The Smoking Gun of Bart's "Smoking Gun" Footage

[Count Zero]

Remember the video where the TV camera is going from window-to-window looking at the Earth. This means that the TV camera could have been pointed out one window while someone with the Hasselblad could easily have shot through another window.

[Jason Thompson]

emcsq said:

Very good; but whereabouts do we see a Hasselblad camera poked out of the CSM un-blacked out earth-view window during the TV Xmission of the same image?

Think about it.

You think about it. The telecast lasted minutes. A picture taken just before or just after will show substantially the same image. Or, as has been pointed out, the command module had five windows, so maybe the picture was taken out of another while the TV camera pointed out of one. Less likely, but still possible, the window was large enough to point both cameras out of at once, so maybe while the camera was close up to the window and zoomed in, one of the other astronauts also had the Hasselblad pointing out of the window at the same time. Because we don't see the picture being taken is not proof it could not have been taken.

[emcsq]

But Neil states that the window is " filled up with the TV camera". Also all the other windows were blacked-out during the telecasts. Especially reviewing the third Xmission example of yours ( excellent analysis by the way), the surface features seem to be at a very similar stage of rotation in both Hasselblad and the TV frame, indicating they were taken close together.

The third telecast extended to around 30 mins didn't it? The footage from Spacecraft films looks unedited at that stage yet no stills camera is apparent. If the feed was live? Buzz would have brought the TV camera away from the window for a short while to allow one of the others to take the picture. I don't recall seeing a Hasselblad present at all inside the CSM cabin during these TLC TV broadcasts.

Of course they could have taken the pictures before or after the telecasts, but then again the earth features would have appeared as an altogether different array.

I'm not suggesting foul play, only pointing out an apparent discrepancy and one that may well have a perfectly good explanation. Shame none of the A11 astronauts post here, they could clear this one up straight away.

[Kiwi]

emcsq said:

The third telecast extended to around 30 mins didn't it?

This thread, Apollo 11: Transcription of TV transmissions, might be useful.

[Jason Thompson]

emcsq said:

Of course they could have taken the pictures before or after the telecasts, but then again the earth features would have appeared as an altogether different array.

How different? How much rotation do you expect to see in 30 minutes? How different would you expect a frame taken one minute before the telecast started to be? Or one minute after it finished?

All you have is a telecast that did not include a view of someone taking a still picture out of the window. You do not know what happened immediately before or after that telecast, during which time the Earth would have looked substantially the same as it did during the telecast.

I'm not suggesting foul play, only pointing out an apparent discrepancy and one that may well have a perfectly good explanation. Shame none of the A11 astronauts post here, they could clear this one up straight away.

There's nothing to clear up. You don't see someone taking a picture during a telecast, but you have no idea what they did before or after the TV camera stopped showing you the images. There are many possible and very simple explanations, all of which you have been offered. The tone of your first message certainly suggests a suspicion of foul play, unfounded though it may be.

[JayUtah]

Of course they could have taken the pictures before or after the telecasts, but then again the earth features would have appeared as an altogether different array.

"Altogether different" implies no correlation at all. Have you computed the time needed for Earth's rotation and atmospheric activity to create an "altogether different" picture or experimented appropriately to support this? When you say "would have been," that imposes a burden of proof on you to substantiate your prediction.

The camera was "filling up the window" for only part of the telecast. The picture might have been taken, for example, during the time the telecast dealt with the cabin interior and was nowhere near the window.

I'm not suggesting foul play, only pointing out an apparent discrepancy

Such as the kind with which all historical documentation is replete. Are you claiming that your "discrepancy" affects in any way the authenticity of the 70mm photo in question?

...and one that may well have a perfectly good explanation.

Several are hypothesized and you dismissed them with affirmative claims for which you gave no evidence. You seem anxious to prove the photo could only have been taken during a period in which it would have supposedly been impossible to take it without notice. Since this photo is key in rejecting Bart Sibrel's transparency claim, someone who wanted to continue believing Sibrel for reasons other than evidence would be motivated to find some way to impeach the credibility of that photo, even upon flimsy grounds.

Shame none of the A11 astronauts post here, they could clear this one up straight away.

Likely not, since that level of detail has not, in my experience, been part of any Apollo crew's recollection to date.

Are you saying there is no way to evaluate your statement without the testimony of the Apollo 11 crew? Or are there instead circumstantial methods that can be used to test the strength of your suspicion?

[LunarOrbit]

emcsq

I will give you one last chance to respond to the private message I send you. If you post here again without responding to the PM I will disable your account. Ignoring me is not a good idea.

[emcsq]

Lunar Orbit. . .as of 18:25 GMT I have not yet received your PM.
Is this a forum where a questioning attitude is interpreted as a suspicious one?
( see Jay Utah's series of barely disguised accusatory point by point replies to my previous balanced contribution).

If so, then you are doing yourselves no favors in terms of real debate, you are acting instead on a predetermined assumption that the moon landings are fact.
Whereas IN fact, neither you nor I cannot possibly know that with 100% certainty. That is why this forum exists in the first place, surely.

If you delete accounts at the slightest trace of what you perceive as dissent, then this is certainly not the place for a questioning mind to learn the facts about Apollo.

[Jason]

It looks like the issue is that you have multiple user accounts, which is against the forum rules emcsq, not that you are a hoax believer.
Lunar Orbit has actually been quite tolerant of hoax believers in the past, as long as they don't break forum rules.

[echnaton]

Whereas IN fact, neither you nor I cannot possibly know that with 100% certainty.

Nothing can be known with 100% certainty. Your test that requires this is not legitimate. More so demanding 100% certainty be archived then insisting that things are in doubt is a common tactic of hoax believers. The authenticity of the Apollo missions is beyond reasonable doubt, if you are unwilling to accept and are looking for information then asking questions about your doubts will get you some very good answers. However proposing unsubstantiated explanations for things you don't understand will not get you very far here.

If you haven't gotten LO's private message, I suggest you initiate a message to him as an act of good faith.

[Bob B.]

emcsq said:

If you delete accounts at the slightest trace of what you perceive as dissent, then this is certainly not the place for a questioning mind to learn the facts about Apollo.

Oh for goodness sake... will you please knock off the persecution crap! Lunar Orbit has made it very clear that all he wants is for you to use one and only one user account. Once the duplicate account is deleted I'm sure you're welcomed to post as much as you want provided you don't break any other forum rules.

admin said:

emcsq,

Please respond to the private message I sent you regarding multiple user accounts. If you don't tell me which account you want to keep I will disable both of them.

[LunarOrbit]

emcsq said:

Lunar Orbit. . .as of 18:25 GMT I have not yet received your PM.

I sent you the PM on August 16, at 6:30pm ET. It will be there if you haven't deleted it. This is not an email that can get lost in transit, it's a forum PM that doesn't just disappear.

This is what I said:

Hi,

When I approved your account I noticed that another account had already be registered using your email address and IP address.

Registering multiple accounts is against the forum rules. If you are unable to login to your other account (due to a forgotten password, etc.) then I will disable that account. Or, if you were prefer to keep that account I will disable the emcsq account. Which account do you want to keep?


LunarOrbit

I've also said publicly basically what I said in the PM, and you've ignored that as well. Having multiple accounts is against the rules of this forum. I simply need to know which of your accounts you wish to use so I can disable the other one.

Is this a forum where a questioning attitude is interpreted as a suspicious one?

How typical. Why is it that conspiracy theorists always play the victim and whine that I don't allow them to express their views simply because I enforce the rules of the forum?

I sent you the PM about your multiple accounts when I activated your current account, over two hours before you made your first post. I could not have known at that time whether you were a hoax believer or an Apollo supporter. The rule against multiple accounts applies to everyone.

I'm not saying you can't discuss the hoax theory, I'm simply saying you have to give up one of your accounts... I just need to know which one you want to keep. So don't bother claiming that I'm trying to censor you.

If so, then you are doing yourselves no favors in terms of real debate, you are acting instead on a predetermined assumption that the moon landings are fact.

This has nothing at all to do with the moon hoax debate. It has to do with your ability to follow a simple rule that is intended to prevent deception.

If you delete accounts at the slightest trace of what you perceive as dissent, then this is certainly not the place for a questioning mind to learn the facts about Apollo.

It has nothing at all to do with dissent. I am going to disable one of your accounts because having multiple accounts is deceptive. Do you have a problem with me trying to keep people honest?

[LunarOrbit]

Problem solved. Emcsq has responded to my PM and his redundant account has been disabled.

[emcsq]

You talk about false assumptions. Well maybe you need to be a little more flexible to the possibility that members may not log in for a week or longer or they are initially unfamiliar with or unaware of the messaging system here and that therefore they do not get to read a vital PM and to correct an accidental rule-violation. Because that is exactly what transpired in my case.

The "don't mess with me " tone of your previous comment today was a little uncalled for I thought and a rather negative reflection on the lively and positive tone of the forum in general

Anyway; onwards forwards!

[JayUtah]

I see Jay Utah's series of barely disguised accusatory point by point replies to my previous balanced contribution.

No attempt was made to disguise it. An unsupported affirmative rebuttal does not in any way constitute a "balanced contribution."

If you delete accounts at the slightest trace of what you perceive as dissent...

That has never occurred.