The Bantu Wind discussions

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:38 am

Yojimbo Jones wrote:That IS true, but without ANY notice? Maybe 24?

Whole sets must be designed and built, normally with weeks of prep. Especially when you're building a whole side of a ship with deck and bridge. And this is in England, with strict Union rules. No weird / extended hours without warning.

Even if it could be done, like get dozens of people in to get the work done in that time; it would cost big dollars, which sorts of defeats the point, doesn't it? Where could you hide all of those construction wages, additional variations to suppliers' engagements and so on in a balance sheet? Makes the argument of the giveaway being a piece of camera kit a bit miniscule doesn't it?

And how do the rust stains on the ship etc. match perfectly from what you say is the original location shoot to what you say is the studio?

Whew. Time for a glass of Benriach.

I believe the soundstage costs are usualy piled onto one big heap. If I'm right about this it is actualy quite easy to hide the expences of an entire set. Just trow it on the pile and no-one will know what the extra money was for.

As to the rust stains: It's fairly easy to take photographs of the real deal and replicate it with a litle paint. Dont forget: the guys building sets are professionals and craftsmen, so matching paintscemes of a set to the real deal is no biggy.

Regards, Geert

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:11 am

No doubt you can match that sort of thing such as the rust stains but have a look at that scene again and tell me that whole thing was conceived and built in 24 hours with zero notice.

CairoIndy · Post by **CairoIndy** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:21 am

Yojimbo Jones wrote:No doubt you can match that sort of thing such as the rust stains but have a look at that scene again and tell me that whole thing was conceived and built in 24 hours with zero notice.

Great to see common-sense hasn't completely left the building!

In the words of the song-'Just gimme some Truth!'

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:14 am

Yojimbo Jones wrote:No doubt you can match that sort of thing such as the rust stains but have a look at that scene again and tell me that whole thing was conceived and built in 24 hours with zero notice.

I agree that 24 hours is quite short for concieving and building the entire set. If there was no way the could have pre-fabed anything before that (which would make 24 hours quite possible) it even seems impossible. However, I don't think I am willing to go up against all the witnesses _ has brought up on this. If they all remember that that scene was shot on a soundstage, who am I to say they're all wrong?

_'s statements and the witness accounts he gave us are good enough for me, even though it leaves me with a lot of questions myself. I happen to see the little clues that hint at a soundstage shot, but I do have trouble with the mentioned timeframe. Somehow they pulled it off though, and I'm eager to know how.

To bad Spielberg doesn't do audio commentaries

Regards, Geert

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:55 am

Why don't we ask George Harris (Capt. Katanga) or John Rhys-Davies (Sallah) who were there too.
Maybe they will remember something...

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:57 am

_ wrote:And what piece of minutea, falacy of inference or overextension of uninformed "if/then" is confusing things?

I'm being flip because I don't think you think you're confused. But go ahead...

Maybe confused wasn't the right word, but I'm actually not digging to try to trip anything up. I'm fully prepared to accept the soundstage story (not that my acceptance matters a whit in the grand scheme of things, I suppose) but there are certain details that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. This was one that I kept coming back to in my mind: this set would seem to be an involved piece and I was wondering if this was the one that was reshot that quickly. I don't know much about the making of movies but this would seem to be a very quick turnaround time for the set.

It's a bit of a heart vs. head thing. In my head, I know your position and the huge volume of research you've done, so I'm thinking that this must be right (and that [perceived] low yoke on the promotion Bantu pic being just an optical illusion). But my heart keeps coming to a couple things that don't make sense to me and I waffle like an Eggo. And all this for a jacket...!

I think I'll just shut up and watch the proceedings.

_'s statements and the witness accounts he gave us are good enough for me, even though it leaves me with a lot of questions myself. I happen to see the little clues that hint at a soundstage shot, but I do have trouble with the mentioned timeframe. Somehow they pulled it off though, and I'm eager to know how.

Edited to add that this sums up my feelings much more succinctly than I did above.

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:20 am

Comparing the scene with the location photographs, I'm struck by how meticulously detailed the soundstage reconstruction is, right down to the bricks, rails, and concrete in the pavement. This strikes me as odd compared to how relatively unconvincing some of the other soundstage stuff is, like the Raven Bar exteriors.
Now, I'm far from a professional, but I have dabbled in amateur set design. (Here's a Tales from the Crypt-inspired little comedy a friend of mine made some years ago, which I did set-design on.)

I'm convinced your story is true, _, but I must confess to being really curious as to what the soundstage giveaways are.

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:49 am

Works for me, thanks for the quick response!

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:03 pm

This is way off topic but a true and funny (sad/pathetic?) story. Around a decade or so ago, I was going through a bad time and was really, really depressed. I decided (in my infinite wisdom) that I might just stay perpetually drunk, maybe even just drink myself to death since I didn't have the guts for a quicker method. I embarked on a my plan with some slow gin (geez but that stuff was terrible but it was all I had on hand) and popped in Leaving Las Vegas, which I had wanted to see, even though I didn't know exactly what it was about.

Needless to say, I revised my plan and things got better. It's amazing looking back on things you were thinking and really thought you were clear in your head.

Hatch · Post by **Hatch** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:14 pm

Glad you pulled out of it Crismans............we'd never have been able to have seen your beautiful LC jacket...............

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:27 pm

Thanks! That's flattering and terribly cruel all at the same time!

Hatch · Post by **Hatch** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:06 pm

crismans wrote:

Thanks! That's flattering and terribly cruel all at the same time!

Ya gotta have thick skin and a sense of humor to hang with this crowd.......

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:23 pm

...that, and a 'deer in the headlights' look helps too.

Regards! Michaelson

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:15 pm

Looks like some cold weather during shooting - note the jacket worn.

Check out the making of book for photos from the La Rochelle shoot to see what the crew was wearing.

Are there crew photos from what people are thinking is the location vs. what people are saying was a set?

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 pm

Hatch wrote:
crismans wrote:

Thanks! That's flattering and terribly cruel all at the same time!
Ya gotta have thick skin and a sense of humor to hang with this crowd.......

Absolutely! I've been going out in the sun without sunscreen just to get that leathery look and feel (I'm hoping for 747 cowhide)!

Post by **Mike** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:14 pm

Careful, you get dino-hide, someone might want to make a jacket out of ya.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:20 pm

_, just so you know, you can't count me as an armchair quarterback. I've produced and directed films, which has involved preparing budgets, etc. My stuff has aired on TV numerous times. Of late, I've mainly stuck to TVC's.

Funnily enough, among the things I've shot over the years on location was at a HUGE BHP loading terminal here in Brisbane, at night, with a scope about 10 times bigger than what you see on screen in the Bantu Wind scene.

There's a bit of armchair quarterback-iness about your comments though. A bit of ambient noise wouldn't complicate matters too much. You just use appropriate mics, and as Mac has pointed out, if all else fails, loop it in post. It wouldn't be any more of a problem than a simple piece of camera equipment on a dolly. Neither are logical arguments.

Building sets? There's a pretty big difference in the monetary circumstances of Raiders vs. CS. Speaking of laws of physics, etc., if you can have only 2 out of cheap, fast or polished, how does Bantu Wind set fit in?

Anyway, until my questions and that of others can be answered DIRECTLY rather than referring to totally different circumstances that may convince laypeople I will take all of your reasoning with a grain of salt. I'm not saying you're full of it, just that without proper evidence beyond citing what could plainly be made-up conversations, I'd like to see real proof before you keep dismissing people.

I look forward to the answer to my question about Robert Raymond - that will go some way to convincing me.

moses · Post by **moses** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:24 am

Raider S wrote:Looks like some cold weather during shooting - note the jacket worn.

Check out the making of book for photos from the La Rochelle shoot to see what the crew was wearing.

Are there crew photos from what people are thinking is the location vs. what people are saying was a set?

What about that footage of Spielberg trying out Ford's whip. Isn't that next to the Bantu? I haven't watched it in a while but I'm pretty sure Ford is jacket-less and possibly Spielberg also. Maybe it's La Rochele - maybe it's the soundstage? I don't know - someone care to look at it?

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:50 am

Here's a cool link showing where the Bantu/U-boat scenes were filmed. Check out the overhead aerial view to see how sheltered and where the sea is in relation.

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/652 ... ?service=1

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:04 am

Raider, you pipped me!

Look at the railway tracks, and compare to the movie. Also, there is a little drop-off about 10-15ft in from the edge of the dock. It's in the satellite image as well as the movie:
http://maps.bing.com/default.aspx?v=2&c ... &encType=1

Check out those mooring posts and how far apart they can be - it IS a BIG industrial port after all, not for little sailboats.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18290017

Then, go about 200yards down the dock - guess what you find Sub docks.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6598038

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:26 am

Also, if you check out the ground between Sallah and the gangplank, you'll see the dropoff to the left, and a bunch of concrete tiled blocks that make up the ground in between. Those exact ground markings appear on that dockside in the satellite map. Cooool.

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:31 am

Yup, you can also see it at the beginning and end of the film Das Boot. This is quite a famous place because of the hardened U-boat pens - the target of allied bombing during WWII - and us submarine junkies know it well.

You'll notice ships enter through a narrow canal and a lock. It's very sheltered and the water would not move more than a ripple on the surface from a breeze.

Because of the lock, the water would stay at a certain level and not be affected by tides depending on how it was being used. In fact if you study the photo, it appears the water might be higher on the ocen side of the lock. And that bridge is either a drawbridge or a swing bridge.

Also notice how ships are tied to the pier from the bow and stern to keep lines from obstructing the cranes (that run on those tracks you can see in the film) that load and unload.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:42 am

Have a look at the tripod-like crane in the satellite shot and then in the background of the Bantu Wind scene.

Kevin Anderson · Post by **Kevin Anderson** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:57 am

I'm just surprised that something as significant as the filming location of such a prominent scene has never really been confirmed here.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:28 am

It HAS Kevin, by people in this very thread who purport to know; but...

"They're digging in the wrong place!"

Dutch_jones · Post by **Dutch_jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:54 am

Yojimbo Jones wrote:Also, if you check out the ground between Sallah and the gangplank, you'll see the dropoff to the left, and a bunch of concrete tiled blocks that make up the ground in between. Those exact ground markings appear on that dockside in the satellite map. Cooool.

WOW how cool is that !!!!!

Raskolnikov · Post by **Raskolnikov** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:11 am

For anyone interested, in You Tube you can see a bunch of videos recorded in the harbour. I couldn't watch them: the camera moves so much that I suddenly felt seasick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJnP6Tgk ... 84&index=0

Regards,
Rask

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:18 am

Nice find Rask!

So anyone who may have a copy of Raiders (

) warm up your DVD player and watch the scene. Check out the links above, note the similarities already, then look at this.

In the scene, there are some VERY specifically tiled cobblestones to the right of frame that terminate when they hit a railway track. Look familiar? Also, the shot of Ford acting bored, sitting on a particularly-shaped bollard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HWfB4YC ... 84&index=8

Think the boat should be moving? Well, for starters, big boats don't move much in sheltered, locked harbours. I live on a BIG river, and it rarely gets THIS still. And note the matching bollard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7AOwwR ... 4&index=13

The line/dropoff I mentioned in my earlier post that appears to the left of frame in the movie (we're looking back the opposite way now, but roughly where the scene was shot). Notice the crane in the background. Note at the shape of it and watch the scene again if need be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFYbOro ... 4&index=11

Here's the thing about the truth. It has a way of coming out eventually. Kinda makes you wonder about other things, though, huh?

CairoIndy · Post by **CairoIndy** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:55 am

Nice work Yojimbo!

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:20 am

Hey Cairo, a little credit here too?

Here's something else to take note of: check out the scenes where the U-boat approaches the Bantu Wind on the "open ocean" and you'll see land behind the shots of Ford when he first comes up to the bridge of the Bantu. Now zoom out that aerial view on the virtual globetrotting site and I'll bet they filmed those scenes right in front of that harbor.

See the very white sandy beach on the low lying sliver of land. Compare that to what you see in the movie and the photo on the site. For the movie they would film as close to the dock as possible to save time, etc. Also, that U-boat model wasn't very seaworthy and didn't have much below the waterline and if you notice the water conditions in the film it's more of a chop and not the swells you'd get on the ocean.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:24 am

While I was not there and never once asked anyone who worked on the film about the scene in question, I can say without a doubt that in all my years of studying Raiders I've never once read anywhere in print or heard that the Bantu Wind scene was shot on a stage. I'd never questioned it because I'd never read anything but that it was filmed on location in France. COULD they have shot it on a stage - absolutely. In looking at the shots above though, I'd have to say it would have to be an incredibly large soundstage as you can see. Plus, it's just way too much money to invest in a pick-up shot. One thing not mentioned here is that there may have indeed been some pick-up shots produced on the first day of Elstree shooting that were never used. If so I can't imagine it would be the whole set, but smaller parts of it for tighter shots only showing minimal backround. I've never read of this happening but it makes sense if it did and is why we're getting this info. It's very possible that something like this never made it to any of the 'Making Of" books or video.

When I spoke to Nadoolman about the jackets she told me exactly what _ is telling you guys - that in France there was only one jacket and the rest had yet to be delivered. She was only there for the shoot in France and was not present for the rest of the film on set, but she was there. IMO it looks like Ford is wearing the prototype jacket since it would have been the first Leather Concessionaries jacket made and then the main hero jacket was later delivered and worn for most of the rest of the film. Since only that one jacket was available it had to be used. I know that we've been told that it IS the hero jacket on Ford there but the low yoke gives it away that it isn't the main hero jacket used for most of the rest of the film. I'd have to say that given Raiders was filmed 29 years ago it would be easy to forget exactly which of the jackets Ford wore when and nothing more than a very excusable misjudgement.

If the yoke matched up it would be a no-brianer, but it doesn't, which leads to speculation other than what we're being told happened. Basic human nature 101. In the end not one of us here on this site was there when Raiders was filmed and we'll probably never know, but reasonably debating this is fun and entertaining.

moses · Post by **moses** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:31 am

Cool, never seen those pics before.

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:52 am

People have suggested Katanga never goes all the way up the plank and onto the ship meaning it might not be a ship but a set piece. A simple explaination is good old movie making: Katanga is wearing a light colored outfit and when he pauses on that plank he strikes quite the dramatic pose and really stands out. Makes for some interest and mystery in the soft-focus background to see him up there observing our heroes.

As for the two "workers" who go up and turn around, same deal, just a little bit of eye candy or maybe even a missed cue. People watching the movie in a theater would never focus on action like that and even it it were a mistake wouldn't be worth worrying about. And we do see a guy on the deck of the ship very near the railing and gangplank. He's moving crates or preparing the ship for "sea".

Dutch_jones · Post by **Dutch_jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:58 am

Katanga is walking up to the main part of the ship in that scene and is looking at sallah indy and marion from the edge of the ship.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:51 pm

Ok, cool. Nice pics, A5. So looking at the U-boat pens in the background of the first shot, they're on the other side to what I thought. But same railway tracks, same concrete slab markings between Sallah and the gangplank, same bollards, same tripod-style crane in the background.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:20 pm

Dutch_jones wrote:Katanga is walking up to the main part of the ship in that scene and is looking at sallah indy and marion from the edge of the ship.

Look closely Dutch: he's standing on the gangplank, leaning on it's railing

agent5 wrote:

This picture bothers me: shouldn't we be able to see the last part of the ship's name in the movie based on this?

Also, based on the airial photo's (the ones with the fishing boats) and the modern pictures taken on the dock I'd say the mooring posts are only 50 or 60 feet appart. shouldn't we be seeing some?

I don't know guys, I've still got a lot of questions.

Regards, Geert

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:34 pm

gwyddion wrote:

This picture bothers me: shouldn't we be able to see the last part of the ship's name in the movie based on this?
Also, based on the airial photo's (the ones with the fishing boats) and the modern pictures taken on the dock I'd say the mooring posts are only 50 or 60 feet appart. shouldn't we be seeing some?
I don't know guys, I've still got a lot of questions.

Regards, Geert

With a longer focal length, not necessarily. But I think it all lines up.

The post Ford is sitting on is right at the dolly tracks. The next one wouldn't be until somewhere near the far end of the ship. Have a close look at the rest of the harbour, and the earlier pics I posted. They're pretty far apart - it's for bigger ships, not little sailboats.

What else is causing you to ask questions? I can't imagine anything being more cut and dried.

Bullitt · Post by **Bullitt** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:36 pm

gwyddion wrote:
agent5 wrote:

This picture bothers me: shouldn't we be able to see the last part of the ship's name in the movie based on this?

Also, based on the airial photo's (the ones with the fishing boats) and the modern pictures taken on the dock I'd say the mooring posts are only 50 or 60 feet appart. shouldn't we be seeing some?

I don't know guys, I've still got a lot of questions.

Regards, Geert

That would have been one big oversight on the part of the production, don't ya think? It looks more like Harrison's collar to me.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:43 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:
gwyddion wrote:

This picture bothers me: shouldn't we be able to see the last part of the ship's name in the movie based on this?
Also, based on the airial photo's (the ones with the fishing boats) and the modern pictures taken on the dock I'd say the mooring posts are only 50 or 60 feet appart. shouldn't we be seeing some?
I don't know guys, I've still got a lot of questions.

Regards, Geert
With a longer focal length, not necessarily. But I think it all lines up.

The post Ford is sitting on is right at the dolly tracks. The next one wouldn't be until somewhere near the far end of the ship. Have a close look at the rest of the harbour, and the earlier pics I posted. They're pretty far apart - it's for bigger ships, not little sailboats.

What else is causing you to ask questions? I can't imagine anything being more cut and dried.

The lack of 3D movement in the background sugesting a painted backdrop, the stationary cloud behind the crane and off course the witness testimonials _ gave (which would have to be be pulled if he made them up: Lucasfilm is reputedly scanning the boards for false claims of dealings with the big three or Lucasfilm, or so I've heard)

Regards, Geert

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:01 pm

This picture bothers me: shouldn't we be able to see the last part of the ship's name in the movie based on this?

You are seeing it. Bantu WIND

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:18 pm

gwyddion wrote:The lack of 3D movement in the background sugesting a painted backdrop, the stationary cloud behind the crane

Geert do you see distinct clouds in any of the location behind-the-scenes photos?

It's a gray overcast day. In the Making Of video there are no moving clouds visible in the Batu location scenes and those are daytime shots. You certainly won't see anything moving in an overcast night scene obscured by fog.

Click to enlarge.

- Mac

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:34 pm

gwyddion wrote:
The lack of 3D movement in the background sugesting a painted backdrop, the stationary cloud behind the crane and off course the witness testimonials _ gave (which would have to be be pulled if he made them up: Lucasfilm is reputedly scanning the boards for false claims of dealings with the big three or Lucasfilm, or so I've heard)

Regards, Geert

If certain converations were fabricated, who is also telling you these things re Lucasfilm?

Re the 3D thing, you just don't get that much movement between things like that when the objects you are referring to are that far away. They're VERY far away and the camera moves 10-20 feet or so max.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:42 pm

The areas in the red thingies are the features in the clouds that do not change at all throughout the scene:

These are either clouds, or breaks in the clouds, but they stay put at their exact location relative to things in the background regardless of camera movement.

Regards, Geert

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:48 pm

Geert, for what length of time are those areas visible in the film?

- Mac

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:49 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:
If certain converations were fabricated, who is also telling you these things re Lucasfilm?

it was in a thread that was deleted that this was mentioned. I don't know if it's true and I don't want to go in to this too much, but that's what I've read.

Regards, Geert

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:53 pm

Mac wrote:Geert, for what length of time are those areas visible in the film?

- Mac

They are there the entire scene: they are sometimes obscured by the smoke, but do resurface at the exact same place every time. This is a part of Agent5's screengrab btw, if I could make more myself I'd show you. Just look at the scene and look at these areas.

Regards, Geert

EDIT: I actually don't mind if I'm wrong in believing _'s statement, but still don't have enough proof to dismiss it. And as _ is in contact with people who should know, I'm still leaning towards believing him.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:11 pm

Geert, why would they move that much if at all? And how could it possibly compete with the other evidence that this was shot on the dock? I mean we have multiple pictures now connecting Ford sitting on the bollard thing to the ship with the specific stains, to all of the detail on the ground, to the crane, to the sub pens in the background. The satellite shots tie everything together on top of that, and confirm all of these details. The camera set up is identical. When you watch the DVD, EVERYTHING JUST FITS. This is all HARD evidence. There is ZERO hard evidence to the contrary.

So, where does this leave us? At a jacket with a LOW YOKE and us asking why. I'd also like to know why the disdirection going on here.

But as it stands now, this is very cool as this whole diversion has given us EVEN MORE shots tying this weird jacket to the scene at La Rochelle AND the movie. It confirms inside and outside the film "beyond reasonable doubt".

SO. WHAT'S WITH THIS JACKET? Is it the Wilson, or is it the first prototype that for some reason doesn't match all of the other jacket details we've seen in the film for some reason?

Raider S · Post by **Raider S** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:14 pm

Geert, I'm sorry but I think you're grasping at straws here. The only thing you point out is what you say are clouds at night and that's a result of the sky being a giant painting? If the Bantu was a set why even bother adding in the detail from the sub pens if none of the live action shot there was useable?

And it was only suggested this could possibly be a set from my reading of this thread, I haven't seen any direct quotes as you suggest.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:37 pm

Geert, here are several videos of apparently motionless clouds over varying intervals of time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=161ePpo5C9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0wEFVgRItY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi9PK_X-0E

If there is enough detail in the scene to make out clouds, with a strong light and moving fog between foreground and background, the fact that they are apparently still really doesn't tell us much one way or the other. The movement of clouds is governed by the amount of wind at altitude - they move at varying speeds and the relatively short length of the scene may not be enough time to discern movement.

- Mac

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:03 pm

Mac wrote:Geert, here are several videos of apparently motionless clouds over varying intervals of time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=161ePpo5C9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0wEFVgRItY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi9PK_X-0E

If there is enough detail in the scene to make out clouds, with a strong light and moving fog between foreground and background, the fact that they are apparently still really doesn't tell us much one way or the other. The movement of clouds is governed by the amount of wind at altitude - they move at varying speeds and the relatively short length of the scene may not be enough time to discern movement.

- Mac

Yeah I know. And them turning out to be over land makes that more probable. Still, why would _ lie about testimonies of the shoot being on a soundstage? that doesn't make sense: he has no stake in this at all.

Besides, although this does make it possible that it was shot on location, it doesn't make it impossible to have been shot at a soundstage. Because of all this I'm still leaning towards believing the soundstage story, unless someone can prove that it definately cannot have been shot at a soundstage.

Regards, Geert