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

[Count Zero]

Why bother with websites?

- Get a globe of the Earth and a table lamp (sans shade).
- Use the analema (that figure-8 thingy that's usually drawn over the Pacific Ocean) to find what latitude the Sun would be at on July 17.
- Position the globe & lamp so the lamp is directly over the correct parallel.
- Rotate the globe so that it's late afternoon on the eastern US.
- Position yourself so that you're looking straight down on the eastern Pacific.

The geography and shading should approximately match what you see in the pictures. As a side note, most globes are somewhat glossy; thus from where you sit the lamp will cause a specular reflection off the globe. Its position will match the bright reflection of the Sun off the northern Pacific Ocean.

[PhantomWolf]

Thought I better put this up

[turbonium]

countzero said:

He complains that I rotating the image without telling him. This from the guy who still hasn't acknowleged that he changed comparison images between posts #19 and 21

First of all, let's get one thing straight - I most certainly did acknowledge that my comparison images changed between posts #19 and #21. The images were accompanied with the text below...

Post #19

The image I posted is the one on the right, with an image first posted in this thread by Count Zero on the left.

Post #21

Below are two stills from the video. The left side still shows the first timestamp and the right side still shows the Earth as filmed within this first segment.....

The time for each still capture from the online video is also included.
The above times are 0:14 and 2:48 respectively.

The next two stills show the second timestamp and Earth as filmed within this second segment....

The time of capture for the stills above are 18:36 and 21:26 respectively.

I noted the origin of every image in each of my posts, whether as a single image, or combined into a pair.

And I also posted the orginal, unaltered video grab of Earth, and noted that I rotated it 90 degrees to create my subsequent image.

Countzero, you've falsely accused me of not acknowledging the changes to my images between two posts, while only admitting that you had rotated your image after I pointed it out. Anyway, enough about that.
______________________________________________________

The times from the Network Controller's Mission Report do not match the actual timestamped TV transmissions several ways.

The first TV transmission is timestamped 198:01:15 TO 198:01:30 GMT , while the Mission Report records the time as 17/0004Z - 17/0017Z



The Report states a start time 1 hour and 11 minutes BEFORE the actual start time! And the duration of the transmission is 2 minutes less than the actual duration. Also note that the final release time is 12:29 GET, almost two hours after the time you noted below the video grab image of 10:32 GET. Hardly what one could call a "live", or "almost live", TV broadcast!

The second TV transmission is timestamped 198:23:31 TO 198:23:54 GMT while the Mission Report (assuming the third is the correct match) records the time as 17/2331Z - 18/0005Z



So the Report has the same start time, but a duration time 11 minutes longer than the correct duration time. There is no release time indicated, either.

The suggestions of alternative conversions don't work. If they had converted to BST instead of GMT; or from EST to GMT, instead of from EDT to GMT, it would still not match up with the video timestamp. We know the discrepancy can't be resolved by using any alternative conversions, because none of them can account for the extra 11 minutes.

The Report has a Timeline on page 1, showing the correct GMT LO......



...so the subsequent events, recorded throughout the Report in GMT, should also be correct, one would assume....

Another NASA source for the timeline....



Uh oh! Now they say the first TV transmission was from 00:04 to 00:20 GMT, three minutes longer than the Report says, and one minute longer than the actual timestamp on the video! Even worse, it also corroborates the Report start time, which is over one hour BEFORE the actual start time!

history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm

There are serious discrepancies in the first TV transmission times. The authentic timestamp contradicts two official NASA reports. There are likely other reports that would confirm this is not just a random case of "simple human error".

I'll address the other issues next post....

[Count Zero]

Why do you assume that the time stamp on the video is correct, whereas the reports are wrong?

On one hand, we've got multiple authoritative sources that say one thing with reasonable consistency (I've kept deck logs - both on routine watches and during major exercises. A few minutes error (especially at the end of an exercise) is not at all unusual). Every time I look for a time for the evening broadcast, it's just after 7:30 EDT (23:30 GMT). For example, you can check newscasts from ABC, CBS and NBC.*

On the other hand, we have a single source that says something different (in a way that is easily recognizable as a probable error).

We have two choices: We can either decide that the video time stamp is proof of a massive conspiracy involving tens of thousands of engineers, technicians, astronomers, geologists, administrators and astronauts, not to mention at least one major news network and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to boot (none of whom have ever spilled the beans)...

...or we can accept that the preponderance of evidence indicates some un-named video archivist goofed when converting time zones.

Which of these scenarios seems more likely?

This is history, not an episode of "Columbo". You cannot ignore, you cannot dismiss innumerable internally consistent pieces of evidence just because a single datapoint can be made to fit your bias.

*Note that the ABC summary is in error: It says 7:32 EST, but the US was on Daylight Savings Time - not Standard Time - in July of 1969. Archivists make mistakes.

[PhantomWolf]

Also note that the final release time is 12:29 GET, almost two hours after the time you noted below the video grab image of 10:32 GET. Hardly what one could call a "live", or "almost live", TV broadcast!

The 10:32 GET wasn't transmitted live, it was a TV test for Goldstone. It wasn't even played to MIssion Control and if you bothered reading up on the history, you'd know that. Goldstone had to talk to the Astronauts through the CAPCOM who was passing on to the Astronauts what was being seen without seeing it himself.

The Live broadcast was the Third transmission at 33:59 GET.

Note the 50 minute test transmission at 30:28 GET in the list you provided. That is the missing one that BS won't show you and has done everything he could to hide from those that won't do research. Perhaps you should obtain a copy of it and look at it to see exactly what he's hiding from you.

[robert]

One thing bothers me why did they film the Earth from a position away from the window ( as in the footage in BS's film)? If you want to take a picture of a distant object through a small window then it's easier to keep it in frame if you're closer to the window.

[Jason Thompson]

They did film from up close to the window, then they brought the camera back inside to do some interior shots.

As I recall from watching the footage that I mysteriously have from another source that Sibrel insists I can't get it from, anyway....

[robert]

Take a closer look at the Earth pictures as taken from the Apollo missions. I suspect they are composites. Look for tone changes and join lines,
These occur in all full disk images of Earth from the Apollo missions. harder to spot in Hi-res but there nonetheless.

Start here at the Clavius homepage pic.

www.clavius.org/

[Jason Thompson]

Perhaps you could show us some specific examples? The Clavius one is a low res image, and I'm not seeing any signs of composite construction on the images posted in this thread.

[gwiz]

robert said:

...harder to spot in Hi-res...

And what does that suggest? Wouldn't a fake be easier to spot at high res?

[PhantomWolf]

One thing bothers me why did they film the Earth from a position away from the window ( as in the footage in BS's film)? If you want to take a picture of a distant object through a small window then it's easier to keep it in frame if you're closer to the window.

BS edits out anything that shows you that they were next to the window. Again, the best footage is the second transmission that BS leaves out entirely. Check out my site for screen shots from it showing how close to the window the camera is, and comparing it to shots genuinely taken across the other side of the cabin (after Armstrong says they are moving the camera), though getting a copy of the entire footage for yourself is a better idea.

[robert]

jasonthompson said:

Perhaps you could show us some specific examples? The Clavius one is a low res image, and I'm not seeing any signs of composite construction on the images posted in this thread.

The images in the first post of this thread will do, I can see the tone changes.

[robert]

gwiz said:

robert said:

...harder to spot in Hi-res...

And what does that suggest? Wouldn't a fake be easier to spot at high res?

Why? When the fake was originally created in hi-res, by reducing the size and quality of the original it wipes out the original scans interpolated pixels.

[Jason Thompson]

The images in the first post of this thread will do, I can see the tone changes.

Where? I can't see any. All I can see are some jpg compression artefacts round the edge of the Earth, but the Earth itself seems to be one complete image.

Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide some annotated imaes, and explain why no-one else has ever spotted this despite these pictures being available for decades.

[Mr Gorsky]

Well, at least it is a new argument, I suppose!