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

[LunarOrbit]

No problem.

[Ginnie]

bob said:

jayutah said:

But that's an essential problem because the text has to appear variously on light and dark backgrounds.

Yep, I remember that being a difficult thing to work out. We ended up going with the orange because it did the best job of satisfying both requirements simultaneously, even though it wasn't best at either one individually.

here what your site could look like:

[ka9q]

The Passive Thermal Control (BBQ roll) during cruise was actually about 3 RPM. You can see that Apollo 11 was in the BBQ roll as the earth slowly moved across the windows during the video. If these earth images were supposedly faked with a cutout or a transparency, then why would NASA make things unnecessarily hard on themselves by also having to fake the BBQ roll??

Note the conversation with the ground about TV coverage on the omni antenna. Apollo 11 was still just close enough to earth to transmit TV through an omnidirectional antenna, meaning they didn't have to stop the roll to use the high gain antenna. They did have to switch between the omni antennas on opposite sides of the spacecraft as it rolled, and you can hear them talk about this.

[Obviousman]

I'd question that. IIRC the PTC rate was about 12 degrees per minute (though I may be wrong).

[Bob B.]

I don't remember what the rate was, but my recollection is that it was way slower than 3 RPM.

[PhantomWolf]

I did think he might have typoed meaning 3 RPH, but if it was 12° per minute that'd only be 2 RPH.

[echnaton]

One example from the Apollo 15 is provided in the Lunar Flight Journal

013:37:48 Henize: 15, this is Houston. On your PTC, when it started out, it looked okay; but we find that it's diverging now, and we're going to have to reinitialize it. We suggest this time around that we use a - a rate of .375 [degrees per second] in Noun 79, that might help.

If my math is correct, .375 DPS is 22.5 degrees per minute making one revolution in 16 minutes, or 3.75 RPH

[ka9q]

Mar 12, 2008 15:21:02 GMT -4 PhantomWolf said:

I did think he might have typoed meaning 3 RPH, but if it was 12° per minute that'd only be 2 RPH.

Yes, indeed I mistyped RPM when I meant revolutions per *hour*. Sorry about that, but at least my meaning was reasonably clear.

[ka9q]

There's another line of argument that the Apollo 11 pictures of earth could not have been taken from low earth orbit.

The video lasts way too long. TDRSS didn't come until a decade after Apollo. So ground stations were used, and in low earth orbit the maximum pass was something like 10 minutes. Maybe even less since the Apollo parking orbits were ultra-low to maximize performance to the moon. Even with tracking ships and airplanes to fill in the more critical regions (like TLI), only a fraction of the parking orbits were covered by any kind of tracking station, and only a few of them could handle video. So how can the Apollo 11 video possibly last so long?

[fiveonit]

Sorry guys... but the Hoax Pushers are already HARD at work disproving NASA (and us) again. God... how will I sleep tonight!!

The new *THEORY* now is that our old buddy Bart was actually wrong!! Here's an excerpt from a CT that I'm arguing with on youTube...

The Earth image that was seen in the Apollo 11 "not for public viewing" footage, was really a picture of Earth that was borrowed from a weather satellite picture that was taken the same day. The Apollo image is an EXACT match for the satellite image and this has been proven by CT MichaelStMark .. NASA used very clever edited, cutaway shots to make it appear that Earth was outside the CM window.. Sibrel didn't have this evidence available to him, so he assumed a transparencty was used.

I'm not sure what this guys is seeing, but it's nice to know they're starting to admit that Bart doesn't know what he's talking about!!

If they're spending all their time coming up with this crap, it makes me wonder how they find time to eat and sleep and go to school. Wait... They don't go to school. At least not science class.

[JayUtah]

Actually Sibrel embraced the "transparency" theory not long after his first film was torn to shreds by people who pointed out that his "matted view of Earth from orbit" theory flew in the face of orbital mechanics.

Of course the YouTube conspiracy theorists still haven't wrapped their minds around the fact that most of their "not for public vieweing" footage is, in fact, the live telecast that was very much for public viewing. But that's only the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with their claims.

[Ginnie]

Sept 17, 2008 5:37:50 GMT -4 fiveonit said:

Sorry guys... but the Hoax Pushers are already HARD at work disproving NASA (and us) again. God... how will I sleep tonight!!

The new *THEORY* now is that our old buddy Bart was actually wrong!! Here's an excerpt from a CT that I'm arguing with on youTube...

The Earth image that was seen in the Apollo 11 "not for public viewing" footage, was really a picture of Earth that was borrowed from a weather satellite picture that was taken the same day. The Apollo image is an EXACT match for the satellite image and this has been proven by CT MichaelStMark .. NASA used very clever edited, cutaway shots to make it appear that Earth was outside the CM window.. Sibrel didn't have this evidence available to him, so he assumed a transparencty was used.

I'm not sure what this guys is seeing, but it's nice to know they're starting to admit that Bart doesn't know what he's talking about!!

If they're spending all their time coming up with this crap, it makes me wonder how they find time to eat and sleep and go to school. Wait... They don't go to school. At least not science class.

I don't think satellites took pictures of earth from that far out at the time.

[JayUtah]

Weather satellites in the 1960s were generally in low polar orbits. They took pictures in swaths a thousand miles or so across, usually in monochrome infrared, that had to be sewn together to form any sort of horizontal extent.

[Ginnie]

Sept 17, 2008 16:21:02 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

Weather satellites in the 1960s were generally in low polar orbits. They took pictures in swaths a thousand miles or so across, usually in monochrome infrared, that had to be sewn together to form any sort of horizontal extent.

That's what I thought, but I was too lazy to do the research... ;D

[fiveonit]

Sept 17, 2008 16:21:02 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

Weather satellites in the 1960s were generally in low polar orbits. They took pictures in swaths a thousand miles or so across, usually in monochrome infrared, that had to be sewn together to form any sort of horizontal extent.

I figured as much as well, but I am also too lazy to do the research!
Why should I? If I present this info to him, he'll just say.. "I never said Weather Satellite! It was a secret satellite put into orbit by NASA to fool us!!" .. or some other mumbo jumbo. ... YAWN ...