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

[Bob B.]

sts60 said:

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.

Same here. I'm very knowledgeable in certain areas of Apollo, but image analysis is not my strong point. Furthermore, I like to avoid the "it looks to me" debates in favor of those that concentrate on facts. It seems the current discussion is shaping up to be one in which mooned consistently restates his/her unshakable personal opinion. I think I'd rather beat my head against a wall than get too deeply involved.

[scooter]

I'm watching the Bart video, with audio of the interview and scrolling text that describes some stuff.
"Never before seen, behind the scenes footage". This is wrong. It was not labelled "Do not show to the public". It was taken raw, and compiled for the news organisations.
Now, what Bart is proposing is thet the interior of the CM was blacked out, lights off. Then the camera was across the cabin, looking out through a cutout stuck in the window, which gave the impression of a near full Earth.
The "groundspeed" in LEO is around 17000mph, give or take. One passes over the continental US in about 15 minutes, coast to coast. Took the shuttle just a couple of minutes to pass over a Cat 5 hurricane end to end. Now look at the footage Bart shows...do you see any change at all in the ground features? The clouds would sweep by vert rapidly with such a narrow area of focus from across the cabin through a little cutout while in LEO.
Mind you, this was Bart's "first" argument concerning this footage. When confronted with this, he changed his argument to "they used a transparency". But the weather patterns match satellite photos of the same date and area. How?
There is a series of postings somewhere, svector, PW and others have looked at this argument, a lot.
The footage Bart has, wasn't classified, and has been available for decades.
What is the evidence of "fakery"?
(edit-everything I see looks normal and fits the scenario. Bart "contends" that Buzz couldn't hold the camera steady as he slowly backed across the CM for the interior shots to follow. It's all "looks like" arguments, and there's nothing to be gained here.
Why would the need to fake the missions?)

[JayUtah]

Mooned,

You have the burden to prove your noise is the word "talk" coming from a mysterious director and not just one more example of a well-known, common phenomenon in Apollo radio traffic. "It clearly is the word 'talk'" does not satisfy that burden of proof.

You have the burden to prove how an optical zoom can generate a change in aspect for an object in the scene.

Please address those claims.

You say I'm ignoring your main point. Regardless, you yourself brought up those points above and defended them when challenged. If they are extraneous to your argument, then it should be no problem for you kindly to concede them so we can move on. If they are not extraneous, then please continue on the points to which I responded and quit whining that I should have started elsewhere.

[Bob B.]

jayutah said:

... please continue on the points to which I responded and quit whining that I should have started elsewhere.

Not a very original tactic by mooned. Present a long laundry list of items, and when people reply in part, claim they touched on just the minor points while ignoring the really damning stuff.

Mooned, you don't get to pick the order in which others choose to respond to your claims.

[JayUtah]

I believe Bart Sibrel genuinely mistook the PR title slate as a classification notice. Now we know it's not: I have many examples on my web site of actual classification markings used by NASA; his slate is nothing like it. But Sibrel, proceding under the false impression that he had top-secret footage, concocted an interpretation for the film that would seem to indicate a conspiracy.

The film is a sequence of television downlinks received at different times at the ground stations and recorded locally. They are simply strung together on Sibrel's footage, one after the other, with ground-station video-generated title slates giving the start time of each clip. Some of the clips are just tests: they were received only at the ground station and weren't sent live to Mission Control. But some were the live telecasts that were also received and taped.

Sibrel doesn't know much about Apollo records. He could have discovered that some of the clips were publicly broadcast by consulting any one of a number of books, or the Apollo 11 Net-1 Transcript. Most historians will recognize the footage anyway for what it is, simply by familiarity with the sources. But Sibrel believed that it "must" have been secret in order to be included on that reel. So he edited it severely and framed it in a big fabricated story to make of it what he needed in order to support his views. He thought he was safe because he believed he had secret footage that no one else would see except for what he chose to show them.

The history of Sibrel's claims since then has been Sibrel twisting, turning, and backpedaling to change his story as people see how egregiously he has toyed with the records to make his point.

At first Sibrel argued that the distant-Earth footage was faked by having the camera across the cabin, shooting the nearby Earth through a round porthole to make it seem like a round Earth. The darkness of the surrounding capsule was expected to represent the blackness of space.

Unfortunately Sibrel got a lot of stuff wrong. There is the orbital motion of the Earth argument, that has been raised. Further, Sibrel not only got the shape of the window wrong -- he got the window wrong altogether. He thought they were shooting through the hatch window. Instead they were shooting through the side window, which is trapezoidal. The hatch window has a smaller trapezoidal bezel anyway on the upper heat shield.

Of course he had to edit the backing-up footage in order to create the impression that the camera had been across the cabin the whole time. The raw footage clearly shows that objects are coming into view and changing aspect as the camera backs up. This is when Sibrel has to wave his hands and claim that it's only a zoom being applied. But when the window appears clearly trapezoidal and not circular, he has to backpedal some more and claim it was a transparency. Sibrel can't really decide what claim he's making.

The funniest part about all this is that the backing-up footage was part of the 30-minute live telecast. Sibrel claimed it was all backstage footage, only a few seconds of which was actually used. That's so he can claim the majority of his film is the astronauts trying out different fakery techniques. The whole interpretation collapses when you realize exactly what you're looking at -- and it's not what Sibrel believes it is.

The smoking gun is the GET 30:28 telecast. In this footage the distant Earth is clearly seen, clearly in the distance, and clearly being occluded in part by the easily-visible window frame. In short, this is film that cannot possibly have been faked by any of the ways Sibrel suggests. Does Sibrel show it to you? He does not.

His first film, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, reproduces only a very few minutes of the overall source film, clearly edited. Under pressure from critics Sibrel released Apollo Monkey Business, which purports to be the entire unedited footage. The backing-up footage is restored, although Sibrel maintains it was not actually backing up but rather just a zoom-out. He does not answer the photographic analysis that shows this cannot have been the case.

The GET 30:28 telecast is still missing. Sibrel steadfastly denied that any such footage existed. Other researchers have discovered that portions of the GET 30:28 telecast appear in A Funny Thing..., destroying the hypothesis that it was mysteriously missing from Sibrel's version of the raw footage. Sibrel clearly had the exculpatory footage in hand and twice omitted to let his viewers see it. Finally this year Sibrel admitted that GET 30:28 footage indeed exists, but argues -- without evidence -- that it is "faked."

[reynoldbot]

As an "outsider" of this forum, I'll be happy to throw my two cents into this debate.

I've seen much of the footage from various sources, ranging from the Sibrel footage to svector's video. I have not viewed the complete unedited footage (but neither have you), but I still see no glaring evidence of fakery.

I've watched a great deal of the video footage spanning the various Apollo missions, and I have heard many dozens of examples of crosstalk among them. The crosstalk in the "smoking gun" footage is unremarkable compared to the other examples I have heard. It sound just like all the other examples I have come across. Go through the footage yourself and you will hear it often. As noted by others, crosstalk is just a side effect of the communication technology.

You are being a complete hypocrite, mooned. You quickly accused Jay of ignoring parts of your claims while at the same time sidestepping his refutations. You have failed to address any of Jay's or any other members' points and instead have just been insulting people and complaining. If you are not here to debate claims, you are a troll and should be dealt with accordingly. If you are here to debate, quit guffawing and start answering some points!

[Czero 101]

mooned said:

So before I go, could someone be so kind as to post the EXACT contact information at NASA for requesting Apollo audio and video? Perhaps in seeing the raw footage, I will learn more about what happened.

So if you will, please provide a link to NASA - specific to requesting the Apollo audio and video. Thanks.

Oh yeah, and Jay - what is your website?

Funny, you have enough time to come here and make the claims you make - your first post alone must have take a fair amount of time to concoct - yet can't find the less than 30 seconds it takes to go to the NASA website and find the "Contact Us" page...

Let me save you what is obviously so burdensome a task:

Source: www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html

Related Public Inquiries Information

Public Communications and
Inquiries Management Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
[phone] (Office)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]

Source: www.history.nasa.gov

For further information email mailto:[e-mail]

Cz

[frenat]

I have also seen the full unedited footage. it does indeed show the camera close to the window, you hear dialog indicating they want to move the camera, then that they are moving the camera and at the same time you see the camera move. Sibrel edits this out because it destroys his manufactured "evidence".

[Bob B.]

mooned said:

I guess I was mistaken to come here. Your responses deserve more time than I presently have to give them..

Interpretation: Mooned had mistakenly gotten in over his head with a group of people he cannot bully around.

[PhantomWolf]

Since I noticed my name being thrown around a bit I thought I might reply.

First off, mooned you are making huge assumptions of your own.

1) That it was Micheal Colin's arm that blocked the camera.

There is zero evidence of this. In fact the evidence is that it is the Window edge that did it. Compare these screen shots.







The top image is what Sibrel has told you is an arm, the bottom two are provably the window edge (in the footage the camera reveals the edge of the window shortly before or after the screen shot.) How exactly do they differ in such a way as to prove that the top one is an arm, not the window edge?

2) That the camera was not in the window as the Astronauts claimed.

Your only reason for accepting this assumption is because of your accepting the above assumption. If the earth was blocked by the window, not an arm, then it was near the window from the begin, just as it was in the previous two transmissions, one of which produced the following screen shot.



Please explain exactly how this was done if the camera wasn't in the window as claimed?

It is also provable that when the camera was taken across the other side of the cabin, the view of the earth was repeatedly blocked by the window edge and also the camera's wire. Why would the camera wire be between the camera of the window unless the camera had been in the window and was moved? Why would the entire live broadcast be missing the Earth being blocked (except for the 1 time right at the start) by the window edge when it is repeatedly blocked once the camera is moved? How could the cameraman mange to film the earth through the distant window, and avoid doing that for the close ups when such a zoomed in shot is far harder than the later zoomed out shots?







3) That people here haven't seen the entire footage.

The entire 3 broadcasts are availible from several places, including on DVD from Spacecraft Films. I have it sitting on my bookshelf at home right now.

4) The there is the word "talk" and that this is the only extraneous crosstalk. One of our posters who seems to have little to do but catalouge this sort of thing disagrees. His analysis in below.

kiwi said:

Apollo 11: Unscheduled television transmission at 10:32 GET
Transcription of garbled vocal sounds caused by leakage through the intercom diodes.
Times shown are for the Spacecraft Films' Apollo 11 DVDs --
Disc 1 / "Fly Me to the Moon" / "Television transmissions 10:32 GET, 33:59 GET" / Chapter 1

0:10 Iddup.
0:22 Tuft.
0:35 Text tum deaf.
0:41 Rob we der.
1:02 Dah der, dip rider.
1:11 Dig sig.
1:49 Darp dip.
2:18 Cart in.
3:15 Giddy get one punch-up.
3:18 We deb so deg 'n' darbdee debder.
4:03 Up oop.
4:13 Sharp shoon.
4:14 [Sound of vacuum cleaner.]
4:20 [Sound of whistling wind.]
5:20 Deke crass.
5:41 Vip vop 'n' vamp.
5:48 Janet.
7:03 Whose dinner? Epdee ope wer dapdee dane.
7:08 Ribbit.
7:47 Ti-futt.
9:46 D'bing babe.
9:49 'Sup?
10:15 Sarb seff, zah-zef soap.
11:01 Zap. Zip zop zoom.
11:23 Car.
12:12 Dup. Poop.
12:54 Yow. Book 'er.
13:02 Dow dark.
13:18 Sig sub.
13:21 Oopie blorp.
14:11 Doop derp.
14:14 Wip werp.
14:27 Sip surp.
15:20 Dup.
15:22 Diddup.

The fact that the broadcast opens with a mechanical-sounding "Iddup" and ends with an apparently-vocalised "Diddup" is obviously cause for great concern and analysis ;D

5) That having a high post count here means we have something invested in the site

It doesn't, it just means that we tend to be around a bit more to reply to people, and having been on the site for 2 and half years that causes the posts to mount up.

[JayUtah]

...and unlike Jay I cannot afford the time to go point for point as he does.

If you cannot address your own arguments in detail, you cannot expect to be taken seriously outside of worlds of your own devising.

I think it's hilarious that within the space of a few hours you've gone from chastising me for an incomplete response to an accusation that I'm snowballing you. It seems you can't avoid the temptation to attack me personally, even if it means flip-flopping your own beliefs. I've done nothing but select a few of your points and present the other side of the story. If you can't keep up with a volume even less than that of your own argument, that's your problem.

Obviously, if no one here is willing to admit that the camera was not pressed to or near the window from the beginning - despite Jay's claims of aspect and focus - then I am at the wrong place here.

Hilarious. You're asking people to disregard actual, mathematically verifiable evidence in favor of nothing stronger than your say-so to the contrary. You have been presented with objective evidence that disputes your claim. You refuse to discuss it. I think it's abundantly clear how "reluctantly" you were brought to a belief in the hoax theory. You've done nothing but express the belief Bart Sibrel told you to embrace.

Yes, you're definitely in the wrong place. Here we deal with facts.

So before I go, could someone be so kind as to post the EXACT contact information at NASA for requesting Apollo audio and video?

I don't have it handy; it's at home in a file cabinet, and it's a physical address. Bob? Do you have it handy?

Oh yeah, and Jay - what is your website?

www.clavius.org, linked as the first site below under "Recommended Websites".

[Jason Thompson]

mooned said:

Oh yes, like that's a personal attack Jason. I'm just saying that you are vested here - as in invested. No name-calling - I just want to hear from someone else who doesn't post so often.

The implication of your post was clear, and I take particular offence at the part about leaving name calling to the professionals like me and Jay. You do not get out of that by following it with 'just kidding'.

To deal with your whole argument in one go, I do not accept anything AT ALL from bart Sibrel as 'primary evidence', because I know from personal experience that he is a liar and a fraud. What I do consider primary evidence is the set of DVDs I have on my shelf that contain the entire film and video record from every manned Apollo flight. I have seen the telecast in question, and I disagree entirely with your assessment of it.

[JayUtah]

I am invested in this site. Which is to say, I expect people to come here if they have questions or challenges to my claim. That's the point of the site. I'm invested in the process of investigation and discovery. I'm not invested in any particular outcome unless it's the one best supported by all the relevant fact.

[Jason]

jayutah said:

Sibrel doesn't know much about Apollo records. He could have discovered that some of the clips were publicly broadcast by consulting any one of a number of books, or the Apollo 11 Net-1 Transcript. Most historians will recognize the footage anyway for what it is, simply by familiarity with the sources. But Sibrel believed that it "must" have been secret in order to be included on that reel. So he edited it severely and framed it in a big fabricated story to make of it what he needed in order to support his views. He thought he was safe because he believed he had secret footage that no one else would see except for what he chose to show them.

Actually it might be valid to say that Sibrel thought he was safe because he knew his target audience would never bother to check from other sources, such as NASA, as to what this footage might really be.

[Al Johnston]

Czero 101 told you here

Reading not your strong suit?