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

[emcsq]

I realize this may be unawareness of the CM windows alignment; but it does rather seem that on Xmission 2, the earth appears through the right hand (pilot's) LM window after exiting the first window in the CM.

The pronounced triangular shape of the two aligned windows there appears quite similar to the 2 LM navigation windows.
In which case whoever was holding the TV camera on the second Xmission ( Collins?) was shooting through the tunnel into the Lunar Module....

[Count Zero]

emcsq said:

I realize this may be unawareness of the CM windows alignment; but it does rather seem that on Xmission 2, the earth appears through the right hand (pilot's) LM window after exiting the first window in the CM.

The pronounced triangular shape of the two aligned windows there appears quite similar to the 2 LM navigation windows.
In which case whoever was holding the TV camera on the second Xmission ( Collins?) was shooting through the tunnel into the Lunar Module....

I see what you're saying, but no, the forward looking windows (2 & 4) sort-of triangular-shaped oblongs. Sorry for the imprecise terminology, but this picture of them should make it clearer.

Cropped view of windows
Note that top side of the window is slightly curved. This matches the view of this window from xmission 2:

Oblong window
Note that the bottom edge of the window is obscured by a foreground object. I think this is window 2. The other window we looked from was window 1, the square one to its left (as seen from the inside of the CM):

Square window

I'm pretty sure that the camera is "upside-down" in reference to the windows and the cabin.

[Edited to change the non-working image links into url links.]

[JayUtah]

If the images were faked, I believe they would have been faked consistently.

Begging the question. If the images were legitimately taken of an actual phenomenon, they would also be consistent. Occam's razor easily dismisses your claim.

More on that later.

Provide it now please, otherwise you're just begging the question.

...it is more likely that Michael Collins cuts off the picture with his shoulder...

Explain how you identified the source of the silhouette as Michael Collins. Aren't you just making a counterassumption?

A window does not alter its shape.

The shape of the silhouette is easily determined to be the shape of the corner of the window. Bart Sibrel wrongly believes the window was circular. The exterior bezel was smaller and trapezoidal.

I also don't know if the Hasselblad 70mm had the power to zoom in.

70mm refers to the negative format. There were a variety of fixed-length lenses available to put on the Hasselblad bodies.

it seems that it would have had to zoom in to get this particular picture.

Or the form of the photo you saw is an ordinary detail enlargement.

Who is talking to Armstrong, prompting him to talk

No one. The sound you hear is electronic crosstalk between the air-to-ground and intercom circuits, which used the same headset aboard the spacecraft. This type of crosstalk is heard all over in Apollo recordings and really is unremarkable. Conspiracy theorists consider only this one example and interpret it to mean "talk."

Also, it is clearly stated that the camera is blocking the window and they have to put the camera in the window and zoom in through space to get a closer shot of the Earth.

The television camera had a zoom lens. What's your point here?

...he is nowhere near the window - he is on the other side of the CM.

Hogwash. If you watch the full video, the astronauts clearly state that they need to back away from the window in order to photograph the spacecraft interior. And the camera is seen to back away from the window.

Bart Sibrel edits out the conversation where the astronauts say this. He is clearly trying to manufacture an "anomaly" believing that no one else would see the source footage and realize the deception.

No one has explained this full video yet, and no one but AFTH, LLC has shown this video in its entirety...

Complete, total hogwash.

First, the portion we're referring to was part of the 30-minute live telecast. Sibrel is too stupid to realize his "secret" footage was actually broadcast to the whole world.

Second, the relevant film has always been available from NASA. Sibrel simply mistook the title slug as a classification warning.

Third, the entire downlink set was published by a third party in the late 1980s as a set of VHS cassettes. Several people own copies.

Fourth, the clips from the "backstage" footage have appeared on and off in documentaries since the 1980s.

Fifth, Bart Sibrel's alleged "full" copy omits the GET 30:28 telecast that clearly shows the faraway Earth. Sibrel denied for years that any such footage exists, despite having included part of it in his original film. Finally he admitted it did exist, but was "fake," although he offered no evidence in favor of that conclusion. In other words, Sibrel is furiously backpedaling after having been fairly caught.

Sibrel's company does not deliver the full film as promised.

Sixth, you can still get the entire film from NASA. It's by no means secret and never has been. The cloak-and-dagger framing that Sibrel does is entirely his invention.

...the evidence shows that this footage was pre-filmed.

No. The cloud patterns match the known weather that day. It could not have been pre-recorded.

Knowing the NSA's involvement in the Apollo program, there is no doubt that they could pull the strings to make all of this happen.

Begging the question. You simply appeal to your preconception of NASA's evil intent.

Until someone can explain to me why they would have some clandestine voice...

There is no clandestine voice; only electronic noise commonly heard in the downlinks.

...why they had to fake the zoom in and zoom out of this footage

Because Mission Control told them to shoot the interior, and Bart Sibrel doesn't want his viewers to know that.

[dwight]

How do you "fake" a zoom in or out? I was under the impression that either a zoom lens zooms or it is broken. Why does the video not have pixilation enlargement?

[echnaton]

Welcome to the board, mooned

Anyone who reads your response will see that you did not deal with my arguments as presented, but rather as you wish them to be - strawmen. And you looked at them so quickly that you did not deal with them objectively.

Examples are too many to count, but here are a few:

When I typed NSA, that was not a typo.

Thats a pretty lame example of to use for a "strawman" claim. You use an acronym out of context that could easily be a typo for the acronym you had just used, then chastise others for deliberately misreading you. It is your post that is not clear. A simple error that could be cleared up without accusations.

Why don't you answer Jay's points? I'd call it a dodge of exacting criticism of you first post.

[dwight]

What is it with HBs and the now enshrined obsessive persuit of Jay? Get over him will you?

[Jason Thompson]

I think it helps to see primary evidence

Speaking for myself, I have seen the raw, unedited footage, and my conclusion differs wildly from yours. When I have more time I'l go into more depth.

[echnaton]

Mooned

You made the strawman claim, said there were numerous examples, then gave a list. What else did you mean?

It is not crosstalk in the normal sense -

What is cross talk in the normal sense for the Apollo communications system?

[echnaton]

I want to hear from the outsiders, not you Jason.

Sorry, you don't get to choose who posts here. Either you take this board as we are or go elsewhere. I predict the go elsewhere will be pretty soon, but I'd prefer to be wrong about that.

[echnaton]

mooned said:

It is not crosstalk in the normal sense -
What is cross talk in the normal sense for the Apollo communications system?



Cross talk is not someone saying one word. It's sentences like "Tell Neil to be sure to" or "we need to be sure to" or "be sure to mention to Jay Utah that we hardly ever command anyone to "Talk".

OK, are you saying that you examples are normal in the context of the Apollo com system? Or are they just what you would imagine them to be. What I have heard to be normal crosstalk is short blips of voices that are unintelligible but sometimes sound like words. But "sounds like" is not the same as "is."

[JayUtah]

Another post from one of the most vested persons on this site. I want to hear from the outsiders, not you Jason.

Evasion noted. You're clearly here just to reinforce your presuppositions regarding those who dispute your beliefs.

[dwight]

Point taken: post adjusted (actually after a second thought, but adjusted nonetheless). Hopefully we'll see a concentration on the discussion and not on Jay, which is essentially what _you_ are suggesting. Fair enough?

Now to the crosstalk, how much experience have you had with communications technology in any shape or form? Especially comms which are modulated over a carrier wave?

[JayUtah]

Look at the video yourselves guys. Don't let them tell you what to believe.

I have looked at the video, and I have drawn my own conclusions. Since my access to the Apollo video does not come by way of Bart Sibrel, and since unlike Bart Sibrel I am an Apollo historian, I am in a very good position to describe where Sibrel's version of the facts is blatantly wrong and highly misleading.

You are simply looking at Sibrel's version of the video and believing exactly what Sibrel tells you to believe.

I'm asking people here to view primary evidence.

I have seen the primary evidence. You clearly have not.

[scooter]

Mooned,
You say that the video and stills were "pre-shot" and "prefilmed". Where, and by whom?
Sibrel clearly does not include all of the audio, including the part about moving the camera away from the window. Also, the camera did not have a viewfinder, they hooked it up to a small monitor to see what the camera was showing. These clips were just shot to give the networks some footage to show during the mission, nothing sneaky or sinister here. Now, some of the data, debrief info and technology was indeed classified, as it contained sensitive methods and capabilities, or personal astronaut data they didn't feel needed release to the public. It's all declassified since. This video isn't "classified", and never was.

And my always favorite question, what would motivate NASA et al to fake six landing missions? One would be risky enough, but six??? That would be downright reckless.

And you might want to check your sources...as far as I know, Jarrah White, in his "they stayed in Earth Orbit" belief, may well still belive that they accellerated to 25000mph in LEO to minimize ground detection...this cannot occur. He knows very little about spaceflight science or technology. He is an "in-credible" source of information. In order to argue against a subject, one shoud be well versed in it, and he isn't. For the folks here, it's a hobby for most, while some do space for a living. I drive a bus, and space things are a hobby, they design, launch and operate spaceships...routinely. They know of what they speak.

[Jason Thompson]

mooned said:

Thank you Jason. Another post from one of the most vested persons on this site. I want to hear from the outsiders, not you Jason.

And Dwight, personal attacks are not a good road to travel down. Leave that to the professionals, like Jay or Jason. LOL No, I'm just kidding guys.

Personal attack noted and reported. Please feel free to trumpet that as yet another effort by the Apollo-gists to silence you on 'their' forum. You post on this forum you will hear from me, whether you like it or not. You imply anything untoward about me, you get reported.

If you want to talk about this stuff then do so. Leave the personal attacks out of it.