whole spotlight under the lander thing. It is in the video too. By the way what it it? It is the sun or some spotlight on the lander (i'm talking about the real video)?

[The Bad Astronomer]

I saw this yesterday I think. I realized right away that the camera looks to be hand held. However, Jay, isn't the footage we see now from people who taped off the big screen? The real footage is a bit jumpy too.

Also, Armstrong stood on the footpad of the LM for a few moments before actually saying his line and stepping off. In the video, the actor jumps right from the ladder to the surface while saying the line.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-15 00:34, The Bad Astronomer Also, Armstrong stood on the footpad of the LM for a few moments before actually saying his line and stepping off.
Well, sure, that was the second take.

[David Hall]

And here's the actual Armstrong footage from the ALSJ, in two different formats.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.v1092338.mov

There are several more versions of it as well on the ALSJ page:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/video11.html#Step

It's quite different from the hoax version.

[Smaug]

I've heard that when Armstrong didn't say 'a man' in his famous line, it was due to his nervousness. Heck I'd be that nervous too!

[JimO]

Excellent point about the catch where 'Armstrong' says his lines as soon as he jumps off ladder -- clear proof it's not only a fraud, but a STUPID fraud.

Here's what I wrote for Wall Street Journal in 1994:

Apollo-11 TV Documentary Misrepresentations

James Oberg // submitted manuscript // July 31, 1994
Published in Aug 8, 1994, Wall Street Journal


The recent blizzard of Apollo-11 anniversary programs was a fine tribute to that historical achievement of the American space program. The events of a quarter century ago came back to life in the dramatic portrayal seen on millions of television screens. But at the same time, many of the programs also displayed the sloppy errors, distortions and revisionist dramatizations which have come to characterize much of television journalism.

......

The serious distortions of space history which characterized many -- but by no means all -- of the anniversary documentaries went beyond this allowable flexibility, and include outright historical falsifications such as the following:

To compress events, Neil Armstrong's comments about making "One small step" have often been matched with video of him dropping down from the Lunar Module ladder. Actually, he landed on one of the vehicle's footpads, made several comments, jumped back up on the ladder to make sure he could, jumped down a second time, discussed his impressions of his surroundings, and only after that did he make the "small step" onto the moondust. So the rearranged video completely misrepresents what he meant by "one small step". ....

[ToSeek]

The domain name is owned by a company (http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=moontruth.com&SearchType=do) that does "viral" advertising (http://www.theviralfactory.com/aboutTVF.htm), i.e., makes video clips that people will want to pass on to their friends via the Internet. Think they were practicing or having fun?

[ToSeek]

On 2002-11-15 08:47, JimO wrote:

To compress events, Neil Armstrong's comments about making "One small step" have often been matched with video of him dropping down from the Lunar Module ladder. Actually, he landed on one of the vehicle's footpads, made several comments, jumped back up on the ladder to make sure he could, jumped down a second time, discussed his impressions of his surroundings, and only after that did he make the "small step" onto the moondust. So the rearranged video completely misrepresents what he meant by "one small step". ....


I'm glad that someone with some pull is as ticked off about this as I am.

Getting back to the original website, it also says that Armstrong walked on the Moon at 4.17 pm. That's wrong: the Moon LANDING was around that time. Neil didn't step onto the Moon until 10:56 PM EDT (which I remember in part because it was well after my bedtime, but I got to stay up late to watch it).

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-11-15 09:16 ]</font>

[JimO]

Another nail in the coffin -- the
http://www.moonlanding.com (or something)
on the image.

Duh, the Internet wasn't even invented
until Al Gore was in power... well,
at least, the world wide web appeared
in the late 1980's.

In the early 1970's there was the Arpanet
(which in fact I helped test while I was
on the faculty of the DoD Computer
Institute in the Washington Navy Yard)
and, no, there was no 'www' URL scheme.

Let's not get too spun up -- this is somebody's idea of a prank, and I suspect the joke is going to be on the HB's when they embrace it as 'leaked secrets'.

How much do you suppose it cost to shoot?

[JimO]

Can somebody capture a frame off the video showing the subtitled captions, and also a frame of the lights hitting the guy? Can you email jpgs to me at joberg@houston.rr.com, no hurry but let's get them while the site is still up.

[g99]

Here are the screen captures:
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake1.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake2.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake3.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake4.jpg

I took a screen capture of before the light falling and one as the light fell, and two of the astronaught's reaction to it. (Numbered in order and showed in order also) Then i used photoshop to crop them to a smaller size.

I apologize to people with modems, if it is a problem e-mail me or leave a message on this post and i will take them down and leave links instead. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-15 14:01 ]</font>

[ToSeek]

On 2002-11-15 13:09, JimO wrote:

Another nail in the coffin -- the
http://www.moonlanding.com (or something)
on the image.

Duh, the Internet wasn't even invented
until Al Gore was in power... well,
at least, the world wide web appeared
in the late 1980's.



I would assume that they'd say that they added the URL to the video so that someone else couldn't bootleg it and get credit for it. It obviously wouldn't be part of the original video.

FYI, the first website went online in November 1990 (http://www.w3.org/History.html).

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-11-15 14:48 ]</font>

[LunarOrbit]

Like most of you, I've got Neil Armstrongs "One small step..." quote burned into my brain. That does not sound at all like Neil Armstrongs voice.


Kelly

[g99]

Here are the links to more (i'll be nice to you modem people /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

They mostly show the crew going for the lights.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake5.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake6.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake7.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake8.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/sandler/images/moonfake9.jpg

Enjoy!!!

[JayUtah]

Another nail in the coffin -- the
http://www.moonlanding.com (or something)
on the image.

That can be legitimately dismissed as not part of the original footage. The viewer may be expected to understand that. It's not too different from seeing the History Channel logo in the lower-right corner of some archive Apollo footage. The History Channel didn't originate the footage, but they want you to know who's responsible for bringing it to you.

The "Live from the surface of the moon" title is clearly intended to be part of the original allegedly shot in 1965. That's what millions of people saw on their television screens while watching the first footsteps on the moon.

Let's not get too spun up -- this is somebody's idea of a prank, and I suspect the joke is going to be on the HB's when they embrace it as 'leaked secrets'.

I agree. Clearly it's a modern invention, and the sheer fun of it is a suitable reason in my book. I quite love elaborate pranks.

How much do you suppose it cost to shoot?

The biggest cost in my estimation would be the construction of the set (ladder, landscape, etc.) and the rental of the space suit costume. The vintage camera is likely something that someone had sitting around. The talent could be convinced to work for free. It's not clear it's being shot in a formal studio -- it could simply be the dark corner of a warehouse. There are several places around my place of employment, for example, that would work. Post-production can be done on software-based systems that are easily obtained.

Because of my connections in the entertainment industry, I could probably produce this video for as cheaply as $500.

[Zeit]

On 2002-11-15 16:46, JayUtah wrote:

Because of my connections in the entertainment industry, I could probably produce this video for as cheaply as $500.



Lookout Jay, HBs will interpret this to mean that you DID produce this clip, for the purpose of embarassing them...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeit on 2002-11-15 17:07 ]</font>

[johnwitts]

Another thing about the 'One Small Step' misquote/missynced (is that a word) sound/video. Pete Conrad didn't help when he said as he jumped off the ladder 'That may have been a small one for Neil, but is was a long one for me!'. As rightly pointed out, Armstrong was only stepping off the footpad when he said his bit, hardly even a step. Conrad was jumping off the ladder. I say blame Pete Conrad. Still, it was a funny moment, part of a $500 bet I believe.

Another shortcoming of the fake clip is the reflections in the visor. This is something the HB's are always wetting themselves over, yet in the origional footage, the visor is dark. In this footage, it has a highlight, like it's being lit by a spotlight. Hmm.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-11-15 18:22 ]</font>

[infocusinc]

Did anyone notice the angle of the ladder in the fake footage? They did'nt even get that right.

<a name="2-11-15.&ct"> page 2-11-15.&ct aka & counting
On 2002-11-15 00:53, David Hall wrote:
1 = 6699012

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.v1092338.mov

2 = 2361675

[infocusinc]

On 2002-11-15 16:46, JayUtah wrote:

The biggest cost in my estimation would be the construction of the set (ladder, landscape, etc.) and the rental of the space suit costume. The vintage camera is likely something that someone had sitting around. The talent could be convinced to work for free. It's not clear it's being shot in a formal studio -- it could simply be the dark corner of a warehouse. There are several places around my place of employment, for example, that would work. Post-production can be done on software-based systems that are easily obtained.

Because of my connections in the entertainment industry, I could probably produce this video for as cheaply as $500.



I have an old 3 tube Panasonic 777 video camera, 3/4" deck and the lights and studio...care to drop by some day Jay?

Craig

[johnwitts]

Can I come too? But only if I get to drive the rover at double speed over the magic dust.

[infocusinc]

On 2002-11-15 20:45, johnwitts wrote:
Can I come too? But only if I get to drive the rover at double speed over the magic dust.


My studio is not quite that big...perhaps we can do it in 1/4 scale and put you into the shrinking machine....

[Zeit]

My studio is not quite that big...perhaps we can do it in 1/4 scale and put you into the shrinking machine....


Wow, you have a shrinking machine? Can I come over too? 'Cuz I just have to lose 100 pounds or so, and a shrinking machine sure sounds better than dieting and cutting down my budweiser ration...

[johnwitts]

Wow, you have a shrinking machine?

Sure. All photographers do. A spin off from NASA. Duh.

[JayUtah]

How are we going to attach the suspension wires to all those little grains of dust? Gaffer tape?

[David Hall]

One sad thing about this clip. Even if it's definitely proven to be a fake, It will still provide ammo for their case. They can use it to illustrate how easily it would be to fake the landings.

I know, I know. It wouldn't really be that easy, but that's what they'll claim. And for people unfamiliar with filmmaking, it will be a pretty strong argument too. This clip even had me wondering for a few seconds, before I had a chance to compare it to the real version and had the anamolies pointed out to me.

[LunarOrbit]

They would have to show that it could be faked using 1960's technology though, and I doubt that video was.


Kelly

[infocusinc]

On 2002-11-15 22:43, JayUtah wrote:
How are we going to attach the suspension wires to all those little grains of dust? Gaffer tape?



Oh no...not another gaffer tape thread....

1

2

3

4

a push to 1 for no Earthly reason

[Adolf Hitler]

What if it's real. Something NASA was working on to fake the moon landing. Then I'd have the last laugh.

[The Bad Astronomer]

What if pixies are real? Then we'd all be amazed.

My point: saying "what if" does not lend any credibility to an idea. The landings were real, no matter how many times someone says "what if".

[Adolf Hitler]

On 2002-11-18 20:42, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
What if pixies are real? Then we'd all be amazed.

My point: saying "what if" does not lend any credibility to an idea. The landings were real, no matter how many times someone says "what if".

Your a Pixie.

On 2002-11-18 20:44, asdf wrote:
So? my turn at Cr
did you doenload any of the Videos?
If so ? what your opinion?/?



You'v a Pixle.

[DaveC]

The simple answer seems to lie in asking the company, TVF, if they made it. I hadn't looked at the video until today - now I'm almost certain I've seen it - or something very much like it on TV. My recollection is it was part of an ad for Motrin, or some such headache remedy, but I can't recall if it was a real ad or a "news" clip.
Anyway, this "viral advertising" approach that TVF uses is something that may be of interest to my company so I've written to TVF to get more information and made reference to a couple of their works that I've seen (including this clip).
Let's see if they acknowledge it's theirs - they won't likely say who they made it for - and if they'll give me a ballpark estimate of the cost for a clip of that length.
When I hear back, I'll let you know.

[The Bad Astronomer]

TVF? Tom van Flandern (http://www.metaresearch.org/)? The net is cast wider! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[DaveC]

Nope. It would be fun if it was van Flandern, but it's The Viral Factory in London England. They did a salmon commercial where a fisherman fights off a bear to salvage his catch ("We go to any lengths to bring you the freshest salmon" - or some such tag line). They also did a takeoff on the Mastercard "priceless" ad campaign. A bit too raunchy to describe here, but hilarious.
I know (because they own the domain name) that they did the moonlanding out-take. That's how they spread their viral ads - with web addresses. Let's see if they acknowledge that it's their work. Of course, if the customer is Kaysing or Percy or Sibrel or one of the other ardent HBs, it may be that there's a non-disclosure clause in the contract.
Anyway, it isn't Tom.

[Karamoon]

Dave C: Nope. It would be fun if it was van Flandern, but it's The Viral Factory in London England. They did a salmon commercial where a fisherman fights off a bear to salvage his catch ("We go to any lengths to bring you the freshest salmon" - or some such tag line).
"Save Target As..." (http://www.pocketmovies.net/movies/ads/jwsalmon_304x240.mpg) 1.31 MB

[Karamoon]

Dave C: I hadn't looked at the video until today - now I'm almost certain I've seen it - or something very much like it on TV. My recollection is it was part of an ad for Motrin, or some such headache remedy, but I can't recall if it was a real ad or a "news" clip.

Are you sure you are not confusing this with any number of outtakes you may have seen on It'll Be Alright on the Night, or a similar such TV program?

[DaveC]

That could well be, Karamoon. Although we don't get that particular program here in Canada, I have seen ones like it. I don't know why I'm recalling it as a painkiller commercial - it's just one of those niggling memories that may be totally wrong. I do know that I have seen the clip, or something very similar before, though.

Thanks for the link. I've seen that site before but had lost the address.

[CJSF]

Why is it called viral advertising? That sounds underhanded or undesirable like pop-up ads crossed with computer viruses (or virii?).

CJSF

[ToSeek]

On 2002-11-20 08:40, Christopher Ferro wrote:
Why is it called viral advertising? That sounds underhanded or undesirable like pop-up ads crossed with computer viruses (or virii?).

CJSF



The idea is to "create the films which people send around to all their friends and colleagues" (http://www.theviralfactory.com/aboutTVF.htm), spreading much like a virus (computer or otherwise), I suppose.

[JayUtah]

They did a salmon commercial where a fisherman fights off a bear to salvage his catch

I'm still laughing over that one. I'm perfectly willing to believe this video clip is something like that, or that it may just be a clever prank.

We might be seeing what I'll assertively call the Milne Effect. David Milne wrote a summary of the hoax theory for a small, free newspaper, and it has been widely circulated and accepted as genuine scholarship. See

http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html

for details.

If we take http://www.moontruth.com at face value, someone intends for the implications of the video to be believed. If so, we have another example of the indiscriminate way in which hoax believers accept, analyze, and circulate evidence. They simply accept whatever evidence supports their conclusion, regardless of how poorly conceived or unreliable. And they reject whatever evidence contradicts their conclusion, regardless of how sound and incontestable.

But we simply don't know how seriously we're supposed to take the accompanying text at http://www.moontruth.com. It fits the hoax believer pattern of issuing many assertions with little or no proof. But it also fits the marketing paradigm of telling a gripping story that isn't necessarily something you're supposed to ruminate on.

[DaveC]

On 2002-11-20 09:10, ToSeek wrote:
The idea is to "create the films which people send around to all their friends and colleagues" (http://www.theviralfactory.com/aboutTVF.htm), spreading much like a virus (computer or otherwise), I suppose.


Yes, that's the principle. The company was founded on a belief that if you send something interesting to 5 people, the odds are good that most of them will send it on to 4 or 5 people they think will be interested. In no time, through the miracle of the Internet, thousands of targeted people will have seen the ad. It grows like a virus, but without the negative connotations and with direct human control.

If it's something raunchy, you wouldn't send it to your grandmother so the receivers are, by and large, the group you want to see your ad. I think it's a brilliant strategy and an extremely cheap way to focus on the market. The key to success, of course, is having the ad be more entertainment than marketing.

Look at the "John West Salmon" clip in the link Karamoon provided. You'd likely send this on to a number of friends who would also see the humour - and they might even remember the name of the product and try it.

[Graham2001]

On 2002-11-15 20:47, infocusinc wrote:


On 2002-11-15 20:45, johnwitts wrote:
Can I come too? But only if I get to drive the rover at double speed over the magic dust.


My studio is not quite that big...perhaps we can do it in 1/4 scale and put you into the shrinking machine....


To quote the spirit of Bob Eggleton, channelled at the 1999 Worldcon Hugo Awards Ceremony.

"Wow! This is so Cool!"

Graham

[jest]

On 2002-11-15 22:55, David Hall wrote:
One sad thing about this clip. Even if it's definitely proven to be a fake, It will still provide ammo for their case. They can use it to illustrate how easily it would be to fake the landings.


Ammo... blanks. hehe.

The funny thing is I just viewed the video. I left the site to write something, and came back to that site just out of curiosity, and view the video again. Suddenly it's a broken link. Interesting...

(edited this msg to add what I stupidly forgot to write in the first place)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jest on 2002-11-20 21:24 ]</font>

[ToSeek]

The video is accessible this morning.

[jest]

I'm the first to admit I don't know everything, but I'm curious again. Those triangle-shaped light trusses, such as the one that falls in the faked lunar landing - were those even around in the 60's?

[jrkeller]

I don't know if they existed in the 1960's, but I do know this, these lights weren't used for the EVA training. See these following.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31147.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31152.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31104.jpg



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-11-21 15:12 ]</font>

[SpacedOut]

Two questions - were these photos taken at Bethpage or Houston? (I'm guessing Houston)

In the second photo what is the large black cylinder behind the technicians? (at about 9:00 in the photo)

[jrkeller]

There were taken in Building 9 at Johnson Space Center.

[jest]

You'll find this mildly amusing. My extroverted conspiratorial ways (which are nearly non-existent but I know a bit about how they work) initially thought "See? There's one of their sets!" hehe. I am of course a true believer that they landed on the Moon, I'm just saying that I bet you anything someone less open-minded will see those images and post them on their moon-hoax site.. you just watch.. lol

[SpacedOut]

On 2002-11-21 17:16, jrkeller wrote:
There were taken in Building 9 at Johnson Space Center.
Thanks.

[Irishman]

Before joining the military and becoming a pilot, Armstrong studied in clown school for the circus. That is the secret moon cannon that Armstrong used to be the first man shot out of a cannon on the moon. It was supposed to be a surprise, so they didn't tell anyone. The cannon went horribly wrong, and that explains Armstrong's reluctance to do publicity. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, don't know.

[DaveC]

I think Jay's already done a good job pointing out the differences between the clip and the actual lunar footage. The salient point is that the hoax clip doesn't look anything like it was shot in 1/6 g, while the official record is absolutely consistent with that environment. So what is purported to be a ruined take because of the collapsing light bar, wouldn't have been a convincing take in any case. Any HB that claims this was an out-take during the "actual shooting" of the A 11 EVA should be asked to explain why it is so obviously shot under different gravitational acceleration.
Anyway, it's all academic. We know where - or at least by whom - and approximately when it was made (within the past couple of years).

[Gastown]

When I clicked on the link http://www.moontruth.com/links.htm, I got a message, "The page cannot be found." One is tempted to speculate....


[edited to add link]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gastown on 2002-11-25 08:48 ]</font>

[kucharek]

On 2002-11-21 15:11, jrkeller wrote:
[...] See these following.[...]
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31104.jpg

Always when I see this photo, I ask myself: What happened next? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(Look at Armstrong's feet...)

[aporetic_r]

Always when I see this photo, I ask myself: What happened next? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(Look at Armstrong's feet...)


Hahahaha! That's great! Obviously a whistle-blow by a disgruntled non-union electrician. If NASA can't get an astronaut from one side of the room to the other without him tripping, how could they get to the moon?

Caution: The above contained sarcasm and/or irony.

Aporetic

[ToSeek]

On 2002-11-25 11:10, aporetic_r wrote:


Always when I see this photo, I ask myself: What happened next? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(Look at Armstrong's feet...)


Hahahaha! That's great! Obviously a whistle-blow by a disgruntled non-union electrician. If NASA can't get an astronaut from one side of the room to the other without him tripping, how could they get to the moon?

Caution: The above contained sarcasm and/or irony.

Aporetic



Actually, on Apollo 16, John Young tripped over the cable to a multimillion-dollar science experiment, thus disabling it.

(In his defense, though, the cable all but seemed to be designed to be tripped over because it came out of the top of the experiment rather than the bottom.)

[JayUtah]

I think Jay's already done a good job pointing out the differences between the clip and the actual lunar footage.

We have to be clear on the reasons for doing this. Simple differences between the clip and the Apollo 11 footage can be dismissed as things the filmmakers just hadn't got right yet. They can always argue that the actual Apollo 11 footage is simply the culmination of efforts of which the clip was a part.

But in examining the clip we can identify bits of evidence that undermine the author's claim that the clip pays careful attention to detail. We can also identify evidence (e.g., the anti-aliased, centered title) which contradict the implicit claim of authenticity. The clip itself is one element of the site. The elaborate claims made about the site are another -- perhaps separate -- element.

[M_Welander]

First of all, the clip is obviously a fake as NASA of course landed men on the moon.

That said, I have however a problem with one of JayUtah's reasons for stating that this is a fake. I might be wrong, but I do not belive the anti-aliased "LIVE FROM THE SURFACE..." title can be used to claim it's a fake. Here is my reason why:

Let's (incorrectly) assume it is indeed an authentic clip. JayUtah is right that the video text overlay machines of the 60's didn't support anti-aliased titles. However, if it was authentic, the title would have been inserted at the effective NTSC resolution of 640x480 pixels (I admit I don't know if the specific US hardware at that time worked at this particular resolution, but even if a slightly different resolution was used, I belive my point is still valid.).

The clip, however, is downsampled to a resolution of 256x192 pixels. This effect is known roughly as 6x supersampling. That is, each pixel in the video you have seen is the anti-aliased result of six pixels in the original source footage. Thus, even a non-anti-aliased source title would result in an anti-aliased title in the smaller clip we can download and watch.

Furthermore, most MPEG encoders smooth the image before encoding the clip, because the MPEG algorithm doesn't really like sharp edges. This would even further produce anti-aliasing even if the source was not.

That said, it's obviously a fake, and as a fake it still might have been incorrectly anti-aliased. I just don't think the argument that the clip is a fake because it's anti-aliased holds.

Please don't be offended by my argument, JayUtah. I have the highest possible respect for you and your knowledge.

[JayUtah]

However, if it was authentic, the title would have been inserted at the effective NTSC resolution of 640x480 pixels

Not really. The title toasters of the time divided the screen into a coarse grid of about 20x15 cells, into each of which could be placed a single character rendered at very coarse resolution. The only smoothing was from the natural ramps in the hardware.

In addition to the antialising issue, there is also the fact that the two lines of text do not align vertically in their proper cells.

That is, each pixel in the video you have seen is the anti-aliased result of six pixels in the original source footage. Thus, even a non-anti-aliased source title would result in an anti-aliased title in the smaller clip we can download and watch.

This would result in non-uniform smoothing, which we don't see. The smoothing is quite uniform. Of course this would depend on the filtration technique used, so it's not conclusive either way.

Furthermore, most MPEG encoders smooth the image before encoding the clip, because the MPEG algorithm doesn't really like sharp edges.

I'm not sure about software encoders, but hardware encoders generally don't. I've spent the last three years or so of my career dealing with hardware MPEG encoders and tuning the resulting digital stream for optimal transmission.

A frame is fully encoded only in I-frames, and I-frames account for only a very small portion of the MPEG traffic. However, since I-frames are the basis upon which the P-frames and B-frames work, they are typically encoded at relatively high fidelity. If you skimp on the I-frame you don't win much in terms of bandwidth, but you lose a lot in terms of divergence over time as the P-frames and B-frames amplify encoding errors.

The titles are in relatively static portions of the frame, meaning they appear only in I-frames.

I just don't think the argument that the clip is a fake because it's anti-aliased holds.

On that point alone, no. But there are other points to consider: the text is incorrectly aligned, and it was not part of the feed given by NASA to the television stations. These points make it more likely that the smoothing is due to software antialiasing effects than to artifacts of resizing, encoding, and compression.

Please don't be offended by my argument, JayUtah. I have the highest possible respect for you and your knowledge.

And I for yours; no offense taken. In fact, we would not be good scientists if we did not submit each other's findings to peer review and have these debates. The points you bring up are very valid and must be addressed before we can have confidence in this -- or any -- conclusion.

[M_Welander]

Yes, I know the title overlay systems worked in blocks instead of pixels at that time. That is not my point. The point is that the output resolution of the image would still be 640x480, while the movie we have seen is 256x192, which means it has been downsampled resulting in anti-aliasing. The internal resolution of the title machine does not affect it - only the output resolution does. And that is still the same. Otherwise, the entire image would have been outputed in blocks, which did not happen.

You said downsampling a larger image into a smaller one would result in non-uniform smoothing, which can't be seen in the movie. Now, perhaps we're talking about different things here, but unless you have a *very* primitive filtering kernel, I don't see how anything except a uniform smoothing can happen. And that is what we se.

I have to trust you on the issue of hardware MPEG encoders not smoothing the image, as they usually aim for speed and not quality, and I've never worked with one so I don't have any references. But virtually all software encoders I've worked with do include a smoothing option to increase visual quality.

Actually, the title do appear in the P/B-frames as well as in the I-frames. The frames 0, 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108 are I-frames, yet the blocks containing the title change a significant more number of times than 7. Not that it's very important for this discussion. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I completely agree that the misalignment of the text is proof enough that the movie is a fake. I do still disagree with you, however, that anything relevant can be said of the aliasing state of the original source footage based on the clip we have seen.

However, I willingly admit that I might have misunderstood your argument, but from where I stand I do not completely see it holding together.

Anyway, I'll make a few experiments and see what I can find out. I might very well be wrong.

[Jovianboy]

On 2002-11-15 00:07, g99 wrote:
Now that i have seen the actual video i take back my whole spotlight under the lander thing. It is in the video too. By the way what it it? It is the sun or some spotlight on the lander (i'm talking about the real video)?


I just watched the video of Aldrin on the Moon (kindly linked by AstroMike). I can't figure out what the light source is under the LM, but it's clearly something different to the motionless spotlight shown in the "baked" video. It does seem to move, but then I'm tempted to think it's flare on the camera lens caused by the intensity of the sunlight reflected off the lunar surface. Whatever it is, the baked version's spotlight is clearly a poor attempt to mimic a light source that the video's producers did not know the nature of.

Since I'm not sure what it is either, does anyone else have any ideas on the nature of that light source (if that's what it is)?.

By the way, I've just seen the "blah-blah-blah" post by "adsf" in the PDX TV thread, and now assume that's the reason why "adsf" was banned (must be the same troll who posted and got banned under the name "stevedahl"). Anyway, how disappointing - I was hoping he was banned because he called the BA a pixie! (see current thread) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

JB

[g99]

On 2002-12-05 00:58, Jovianboy wrote:
By the way, I've just seen the "blah-blah-blah" post by "adsf" in the PDX TV thread, and now assume that's the reason why "adsf" was banned (must be the same troll who posted and got banned under the name "stevedahl"). Anyway, how disappointing - I was hoping he was banned because he called the BA a pixie! (see current thread) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

JB



Probobly both /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif




Thanks for your explanation of the light. makes sense to me. Probobly is a flare on the lens that just happens to be in a certain space.

[Jovianboy]

g99,

That footage was still bugging me, so I looked at it again.

I think I was wrong there. It's not flare off the lens from the sunlit lunar surface at all. It actually seems to be reflected sunlight off an EVA suit, creating a very over-exposed Neil Armstrong, who was standing behind the LM's ladder, a little off to the left. If you follow the "light" throughout the video, you'll notice that it seems to disappear just as Armstrong's shadow and silhouette appear from behind Aldrin, moving off to the right.

So the faked "Moontruth" video has Neil replaced by a spotlight, obviously because its producers didn't realise that he was the source of the "light" in the original footage shot on the Moon - how sloppy!

Cheers again. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[JayUtah]

I see what you're referring to now. Yes, it's Armstrong.

He took a picture of Aldrin working his way out of the hatch. Then while he was messing around on the porch, Armstrong moved into the sunlight, took a couple of pictures of the LM, then turned his attention back to Aldrin descending the ladders. The lens flares in the Hasselblad photos of the rest of Aldrin's descent testify that Armstrong is indeed standing in the sunlight.

A Chromel space suit is extremely bright. It's meant to be. It provides a lot of fill light, and it's what is making the little hot spot on Aldrin's heel -- the heel still coated in a light film of manufacturing lubricant because Aldrin had just taken them out of the little plastic baggie.

[g99]

makes even better sense. Thnaks for the expert opinions!

[David Hall]

On 2002-11-15 08:47, JimO wrote:

To compress events, Neil Armstrong's comments about making "One small step" have often been matched with video of him dropping down from the Lunar Module ladder. Actually, he landed on one of the vehicle's footpads, made several comments, jumped back up on the ladder to make sure he could, jumped down a second time, discussed his impressions of his surroundings, and only after that did he make the "small step" onto the moondust. So the rearranged video completely misrepresents what he meant by "one small step". ....


I caught an perfect example of this just this weekend on the Discovery channel. In an otherwise stupendous documentary about going to Mars, they did a rundown on past missions that mentioned Apollo. Wouldn't you know it, they showed a clip of Armstrong jumping down off of the ladder while the "one small step..." line was voiced over it. I immediately thought of James' post above.

[JayUtah]

Incidentally this is a scene which David Percy claims was recorded differently in the Hasselblad photography versus the television coverage. Percy admits Armstrong is standing in sunlight while photographing the last of Aldrin's egress. But he claims no sign of Armstrong can be seen in the television footage. Either Percy has never seen the entire television footage, or he's lying about what is in it, or he doesn't interpret the large, bright, moving blob as Armstrong.

This is especially ironic since Percy goes on at length about the low-light lens fitted on the television camera. Doesn't he realize that a very bright object such as a Chromel-clad astronaut in full glare of the sun will certainly appear washed out and devoid of detail when using a low-light lens?

The work of Bennett and Percy is riddled with such inconsistencies.

[g99]

Did they do a practice run off the lander before actually filming it (on the moon)? Like before turning on the cameras did they climb off the lander, then climb back up to do it for t.v.? To make sure they don't screw up. You mentioned that he jumped up and then did the "one small step" But did this happen after another test?

I imagine that they would try to have as much safety as possible and they probobly would not like to film Armstrong falling on his butt when tripping out the hatch. I know they probobly did hundreds of tests on earth, but the gravity would of been different and movement would of changed.

[SpacedOut]

Nope - we saw it live - no prior testing.

<a name="2-12-05.Mac'N"> page= 2-12-05.Mac'N
0k? i went to the place {4th story} (see below) & I got in
1 one of the two camers was alread there
I grabbed a metal chair leaning off A WALL
3 2 1 Hr segments on counting in Two'ss
ei 1024 B's in a Kilo
<a name="Kil0.2-12-05"> line= Kil0.2-12-05
skip'N that & this to /KE/rn/all
7 the camers were not fixed possition but moved about
and at one time were positioned to block "EGGress" {lnk later to Kill0}(maybe)

[Peter B]

On 2002-12-05 12:38, g99 wrote:
Did they do a practice run off the lander before actually filming it (on the moon)? Like before turning on the cameras did they climb off the lander, then climb back up to do it for t.v.? To make sure they don't screw up. You mentioned that he jumped up and then did the "one small step" But did this happen after another test?

I imagine that they would try to have as much safety as possible and they probobly would not like to film Armstrong falling on his butt when tripping out the hatch. I know they probobly did hundreds of tests on earth, but the gravity would of been different and movement would of changed.

Nope. If you go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/) you can look at the transcript for yourself: select Apollo 11, then the transcript section labelled "One Small Step." You can trace Armstrong's movements down the ladder to the footpad, back up to the first rung (to make sure he could get back up the ladder), back down to the footpad, then onto the surface of the Moon with his famous words.

I think it's reasonable to assume the astronauts would have (not "would of" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ) done a fair bit of training with 1/6 gravity simulators. There are photos showing them practicing in the Vomit Comet plane, and also with harnesses connected to weights which cancelled out 5/6 of the astronauts' weight.

[packet_rackett]

This is all too funny,what gets me is the way he says "I guess you want me to do it again" if I was director I would have yelled cut at that very moment.Im not trying to flame anyone here but enough of the quote/ladder [bad word deleted] this was supposed to be a previous take and that wouldnt be the same on the original,with so many excellent obvious flaws in the film this should not even be brought up.

[Gastown]

I did a Yahoo search on "Symond Lewis" and got this link, http://www.zeusnews.it/index.php3?ar=stampa&cod=1791&numero=904
which has this interesting story:

"Apollo 11 Moon Landing Footage Out-take - How Did We Do It? -

We shot on original 1960's Ikegami Tube Camera in Mount Pleasant Studios in London. The guy in the suit is an actor. The rest of the 'cast' were basically the crew, who thought the idea was very funny and wanted to be in it.

The landing craft and 'moonscapè were a set built by our art director, Richard Selway. The ladder that 'Neil' descends was made according to original blueprints that were downloaded off the Net. The rest of the set was built to match the original as closely as possible.

The moon surface was cement dust. It was disgusting. Even with the studio ventilation on full it got everywhere, and at one point there was so much of it floating round, the lights were flaring really badly.

The footage was treated in post-production to give 'Neil' his weightlessness and the ghosting effect of the original. We re-recorded and processed the soundtrack to recreate the effect of sound traveling al the way from the moon.

We think it's pretty convincing, and one thing's for damn sure - it was a lot cheaper than really going to the moon."


The rest is in Italian. Anyone care to translate?

[Karamoon]

These are all sub documents within the aforementioned web site:

How did we do it?
Adam
www.moontruth.com/why.htm]Making (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:wwJktMHW7uQC:[url) of[/url]
The full story
Why?
Links (http://www.moontruth.com/links2.htm)
Who the hell?

One minute they all existed in Google's cache (http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached), the next minute Google could only account for one page. I guess Google updated its cache just as I was browsing. Oh well.

[Kaptain K]

One minute they all existed in Google's cache, the next minute Google could only account for one page. I guess Google updated its cache just as I was browsing. Oh well.
No! No! No!

Google is in on the conspiracy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

[LotusExcelle]

Everyone knows that Kubrick shot the moon landing hoax. He used the amazingly amazing f.70 lens that NASA would later let him borrow as a favor.

What they fail to tell you is that they flew him up to the moon with the camera and he had to wait 3 days for the other lander to arrive. Why they just didn't soundstage the thing is beyond me.

[BigDon]

Serious thread necromancy, but a good skit in my opinion.