Uh Oh, "Capricorn One" is being remade....

[dudalb]

which means that in a year or so all the Moon Hoax crap will stage a major comeback.
I sorta enjoyed Capricorn One, but I do hold it against the film that is help to give a long life to the Moon Hoax crap.

[fullflavormenthol]

which means that in a year or so all the Moon Hoax crap will stage a major comeback.
I sorta enjoyed Capricorn One, but I do hold it against the film that is help to give a long life to the Moon Hoax crap.
Oh I hate the moon hoax stuff, especially when Fox had that special back when they were still into the whole X-Files, and Sightings thing. Still the moon hoax CT was at least more pleasant to debunk than dealing with the troofers. I would welcome it these days.

[Alferd_Packer]

Staring Mark Furman. . .

[Alt+F4]

I don't know why the "Moon hoaxers" use Capricorn One as an example since in that movie the conspiracy was revealed.

[steve s]

In the new version, O.J. kills everyone.

I was 14 when the original came out. I liked it a lot at the time, but I never bought into the moon hoax nonsense.

Steve S.

[dudalb]

I don't know why the "Moon hoaxers" use Capricorn One as an example since in that movie the conspiracy was revealed.

You are not exactly dealing with the most logical people here..........
For the record, almost everybody invovled with the film has stated time and time again they do not buy into the Moon Hoax nonsense, and were surprised when people took it so damn seriously.

[dudalb]

In the new version, O.J. kills everyone.

Somehow, I don't think OJ will be making a cameo appreance in the remake...

[Alt+F4]

I hope in the remake they get rid of a few of the more stupid plot points from the original. Remember what the bad guys did when the NASA control center guy gets wind of the conspiracy? They disappeared him! A woman is living in his apartment, complete with magazine subscriptions. No thought that he might have family that would know he existed. Why no just rub him out in a robbery gone wrong?

[sts60]

No stupid plot element can match actual claims made by Apollo hoax believers (HBs). For example, some claim that Teacher-In-Space Christa McAuliffe planned to talk about the stars she could see in space, but Apollo photos of the daylit lunar surface don't show stars, thus she would inadvertently reveal the conspiracy and had to be silenced.

I like to imagine the conversation at NASA HQ:

- "She's going to reveal that you can see stars from space! It'll blow the whole Apollo coverup... people will realize we filmed it on a soundstage and didn't put stars in the picture because we couldn't reproduce them."
- [Panicking]"We've got to sanction her... something subtle, that won't get undue attention!"
- "I know! We'll blow the Shuttle up in midair!"
- "Perfect! No one will notice!"

I Am Not Making This Up. Bill Kaysing was one of the "big name" HBs who actually made this claim.

[Drudgewire]

I probably haven't seen the movie since I was 8, yet still remember the part where the guy (might have been Sam Waterston's character) is climbing the mountain while telling himself a joke, only to get to the top and see the gunmen waiting there for him.

"Well you see, there was this tree..." :D

[JimBenArm]

Just yesterday, they showed "Conspiracy Moon Landing" on the National Geographic Channel here. Fairly good debunking of this nonsense, but tried way too hard to be fair, in my opinion. Like, showing the idiot with a RUBBER GLOVE in a homemade vacuum chamber, and never showing why that's nonsense. A freaking rubber glove? Oh, yeah, that's what all the fashionable astronauts were wearing!
These guys are as loony as the 9/11 morons, only stupider. Just one step below the JFK nutjobs and barely above the chemtrail crowd.

[OldTigerCub]

I don't know why the "Moon hoaxers" use Capricorn One as an example since in that movie the conspiracy was revealed.

I think it has a lot to do with the difficulty many of them have telling the difference between a science fiction movie and a National Geographic documentary.:rolleyes:

[Mangoose]

I also haven't seen it since I was 8. I remember the staged Mars "landing". I remember some guy eating a snake in a desert. And I remember irritating my parents by giving them "spoilers" of what was going to happen when they watched the movie for themselves. That's about it.

[fuelair]

I think it has a lot to do with the difficulty many of them have telling the difference between a science fiction movie and a National Geographic documentary.:rolleyes:
Or, one of their body parts and a hole in the ground.

[fuelair]

And, speaking of arses and holes................

[steve s]

....but tried way too hard to be fair, in my opinion. Like, showing the idiot with a RUBBER GLOVE in a homemade vacuum chamber, and never showing why that's nonsense. A freaking rubber glove? Oh, yeah, that's what all the fashionable astronauts were wearing!


I saw that show last year and thought the same thing. They made no attempt to debunk that guy's claim. I'd love to tell him, "That would be really compelling evidence,if they had worn rubber gloves on the moon."

IIRC, one of the hoaxer nuts was surrounded by a dozen cats. Why do wackos always have a bunch of cats?

Steve S.

[CptColumbo]

I blame the Writer's strike.

Will OJ be in this one?

That's why the gubmint tried to frame him!

[SpitfireIX]

I saw that show last year and thought the same thing. They made no attempt to debunk that guy's claim. I'd love to tell him, "That would be really compelling evidence,if they had worn rubber gloves on the moon."


Jay Windley, who appears in the program, has commented on the lack of rebuttals in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/12518-jayutah-film-moon-conspiracies-os-now-n.html#post254338) and this post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/18634-jayutah-british-tv-2.html#post416978) on BAUTforum. Again, for anyone unfamiliar, Jay is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on and debunker of moon-landing hoax conspiracy theories. Note that I've modified Jay's quoting style to show the attributions, for clarity.

The thing is, it's not long enough for me! I'm a 2-hour kind of person and I wish this was really fleshed out with more explanations and rebuttals.


Me too. . . .

I know that we shot a lot of stuff that didn't make it into the final program. They left out altogether the 70mm photography that we did. Luckily I was able to persuade the producers to send me the 70mm film. I'm having it professionally scanned and I'll post it on Clavius

When Rene demonstrates his glove vacuum, there was no rebuttal about that.


I didn't get to see anything of Rene's or Kaysing's interview before my segment was shot. In Kaysing's case it was because I was interviewed before he was; his interview was one or two days after our footage in the Mojave. . . .

Had they asked me about it, I would have given them an answer. They didn't ask.

After showing the LM simulator crashing and Armstrong's ejection, the Hoaxsters claim since they couldn't do it on earth, they couldn't do it on the moon. There was no rebuttal to that.


Again, had they asked, I would have had an answer..


Well, as I said, I could easily have debunked both the leaf-blower demonstration and the glove box demonstration, but I wasn't told about them. I don't think that was intentionally evasive of the producers. I know that the producers are sympathetic to our cause. On the way back to Los Angeles we discussed which hoax authors would appear. They said that Bennett and Percy had declined to participate, that they had yet to interview Bill Kaysing, but that they had already interviewed Ralph Rene. They didn't give any details, but the emotional reactions of the crew indicated they thought he was quite the crackpot.

[Horatius]

IIRC, one of the hoaxer nuts was surrounded by a dozen cats. Why do wackos always have a bunch of cats?

Steve S.


The correct question is, of course, "Why do cats always hang around wackos?"





It's mostly for the amusement. The wackos last longer than mice.

[Undesired Walrus]

James Brolin clearly didn't get enough from that movie and had to endorse 9/11 nuttery as well.

It was probably something in that snake he ate...

[CptColumbo]

James Brolin clearly didn't get enough from that movie and had to endorse 9/11 nuttery as well.

It was probably something in that snake he ate...

That's Ms. Streisand to you.

[sts60]

Jay Windley, who appears in the program, has commented on the lack of rebuttals in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/12518-jayutah-film-moon-conspiracies-os-now-n.html#post254338) and this post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/18634-jayutah-british-tv-2.html#post416978) on BAUTforum. Again, for anyone unfamiliar, Jay is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on and debunker of moon-landing hoax conspiracy theories...
That's because you're a mindless JayUtah minion - part of his adoring fan club.


One item worth noting about the LLRV/LLTV crash that is so often shown - a number of these vehicles crashed; they were known to be pretty dangerous (which is why they were fitted with zero-zero ejection seats). But what the HBs fail to mention is that they flew hundreds of successful flights, and were praised as indispensable for their ability to simulate the 1/6 G landing environment. Which is pretty much all they were built to simulate.

[dudalb]

I have to admit, there is something to be said for the Buzz Aldrin method of dealing with MoonBats behaving in an obnoxious manner.

[SpitfireIX]

That's because you're a mindless JayUtah minion - part of his adoring fan club.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604852b6089e5be.bmp


ETA: I'd better PM sts60 at BAUTforum and tell him that Jarrah White has hacked into his JREF forum account. :p