Matthew Lewis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 That was my first thought as well. I just didn't bother to say anything because what's the point? Duane and/or Jack will show up later, insult anyone with a different opinion and never listen to any opposing points of view anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) haven't really heard a satisfactory explanation from anyone espousing this idea as to where exactly this film is supposed to have been taken from a hoax point of view, or why it required a mystery fourth person to take it, or where in the LM he was located. That was a very impressive reply Dave, but like I told you on the YouTube comments ... Look at Haise's body and arm position at time stamp :34 .. One of the other members of the crew is still in the frame and the camera is still panning while Haise is facing AWAY from them with his arm down and in no position to be holding a camera backwards to get the shot . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY Your "mundane" explaination was a nice try, but it's just not gonna fly for this one. I agree with you about one thing though ... If the crew were really in the LM while this "Houston, we have a problem " moment was being filmed, there would have been little room for a 4th person in that tiny space ... but if you remember how the Apollo 13 movie was made , it's not to difficult to figure out how this film footage could have been staged, either before or after the fact ... If there ever was the fact . Just like with the actors in the movie, it could have very easily been filmed in the vomit comet, so NASA would have one more self serving "documentary " to present to the world .... and when you really think about it, why would any of the crew be spending their valuable time filming anything after the CM allegedly blew up, when their very lives hung in the balance and they were trying to figure out how to fix their disabled craft to return home 240,000 miles away ? ... If I thought I was about to die in deep space, I would not be wasting my time with a camera, I would be trying to fix the problem. But whether NASA used the vomit comet or lied about the dimentions of the A13 LM and the crew number onboard, one thing is for certain ... THE "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM" FOOTAGE WAS STAGED. Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 That has to be one of your most pathetic attempts yet, Duane. Gee - they forgot that someone would ask "Who is doing the filming?" during a space drama that had the attention of the world? Right, Duane, whatever you say... (backs away slowly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Douglas Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Speaking of Apollo 13 ... It's looks like ... "Houston, we now have another problem ." Man On The Moon? Part 5: Apollo 13 Stowaway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlKhybMPdQY Well you seem disappointed that noone replied to this one. The premise is that a mystery "fourth person" held the camera while taking this 16mm footage of the inside of the Aquarius, the Apollo 13 LM which was effectively used as a lifeboat after an explosion crippled the CSM. I haven't really heard a satisfactory explanation from anyone espousing this idea as to where exactly this film is supposed to have been taken from a hoax point of view, or why it required a mystery fourth person to take it, or where in the LM he was located. It looks to me as if the data acquisition camera (DAC) was being held by the LM pilot (Fred Haise) while he stood at his station. The camera was firstly pointed at the Commander (Lovell) who was sat opposite Haise. You can also see Swigert sat on the engine bell. The camera continues to pan round and until we see Haise looking out of the LM window. I don't see a problem here: Haise was holding the 16mm DAC with his right had, and he twisted the camera round to finish pointing at himself. They were in zero gravity so the camera had no weight, which would make it easier to hold. In the latter part of the film segment, it's even possible that the camera was floating free. Look at the two still images above. Look at how close to the RHS LM window the camera, compared to how close it is in the second still to the LHS LM window. Difficult to measure exactly, but clear enough to be able to say that the camera is certainly closer to the LHS window than the RHS window - which is what you'd expect if Haise was holding the camera (he's stood in front of the LHS window). For example, kin the second still, see how close the glare shield to the camera (it has some paperwork clipped to it). How would this be possible if there was a fourth person in the LM? At the start of the segment, he would be behind the camera - with Haise behind him! There simply isn't enough room in the LM. Check out this cut-away of the LM which shows where Haise would be (in blue) - Swigert would be where the astronaut coloured in yellow is (Lovell would be sat with his back against the wall of the LM, under the RHS LM window, facing Haise). Would it really be possible for a fourth person to be stood to the right of Haise while holding the camera? I think it's physically impossible. What I don't think is physically impossible, is holding a 16mm film camera with one hand, in zero gravity, then turning it around 180 degrees with a simple twist of the wrist. Source What does everyone else think? Looking at the footage I guess the camera must be attached to a very long handle or perhaps a cable. Was it? And they seem extremely lucky that everything is staying in frame if its floating about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) That has to be one of your most pathetic attempts yet, Duane. Gee - they forgot that someone would ask "Who is doing the filming?" during a space drama that had the attention of the world?Right, Duane, whatever you say... (backs away slowly) Like Jack stated before .... "My rule of thumb is THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION, THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE BULLSEYE." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Yep, that pretty much sums up what you're all about Evan . I don't presume to know for certain exactly how NASA staged the Apollo 13 footage that we see in this clip ... but it is definately staged, whether you can accept that fact or not. I believe that the entire Apollo 13 mission was staged and that NASA's story about the the CM blowing up was all part of the plan to get people interested in the "Moon landings" again ... There was a lot a stake , especially financially, to keep the myth alive that Apollo was landing manned missions on the Moon ... So what better way to get the world's attention than to pretend that our "heros" were about to die in deep space, 240,000 miles away from home ? .. When you really think about it , the number 13 mission was quite ridiculous on many levels .... If the CM had really "blown up" that far away from Earth, there probably would have been no getting the crew home alive. So the most logical explaination I can think of, is that NASA staged their Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem " documentary in the vomit comet ... The same place they staged the Apollo 13 fictitious Hollywood movie. Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) That was my first thought as well. I just didn't bother to say anything because what's the point? Duane and/or Jack will show up later, insult anyone with a different opinion and never listen to any opposing points of view anyway. Oh sorry Matthew ... I didn't notice your post before and I know how it feels to have your posts either completely ignored or constantly ridiculed. I'm not sure why you have such a personal dislike for Jack and me, but it's obvious from reading your constant flame baiting attacks to both of us, that you feel a lot of animosity towards us . What I don't understand however, is your constant accusation that Jack and I are the one's doing the insulting on this forum ... I understand that this "projection" tactic is used quite often on discussion forums in hopes of angering your opponent ... but after I pointed out the fact that both of us only bite back after being continuously insulted by certain members here, I thought you would have gotten the message .... So why is it okay for you and your friends to ridicule and insult Jack and me, yet it's not okay for us to respond in our own defense ? .... If you answer that question honestly, then I think you will understand why I called you a hypocrite . Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 That was my first thought as well. I just didn't bother to say anything because what's the point? Duane and/or Jack will show up later, insult anyone with a different opinion and never listen to any opposing points of view anyway. Oh sorry Matthew ... I didn't notice your post before and I know how it feels to have your posts either completely ignored or constantly ridiculed. I'm not sure why you have such a personal dislike for Jack and me, but it's obvious from reading your constant flame baiting attacks to both of us, that you feel a lot of animosity towards us . What I don't understand however, is your constant accusation that Jack and I are the one's doing the insulting on this forum ... I understand that this "projection" tactic is used quite often on discussion forums in hopes of angering your opponent ... but after I pointed out the fact that both of us only bite back after being continuously insulted by certain members here, I thought you would have gotten the message .... So why is it okay for you and your friends to ridicule and insult Jack and me, yet it's not okay for us to respond in our own defense ? .... If you answer that question honestly, then I think you will understand why I called you a hypocrite . Honestly? I've seen plenty of times when you and Jack do the biting first. Also, if you were completely innocent you would not "bite back". Take your martyr act to somebody who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) Honestly? I've seen plenty of times when you and Jack do the biting first. Also, if you were completely innocent you would not "bite back". Take your martyr act to somebody who cares. If you don't care, then why continue to insult me with your transparent flame baiting tactics ? ...I rarely read any of your posts here where you just post information ... Instead, they contain attacks on those you disagree with ... Like I have said twice now ... You are a hypocrite. If you would like to link any of my comments here where I have insulted any of the members without any previous provocation, then I will be happy to apologise to them. Now, if you would like to discuss how NASA might have staged their self serving Apollo 13 documentary, I am all ears. Or of you can offer any reasonable explaination as to how none of the three A13 crew members were operating the 16MM DAC that caught them on tape, I would be happy to consider your opinion.... But if you are just going to repeat the same lame excuse that Dave posted above, then don't bother, because his explaination just doesn't cut it for this one . Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) Where have I attacked? I have posted a lot of information, mostly on contralis. I typically lurk on the Moon hoax threads. <DELETED BY MOD>. I already offered my opinion. It looks like the third guy is holding the camera. He has his arm extended toward it. You didn't consider it. Instead you insult those with a different opinion than you by saying their opinion is not reasonable. And you continue to play the martyr. What about the rest of that video? Surely there is more than the few seconds shown over and over on the youtube video. What was happening before or after? What are they saying? Those few seconds are painfully out of context and I think it likely seeing more of the video would explain exactly what is going on with the camera and how it is being held by one of the only three men there. BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. Edited February 18, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) You attacked Jack and me most recently on the Contrails thread for no other reason than Jack posted this .. "My rule of thumb is THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION, THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE BULLSEYE." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Either remove the accusation that I have lied or I will have to report your post for breaking the forum's rules. I have looked at other footage of the Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem" mission , and it is obvious that Haise is doing the filming in certain parts of the footage ... However , that is definately NOT the case in this part of the footage .... Haise is not in the correct position to even be holdiong the camera, much less getting his crew mates in the frame properly as the camera scans pasts them ... Even if the man were a contortionist or a magician , I doubt he could have been holding the camera, considering how his body was positioned in that clip. Haise was facing AWAY from his companions with his BACK to them ... and this postition can be very clearly observed at time stamp :34, where the middle astronot is still in the frame as Haise has his back to him, with his arm straight down by his side, while gazing out the " LM " window with that contrived, worried expression on his face. The film was STAGED ... and so far nobody, including you and Dave , have proven otherwise. Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Or of you can offer any reasonable explaination as to how none of the three A13 crew members were operating the 16MM DAC that caught them on tape, I would be happy to consider your opinion.... But if you are just going to repeat the same lame excuse that Dave posted above, then don't bother, because his explaination just doesn't cut it for this one . Haise holding it is a reasonable explanation. He's in the right position. The camera is a lot closer to his face than it was Lovell's. The camera was being held quite close to the centre console, in between the two glare shields, but to the left of middle. When he twists the camera round to face it's possible that Lovell reached an arm out to steady the camera, or he could have been loosely holding on to the camera by the bottom of the battery pack, or he could have let go of it so it as floating free for a second or two. It would help to see if there is any other 16mm film footage that could shed any more light on this. I believe this clip was taken from a documentary, so there may well be more film footage available. IIRC there were 20,000+ frames taken on the DAC in the LM, which at 20 FPS equates to more than 15 minutes of footage. Hopefully this extra footage would shed some more light. I'll see if I can contact someone who has the Apollo 13 Spacecraft Films DVD set who can review the rest of the footage. I don't think it really cuts it to say my explanation is a "lame excuse" when clearly it's the most logical explanation and makes sense, especially when you can't even come up with an alternative "pro-hoax" explanation that fits the available data. "Lame excuse" is your standard fall-back position when you can't address alternative explanations objectively. Remember, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that there was a fourth person holding the camera, something you clearly can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Looking at the footage I guess the camera must be attached to a very long handle or perhaps a cable.Was it? And they seem extremely lucky that everything is staying in frame if its floating about. James The 16mm lunar surface DAC is shown top right - I believe the long handle is the battery pack. I don't think the camera was floating for the entire clip, though it's possible it may have been released during the last 2 or 3 seconds of the clip (it's certainly not very steady then). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) You attacked Jack and me most recently on the Contrails thread for no other reason than Jack posted this .. "My rule of thumb is THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION, THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE BULLSEYE." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Either remove the accusation that I have lied or I will have to report your post for breaking the forum's rules. How did I attack him? I posted this Ah Jack. Always seeing professional "disinfo agents" when your ideas are challenged. Any proof that I or others are disinfo agents or should I just assume that is your usual ad hominem? Can't comment on the facts then? Incidentally, the idea that the world is flat is opposed rather greatly. Does that mean the flat Earthers are correct? Or does it mean your rule of thumb really doesn't hold well. I notice you never commented on the multitude of evidence I posted in the other thread showing that not only can contrails persist as shown by science and facts but there is evidence of persistent contrails dating back to before WWII. Of course you'd rather attack the messenger than debate on facts right Jack? Nothing but facts there. Jack does call many who are in opposition to him "disinfo agents" and has yet to show any proof. Without any proof that one is a professional disinfo agent then the accusation is nothing more than a thinly disguised insult and flame-baiting. He has avoided any facts that have been presented about persistent contrails and how they have been described and photographed since planes could fly high enough to form them. He instead resorts to attacking the messenger (name calling of disinfo agents and the like) rather than rationally discussing facts. So, where did I attack him? I have looked at other footage of the Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem" mission , and it is obvious that Haise is doing the filming in certain parts of the footage ... However , that is definately NOT the case in this part of the footage .... Haise is not in the correct position to even be holdiong the camera, much less getting his crew mates in the frame properly as the camera scans pasts them ... Even if the man were a contortionist or a magician , I doubt he could have been holding the camera, considering how his body was positioned in that clip.Haise was facing AWAY from his companions with his BACK to them ... and this postition can be very clearly observed at time stamp :34, where the middle astronot is still in the frame as Haise has his back to him, with his arm straight down by his side, while gazing out the " LM " window with that contrived, worried expression on his face. The film was STAGED ... and so far nobody, including you and Dave , have proven otherwise. You only know that he has his back to them when he is shown. How is he positioned before that? If it is obvious that he is doing the filming in other parts, why is it not logical to assume he is here as well, especially as his arm is extended toward the camera? Or is he feeling up this mythical fourth person? Edited February 17, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Douglas Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Looking at the footage I guess the camera must be attached to a very long handle or perhaps a cable.Was it? And they seem extremely lucky that everything is staying in frame if its floating about. James The 16mm lunar surface DAC is shown top right - I believe the long handle is the battery pack. I don't think the camera was floating for the entire clip, though it's possible it may have been released during the last 2 or 3 seconds of the clip (it's certainly not very steady then). The handle doesn't look long enough. Was it perhaps attached to a cable? There is more footage here. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBcqPZ5zp4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) Haise holding it is a reasonable explanation. He's in the right position. The camera is a lot closer to his face than it was Lovell's. The camera was being held quite close to the centre console, in between the two glare shields, but to the left of middle. When he twists the camera round to face it's possible that Lovell reached an arm out to steady the camera, or he could have been loosely holding on to the camera by the bottom of the battery pack, or he could have let go of it so it as floating free for a second or two. Like I stated before ... It's a lame excuse ... Actually, after reading this new detailed "explaination", it's not really lame but more like ... ABSURD ! I don't have to prove that a 4th person is filming this part of the A13 "mission" because the film itself (showing the position of Haise as Swiggert , the middle astro-actor, is being panned ) has already proven that .. As to exactly where they were when they staged this ridiculous drama, is quite another matter ... One which would be extremely difficult to prove , if not impossible. Matthew ... This is an ad homuim attack . Can't comment on the facts then? Incidentally, the idea that the world is flat is opposed rather greatly. Does that mean the flat Earthers are correct? Or does it mean your rule of thumb really doesn't hold well. So is calling me a xxxx ... Your post has been reported . You only know that he has his back to them when he is shown. How is he positioned before that? If it is obvious that he is doing the filming in other parts, why is it not logical to assume he is here as well, especially as his arm is extended toward the camera? Or is he feeling up this mythical fourth person? Look who's really tellng tall tales here .... Haise's back is to the camera and his arm is down by his side in NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING THE CAMERA BACKWARDS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SWIGGERT IS SEEN IN THE FRAME ..... Time stamp :34 .... Do I need to post a frame grab of that scene to show this fact , or are you capable of stopping the film at that point to see the truth about your "heros" ? There is absolutely NO WAY that Haise was filming that STAGED "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM " SCENE. Edited February 17, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now