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

[Jason]

How do you explain that the weather patterns shown on the Earth out the window match the actual weather patterns for the day the transmission occurred? I believe that was the point of this thread in the first place - that this sort of thing simply can't be faked.

[JayUtah]

Thank you Jay for finally noting your evasion to my real questions.

I said no such thing. Get over yourself. You came here with nothing but restatements of long-debunked arguments. For your information, I have engineering duties that have nothing to do with your stale complaints.

I am here because this forum is the official feedback site for my web site, in which readers can raise issues. Since you have raised issues that are already described on my site, and since you have offered nothing new other than to restate the original claim, there is little point in paying attention to you.

[JayUtah]

Oh, Jay has left the building. I wonder what forum he's on now.

Kindly explain your unhealthy fixation upon me personally. Others have responded carefully to your points, and you have explicitly ignore them. Please tell me this is about your evidence and not about some obsessive desire to do one-on-one battle for mythical brownie points.

Unlike many conspiracy theorists, I have an actual technical job that does not allow me to play around on web forums all day.

[Bob B.]

mooned said:

Well, this is TALK, plain and simple.

It most certainly is not. What you hear is just a fragment of a word, a syllable, which kind of sounds like the word "talk".

[JayUtah]

Angry tone noted.

You're setting the tone by being personally belligerent and uncommonly fixated. Adjust your attitude.

I'm saying that you have evaded the crux of my argument by brushing it over.

Only because you are irrationally impatient. And you completely sidestepped my statements on the points I did address. You simply restated your original beliefs and then went on to gripe obsessively about the points you felt I had not yet addressed. Since you have demonstrated your unwillingness actually to engage, I see no point in moving on. When we have completed a discussion on the points I did cover, then we will move on.

I hope I haven't disturbed your duties.

You have.

Are you an aerospace or mechanical engineer?

Yes.

[scooter]

I don't tend to post as much as some...more than others.
I'm not as professionall qualified as others here either. Many of the hoax arguments deal with photography issues, lighting issues, radiation, thermodynamics, structural mechanics, heat transfer, ...science stuff. The folks that post here a lot are indeed very knowledgable in these areas. If their "belief" that Apollo was reality somehow discounts their expertise and credibility in debunking the hoax arguments, then perhaps you need to shift your attitude into something a bit less biased.
"Looks like", "appears to be", "probably" aren't good terms to use when trying to accuse hundreds of thousands of devising such a hoax. "Talk" ...who knows what this is precisely, could be any number of things...but firmly calling it part of some vast government conspiracy is leaping to quite a conclusion, while sweeping away every other possibility.
Show us how the rocks are fake evidence, how the spindly LM couldn't work, or your expertise in radiation, proving the Van Allen belts are really leathal in the short term.

This edited video by Bart ain't it. And Jarrah, he's just mad at folks (and LOVES his hair...)

[dwight]

Depending on the source used for the video wouldn't it be wise to make sure copyright clearance is obtained first?

[scooter]

Now, mooned, you do know that the ground had told the astronauts that these were being shot for the media, and they were pressing for a "travelog" type narration to accompany the footage.
And you know that, as crews go, A-11 wasn't the most chatty group.
So, a prodding to "talk", if that's what it was, wouldn't be out of place. Add some dialog, describe things, make it interesting.
Now, assigning the "talk" to a dark sinister third party is stretching it. What is your proof that the stills and the video were prefilmed and faked? What's your evidence?
You're making astounding claims based on you tube videos...do you even know anything about the US manned programs?

[JayUtah]

I have no personal fixation on you.

Obviously you do.

Are the author of this thread?

No. I am one of many participants.

I'm sorry, but I didn't know that this is the only forum you ever post on.

It is not. However, I have other things to do besides post to web forums. If I cannot get to every niggling point you raise (most of which are simply rehashes of long-debunked claims) then you will kindly sit quietly and have patience.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Yes you are. You believe that the Apollo footage was hoaxed in the way Bart Sibrel has said. And you have explicitly stated that you will not believe Apollo is real until Sibrel's points are addressed to your satisfaction. There is absolutely no question that you are a conspiracy theorist.

I have asked you to post the raw footage. Will you do it or won't you?

I don't post video footage as a rule; and I never have, for a variety of reasons. However I will help you obtain high-quality copies yourself. As you said, the footage comes ultimately from NASA. You don't need to get it from me.

Besides, you have already alluded to your intent to dismiss anything I post as having been edited by me for my own purposes. If I don't provide it myself, you complain that I'm not providing it. If I do provide it, you say I edited it. What do you suggest I do in such a situation?

The raw footage we're discussing is more than an hour in length.

[JayUtah]

I don't mind talking with you, but can you let the author of the thread reply? Please.

Oh, please. You cannot in one breath complain that I don't respond to you within minutes, and in the next tell me to pipe down.

You are making public comments in a public forum. You are therefore subject to the conventions of public debate that require you to adddress all comers or else risk being seen as evasive. If you wish to have a conversation with the author of this thread privately, there is a private-message function.

[dwight]

Not exactly, depending on the source, there are specific and enforceable laws governing copyright. I urge you to make yourself familiar with them before using material covered by said copyright law. It is clear in this case. Technically it is not public domain, but rather freely available material which is still under certain usage restraints as detailed by NASA. Before you jump to "supression" conclusions, this is mainly for use endorsing commercial product.

[sts60]

Hi, mooned. I'm glad you're studying the missions. The history of the Apollo program (and its manned and unmanned precursors) is an endlessly fascinating exercise in human ingenuity and determination. And its legacy continues to this day - not only in the science of the Moon, Earth, and Sun, but also in how aerospace engineering is practiced and large programs are managed. In fact, in my own work, I periodically make use of Apollo data and engineering lessons.

As the regulars here know, I generally stay out of imagery-interpretation questions, as I have no particular qualifications in that regard and there are plenty of willing participants. But if you care to discuss other parts of the Apollo record in appropriate threads, I'd be interested in such discussions.

[JayUtah]

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.

I'm confident letting the reader draw his own conclusions about whether I have effectively addressed your claims. Most of them are simply rehashes of Bart Sibrel's original claims from several years ago, which have been thoroughly debunked. Yet you belabor them.

When you have completed discussing the following points, we will move on to others. Not until then.

LOL - It is not crosstalk in the normal sense - it is only one word, and it is clearly the word "Talk".

It most certainly is crosstalk in the sense of normal Apollo communications behavior. Since you can "clearly" interpret all such incidents, please post a comprehensive interpetation of all hundreds of such garbles that occur in the Apollo mission audio.

The cabin headsets could be connected to either of two circuits: the intercom or the radio. The switch contained diodes that would ocassionally leak, allowing a distorted version of the headset signal to leak onto whatever circuit was not switched in at the time. This was a known problem with the Plantronics aviation headsets, but not especially annoying. Leaky diodes are familiar two anyone who habitually uses electronic communication loops built with analog technology. The Apollo audio contains many such examples, some more clear than others.

Bart Sibrel chose to isolate this one and make it sound like a unique, unexplainable, mysterious occurrence so that he could artifically inflate the appearance of impropriety in the footage. This only works if the viewer is unfamiliar with the remainder of the record and wouldn't recognize this as a common occurrence.. As he has always done, Bart Sibrel controls the reader's conclusion by allowing him to hear only the evidence that leads to his own conclusion. To people who are actually familiar with Apollo evidence, these garbles are commonplace and unremarkable.

Please present an argument for your interpretation of this garble that isn't simply agreeing with Bart Sibrel and begging the question.

The full video shows that the camera was not in the window from the beginning. I'm sorry, but you are deceiving yourself Jay.

The full video shows the camera clearly backing away from the window. There is an aspect change in the cabin light that cannot occur as the result of a change in focal length. Changes in aspect can only occur by a physical displacement of the camera.

Explain why, in A Funny Thing Happened..., Bart Sibrel found it necessary to edit out the dialogue in which the astronauts clearly state that they are backing up? Was he worried the viewer might interpret the footage "incorrectly" if that statement were preserved? The dialogue exists in the 1969 mission transcript and in the original telecast. Sibrel cuts out only those few seconds where the camera movement evidence is shown.

Please describe the process by which a lens zoom can create an aspect change.

Anyone who cannot see this footage is staged has not watched the full video from Monkey Business enough times to understand it...

Apollo Monkey Business is not the full video. Bart Sibrel finally admitted it is not, however he now maintains that the portion he omitted was "faked." He did not explain how he knew it was faked.

Please explain why Bart Sibrel changed his story about whether Apollo Monkey Business was complete footage.

When I first viewed this footage, I was like you.

Of course you weren't. Every conspiracy theorist says he once believed in Apollo, but was drawn reluctantly by the evidence to a conclusion that it was faked. However, their true colors come out very easily when their long-debunked arguments are challenged.

...that most people edit it and don't show the full raw footage.

Name the people who have edited it and don't show the raw footage. Name your source for the raw footage.

If you could please put a link up on this thread that shows the entire footage, besides the one I have placed above, please do so.

As I said before, I do not post video. Web video is unsuitable for photographic analysis. Anyone can obtain suitable copies from NASA. Further, the video in question is over an hour in length. I don't know of any place where it could be posted.

It seems only a few of us have time to write over 3500 posts on this forum alone, but it's not too much to ask to view a couple of YouTube vids.

I have seen Bart Sibrel's videos many times. I am familiar with them. Just because it is new to you doesn't mean you have to assume no one else has seen it; nor do they have to go watch it again just because you post a link.

I have written over 3,000 posts to this forum because I have been a member of it for many years. That doesn't mean I will respond to you within minutes of each of your posts.

...as I did to post the entire footage on this thread.

You did not. You posted a link to where someone else had claimed to have posted the "entire footage," taking only their word for it that it really was complete and unedited -- word that was eventually recanted. You are simply relying upon the word of some other person whose identity and credibility you know nothing about, and who has admitted having led you astray.

As a matter of fact, all such footage ultimately comes from NASA and anyone can obtain it royalty-free from NASA by contacting their public relations office. They provide broadcast-quality copies of the duplication masters.

I do not accept random YouTube links as authoritative versions of evidence. For you to call Apollo Monkey Business "primary evidence" shows that you have no idea what primary evidence consists of.

I'll be surprised if he's brave enough to let you see it.

Personal attack noted.

[JayUtah]

It is NASA footage - and in the public domain.

Then why must I provide it? If you agree that NASA is the source of the footage, why can you not simply obtain it from NASA and sidestep the suspicion that I will have tampered with it?

[JayUtah]

I've asked for the evidence to be posted here, but Jay has ignored my request.

No, I have declined your request, and given reasons for it. I have also noted evidence that you intend to question its accuracy no matter what I would have posted.

I guess I will have to do it myself, when I find the time.

You should have done that prior to having drawn your conclusion. Your notion of "primary" evidence was a YouTube rip of Bart Sibrel's edited footage. Clearly you have not actually seen the primary evidence.

...it should be made available to all here. It seems reasonable.

Begging the question.

Yes, I am aware of the full surroundings - and yes, I know something of the missions. Not as much as I'd like yet - but I'm studying.

What sources are you using? So far the only source you've cited is Bart Sibrel. He knows less than the average person about Apollo, and far, far less than any of the noted experts you could consult.

I would be happy to answer questions regarding Apollo. But will not do so if you continue trying to prevail in debate by attacking me and my reputation.

I have posted above some followups to your last post. Please engage them.