Apollo conspiracy: what would Spielberg say?

[TMax1800]

Why is it that the people who believe Apollo was a hoax never ask an expert like Spielberg or Lucas whether they think the Apollo footage was faked or not. I guess it's because they wouldn't believe them anyway. But having myself worked in the film industry for a long time, I can unequivocally say that the footage you see from the moon landings could not be recreated on a sound stage in 1969 FOR THE LENGTH AND NATURE OF THE PRESENTATION.

Faking a 10 second shot in a movie is one thing. Faking 30 MINUTES of continuous video footage with wires, props, etc. could only be done with the use of modern CG effects. Several of the shots in the Apollo footage would not be creatable today without massive CGI. Expl: Apollo 14 LM accent POV -- this 10 minute 16mm footage is not fake-able with 1972 technology. Even Star Wars, 1979 looks super fake compared to that. Because, well, Star Wars IS super fake and Apollo 14 is the real thing.

The people who don't believe it, would only have to show that footage from beginning to end to any visual effects guys in Hollywood and they would tell them it cannot be faked in 1972. Even today, you could only fake it with computers.

People have a lot of misconceptions about science, and they also have a lot of screwy ideas about what's doable in movies. Well, for 10 seconds (an eternity for a visual effects shot) you could do anything. But 10 minutes... that's a whole other story.

[Undesired Walrus]

Lucas, an expert? They should start with someone who is a good filmmaker.

[ElMondoHummus]

Now, now, UW... let's be nice here :D. Lucas did make the Indiana Jones series, which I thought were pretty decent. And as far as the Star Wars prequels... well, I'm told his kids were on the set at nearly all times, so I blame a regression to infantilism for those flicks.

-------

TMax1800 (BTW, I'm an old enough fart to where I actually used that film. Although I only once pushed it past 1600, and I really didn't like the results): Any chance you could expound on what would make extended fakery so difficult? I mean, I think I have an idea (artifacts from erasing the supporting cables and the like would start to become painfully obvious), but pretend I know nothing about this (and in truth, all I do know is from still photography, not from motion pictures, so it wouldn't be too far from the truth in my case) and point out why what looks good in, say, 10 second spurts would look obviously fake in 60 minute lenghts. I can see the argument that what's doable for 10 seconds should be doable for 600, it's just that you'd have to pay more (granted, I don't fully agree with that argument, but I can see someone making it).

[grandthefttoaster]

George Lucas would just say that the fake looking video wouldn't matter because you could just update the special effects every 8 years to fix it. For the 40th anniversary of the moon walk he would have Jar Jar doing a song and dance number on the moon.

[thesyntaxera]

Lucas, an expert? They should start with someone who is a good filmmaker.

Um...THX1138? American Graffiti? I'll give you the last 3 star wars films...but the first one?

[ElMondoHummus]

George Lucas would just say that the fake looking video wouldn't matter because you could just update the special effects every 8 years to fix it.

:dl:

Good one!

[TMax1800]

point out why what looks good in, say, 10 second spurts would look obviously fake in 60 minute lenghts. I can see the argument that what's doable for 10 seconds should be doable for 600, it's just that you'd have to pay more (granted, I don't fully agree with that argument, but I can see someone making it).

In a movie, you'd have a quick effect shot, then cut to a close-up, then cut to another effect shot, etc. etc. so the audience's eyes never have time to really examine the details, they are caught up in the story.

In the case of the moon landings that was not the case. The footage is either a continuous video feed or handheld 16mm footage of minutes at a time. Many effects that don't stick out for a few seconds, would stick out if you had time to study them.

Also, very importantly the technology to remove wires form the frame did not exist in 1969-72. Movies of that time used green screen to place objects like space ships in the sky. Green screen footage form that period is easily recognized by the trained eye. There was a way to expose around tiny wires for scale models with careful lighting, but not the thick wires that would be required to lift a human. BTW, you would need 2 wires, one on each side, to perform a wire stunt with a human. In today's movies, it's very easy to remove the wires with computers, but that technology did not exist in the Apollo days.

Also, in the later missions with the rovers, you have long continuous video feed of them driving around, getting out, collecting rocks, hopping back in, driving some more. This is impossible to fake without computer imaging. The size of the stage and wire rig for the two separate humans for a continuous motion like that would be extremely difficult to create and choreograph, and even if you did build it and choreograph such an elaborate ballet, you still could not remove the wires, or the shadows of the wires from the frame. Lighting for a "fake sun" in that environment would be pretty much impossible without creating multiple shadows for each object.

The good news for the hoaxers is that by the time we go back, movie effects will be so elaborate and good, that on that one they'll be able to claim a hoax and I won't be able to counter them because the technology will be there to fake it. But Apollo will always be real and un-fakeable.

[rjh01]

I find it very easy to spot where two images have been superimposed in a modern movie. The lighting is so obviously different.

Just about everything about the moon hoax evidence is so stupid, even when I first read about it I could debunk about half of it on the spot.

[arthwollipot]

Wasn't 2001 released before 1969? That had some pretty good special effects if I recall. And no, I'm not talking about just the end.

[Ranb]

Wasn't 2001 released before 1969? That had some pretty good special effects if I recall. And no, I'm not talking about just the end.

Watch it again, especially the scenes that take place on the moon. Dust picking up and swirling around when one of the landers nears the surface is an example. Another is the people walking around in the conference room on the moon's surface; nothing like 1/6th Earth's gravity. It has been a while since I have seen it, so there may be more.

Ranb

[Ranb]

The people who don't believe it, would only have to show that footage from beginning to end to any visual effects guys in Hollywood and they would tell them it cannot be faked in 1972.

I think the moon hoax thing for most of its supporters has very little to do with Apollo being faked. It seems that most of them have an axe to grind against the USA and its allies. To admit that it happened means they would have to accept that the USA was capable of doing something that was not evil, just too damn expensive.

No hoax proponent has ever (AFAIK) been able to say how much radiation the astronauts were exposed to. They just say it is too high even though they have no idea how it was measured or who else did the measuring besides NASA. Another example is the claim that the Saturn rocket was too small or held inadequate fuel to go to the moon. Explaining that Apollo mostly coasts to the moon after leaving Earth orbit does no good. Another example is their claim that Von Braun said a larger rocket than the Saturn V was needed. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between direct ascent and lunar orbit rendezvous.

Even when their arguments are skillfully debunked, they sometimes fall back to the “Nazis helped America get to the moon, so you should be ashamed" argument.

Ranb

[TMax1800]

Wasn't 2001 released before 1969? That had some pretty good special effects if I recall. And no, I'm not talking about just the end.

Yes, 2001 had great special effects. But that's just what they were, special effects. You can sit down and look at every shot and tell how they did it. Scale models, green screens, sets, wires, etc. carefully planed and shot effects footage intercut with closeups etc. With Apollo you can't break it down like that. You can sit there and say: that moment could be faked, that moment could not be faked, but when you combine moments of "could be faked" with moments of "could not be faked" in the same 10 minute continuous shot, then the whole shot comes under the "could not be faked" umbrella.

[dudalb]

Wasn't 2001 released before 1969? That had some pretty good special effects if I recall. And no, I'm not talking about just the end.



Oh, one of the big theories among the Hoaxers is that Kubrick was in charge of the faked moon landings, and 2001 was secretly finianced by NASA as a "cover" for the fake moon landing filming.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, one of the big theories among the Hoaxers is that Kubrick was in charge of the faked moon landings, and 2001 was secretly finianced by NASA as a "cover" for the fake moon landing filming.

So that explains it! :mglook He wasn't actually a recluse, he was just really, really busy. :D

[Ranb]

Check out Opération Lune or Dark Side of the Moon. It is a funny mockudrama on Google Video. The premise is that some photos on the Apollo 11 mission had to be faked for publicity reasons. Some Apollo hoax believers were taken in by it and used it as evidence that Apollo was fake. :)

Ranb

[arthwollipot]

Oh, one of the big theories among the Hoaxers is that Kubrick was in charge of the faked moon landings, and 2001 was secretly finianced by NASA as a "cover" for the fake moon landing filming.I hadn't heard that.