Yes, I agree

OK. Thanks for the answer.

and that is why I am doing an update which will be 4 times the information and which will explain many of my theories behind an Apollo Hoax. The items that are currently on the page which have been proven wrong will be removed.

In fact, I am even going to include a section that deals with popular AH beliefs that are wrong and show why.

Fair enough. I'll hold off on questions/challenges regarding the current site.

Joking aside, I do believe that they went to the Moon.

Again, that's quite clear, and thank you.

I dont believe the footage is genuine though. My belief is that NASA 'conveniently' lost the tapes and closed down the only source that could play those tapes for a reason.

I disagree, for reasons I and others have stated above, but also because from my experience in the aerospace world, there is nothing particularly suspicious about the way it played out. But again, that states your position clearly; thanks once more.

The TV tapes are of inferior quality. As I posted earlier, it is now known that the contrast on the TV was turned down too low - hence the dark pictures.

Which leaves only one of my questions unanswered: exactly what do you think a higher-quality version would have revealed?

Its funny though how excuses are made for the long time regular members on this board.

No excuses needed for anyone, including you. People post when they can. I appreciate the direct answers to direct questions - moderators please take note!

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Referring to your post a few up from here:

Actually right there you have shown yourself to have only a cursory understanding and the whys and wherefores. (This part will be researched and updated regarding Parkes as I was writing all sorts of cross-wired mistakes here - fine tuning stuff which given the misunderstandings flying left right and centre and the fact that I cant post as fast as some folk here would like have taken their toll.) Funny, I was under the impression GDS was used as it was directly in line of sight of the moon. HSK had sight, but GDS was predefined as the station to be used on the moonwalk. Parkes kicked in about 8 minutes later and you can definitely see a change for the better in quality. After Sydney Video informed Houston of better video, they switched to HSK moments before the first step. Are you still convinced I "know nothing" about the A11 downlink?

Are you are attempting to claim I said the best footage is the GDS feed? I actually agreed with you that the telemetry tapes would yield a better result. I guess you missed that part.

I said, "Now, we have a lesser quality copy of the footage..." but I didn't stop there I also said it again when I said "This was unfortunately high contrast" So where exactly did I say it was the same as the telemetry images? I trust I have closed any misunderstanding on that issue.

Do I think the TCN-9 frame looks more like the GDS feed or the slow scan. Well I can make out Armstrong on it, plus his visor. I don't see that on the GDS feed. And I'm using a compressed version of an emailed video. It is a frame from TCN-9 Sydney. Next time I'll label the frame a little better.

Dave do you know the difference in meaning between "the same" and "similar"? In your replay you have tried that stunt twice. So let's cut the garbage and quit trying to make it out that I have written things I clearly haven't. Agreed?

__________________
"TV online! Goldstone TV online! Honeysuckle video online!!"

What reason? What evidence, if any, do you have for this belief?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Thank you for your patience while I celebrated my birthday and while the daily rotation of the planet suggested that those of us in the United States should get some sleep. I'm sorry that those superfluous activities got in the way of your great debate. Of course none of us should have a life outside the internet. I apologize for my dereliction.

No one has disputed that the version of the Apollo 11 EVA as seen by most Americans (and as preserved from those broadcast sources) is degraded. Dwight and I, among others, have discussed them at length here and elsewhere.

The question has been whether versions of acceptable quality, or of quality comparable to that which may hypothetically be obtained by examining the SSTV raw data, are available. Pointing out that quality differs among the surviving copies does not support your argument.

You are trying to establish some sort of negligence or impropriety on NASA's part for not having retained the SSTV tapes in a prominent location and in usable form. That argument depends upon several premises, one of which is that the expected image quality would be so superior as to justify the expense and effort. Toward that end you have compared isolated film frames from the SSTV CRT with their corresponding frames in the worst of the most accessible videotape versions. Yes, I agree that there is a marked difference in quality between those. The question is whether there is a sufficient difference in quality between the SSTV raw data and the best available copies to make the SSTV data a sine qua non for historical research and thus (a) justify the expense and effort of maintaining the means to read it, and (b) justify your vilification of NASA (really the National Archives) for not having taken better care of it.

The fact remains that the SSTV raw data tapes are simply not a practical means for storing and viewing the Apollo 11 EVA television record. The only way in which that data may be used is to sit physically in front of a decades-old machine and watch the image on the built-in CRT. Here is a picture of the machine as it was instantiated at Honeysuckle Creek. You have steadfastly ignored those practical limitations, as evidenced in your attempts to analogize the problem only in terms of standardized formats.

Any conversion from the raw SSTV form to a usable format that doesn't require you to sit in Ed's chair (he's the guy in the photo) at any level of quality will require an optical conversion step. Dwight has referred you to just such material that was made and kept. No, it will not be a perfect copy, as such a standard was not attainable by any means in 1969 and is still elusive today. The question is whether such material is of sufficient quality to forego the marginal increase that would hypothetically be provided in the SSTV raw data. Ultimately that will be a subjective determination.

But unfortunately you have made an argument that requires you to shoulder the burden to prove that the SSTV is not merely of abitrarily or abstractlly better quality, but of sufficiently better quality than all other surviving copies to justify the practical steps that must be taken to obtain, store, an acces it. You are now trying to lower that burden of proof and shift it to Dwight. You are the one making a tempest about how inexcusable it is not to be able to view the SSTV raw data. That requires you to justify your expectations.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

David, I'm formally requesting that you stop this posturing. You may not fairly take others to task for not responding to you as fast as you believe they should, while simultaneously excusing your own delays in responding.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

David, I'm formally requesting that you stop this posturing. You may not fairly take others to task for not responding to you as fast as you believe they should, while simultaneously excusing your own delays in responding.
In fairness Jay, he did wait a whole minute between posts.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

OK, what about the TV footage from the other landings? Looks pretty damn good to me on my DVD player.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Since when have I even come close to suggesting that it was?

__________________
"TV online! Goldstone TV online! Honeysuckle video online!!"

Without seeing the original version then I cannot say for sure. But obviously, better quality pictures produce better detail for us to look at and investigate.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I am surprised that you are happy to accept such inferior quality footage such as the one you posted. For all we know, that could have been my granny climbing down from the attic.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

There are many reasons why. That is why I am updating my page with the new evidence I have found. It would be counter productive to try and delve into all the reasons here as I want to present the entire reasons why on my website.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Well anyone who knows anything about Apollo as much as you claim knows that it is Armstrong climbing down the ladder. So you can't see the visor, or the spacesuit?

Or to use your technique, are you saying you see no difference between that and the GDS feed as far as quality goes?

Is there a reason you skipped the part where I said MP4 highly compressed lo-res?

__________________
"TV online! Goldstone TV online! Honeysuckle video online!!"

Your friend Andy Lloyd was banned for forum rules violations involving advertising, not for taking a day to reply to a post. No moderator on a discussion forum penalises a poster for having other things to do outside the forum.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

You have been asked a direct question. Answer it. Pointing at your website is not acceptable.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Thats interesting, especially when you consider that England is at least 5 hours ahead of America. You may deem the poor TV quality versions acceptable, but I do not.

Yes I do hold NASA responsible for losing such data. In England we have the original Magna Carta, dating from 1215 which is kept at the British Library. How can such important data be essentially lost when they are only 40 years old? Thats like Britain mislaying footage of the Queens Coronation...

What expense and effort? You have boxes of film that you document and mark so that future generations can benefit.

The big problem is that your now trying to make excuses for NASA. NASA devised the system and soon took it out of service. So your telling me that an electronics buff couldnt devise a machine to read these tapes?

What event is bigger than man walking on another planet? If you can show me pictures from the TV tapes that are of better quality then please go ahead, as that is your side of the argument. I have posted SSTV pictures that we can all see are of better quality. If you think you have seen as good quality pictures from copies then please point in the direction towards them so I can go and have a look and compare them.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I answered all the questions before you came back into the conversation - so whats your point?

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

The debate relates to missing Apollo 11 footage only.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Your MP4 highly compressed lo-res version was obviously not from 1969 was it?

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I could fill your forum with my answer.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You must have an awfully big website, then. But you're in luck; I'll accept summing up.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Just like the jpegs you posted weren't from 1969 either obviously. You are joking right?

__________________
"TV online! Goldstone TV online! Honeysuckle video online!!"

You may deem the poor TV quality versions acceptable, but I do not.

Acceptable for what pupose?

In England we have the original Magna Carta...

Irrelevant. The Magna C[h]arta does not require a special machine to read it.

What expense and effort?

The data in question can only be read with a special machine, only a few of which were ever built. One of the first things done with this machine is to use it as the objective of an optical scan-conversion process to render it in a more accessible form. This accessible form has been widely reproduced.

The big problem is that your now trying to make excuses for NASA.

No, the big problem is that you (in your infinite wisdom) are trying to tell NASA what it should have done, and to cry "fraud" based on no stronger basis that your personal opinion. You're begging the question flagrantly.

You seem utterly impervious to examples of other similar things that didn't go the way you say they should, and to rationales for why things have been done a certain way.

It's simply you making up arbitrary requirements, solely so that you can have yet another stick with which to beat the U.S. government over the head because they fail to measure up to your personal standards. You can't even tell us what's so absolutely crucial about that data. You simply harp on the notion that it would be neat to have.

What event is bigger than man walking on another planet?

You continue to beg questions. You have the burden to prove that your expectations for the handling of this material are objectively reasonable. So far you can't or won't do it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dave, what is so important about the "original" data? You say that you accept that humans landing on the moon is a fact. What would the original data show? Selenites doing the can-can while Neil is descending the ladder? A sky full of flying saucers above the flag?

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

You complain in one breath that you're being held to an unreasonable standard of response time. And in the very next breath you complain that people aren't addressing your posts fast enough. My point is that you are contradicting yourself in your efforts to characterize how you are being treated at BAUT, leading me to believe it's just an evasive act. I'm asking you to pay attention to the fabric of the debate and not how badly you think you're being treated.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Speaking for myself, if he answers a particular question on his web site then I don't see any problem being directed there to read it, as long as it's a reasonably specific direction. "Read my whole site" is not an answer; but I would accept "Follow this link and scroll down to where it says..."

I put up the Clavius web site specifically so I wouldn't have to keep writing the same answers over and over again when the questions came up. So I direct people there to get the answer. But I provide a Google-powered search function and a topical organization to keep those references useful. If someone wants to know, for example, where I discuss the quality of the TV signal, they can go to a specific, well-marked place.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Agreed, in the sense that the SSTV data are applicable only to Apollo 11.

But you claim that the highest-quality Apollo 11 data have been intentionally suppressed by NASA in order to prevent them from being closely examined. If you hypothesize that NASA has a motive to disallow access to high-quality TV data, then in order to avoid the fallacy of limited scope you need to explain why high-quality TV data were made available for other missions.

While such a motive would apply to SSTV data only in the context of Apollo 11, that same motive -- if true -- would apply to all other missions, regardless of what specific TV technology was used. Why didn't NASA "conveniently lose" the high-quality data from those missions?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just to elaborate on this point from a moderator's perspective, yes, I also consider it acceptable to refer to another website in response to a question, so long as the reference is reasonably specific and relevant to the question and reproduction of the material here would be a problem. However, a link should not be substituted for a simple "yes" or "no" when either will do. In any case, as mentioned, referring to the website in toto is not an acceptable answer. Referring to edits or additions not yet made to the website is even less acceptable.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I too would like to see some proof that there was a deliberate act and some explanation as to why it would have been committed. And further, if they were deliberately destroyed, why would they announce that the tapes were missing?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Irrelevant. This is a discussion forum, not a place where people are obliged to spend a set number of hours per day. On another forum some years ago I had someone accuse me of ducking out of a debate, just as you are doing. As it happened, right in the middle of that debate a family member died, so oddly enough I didn't spend much time online for a few days. You'd better believe I tore him off a strip for that one.

You have no way of knowing what anyone here does in their real lives, therefore you may not justifiably criticise them if they don't post within any time period.

Why are your expectations more valid than anyone else's?

The Magna Carta is a paper document that can be read quite easily with no special equipment. One might also point out that the copy held in the British Library is almost entirely illegible and has a deformed wax seal having been involved in a house fire. Furthermore, it is one of several copies of the document. If there was ever one original Magna Carta it is not currently known to exist. Several copies do. It would seem your example is actually more like the Apollo 11 situation than you might have thought.

The import of the data depends on its rarity. Nothing in the lost video footage isn't found elsewhere.

Do we have every last bit of footage captured for the Coronation? Do we have the absolute best quality version of any footage? I personally don't know. Do you?

Maintaining a specialised machine requires skilled technical staff. That's why you don't repair your own VCR when it break down, or your own car, or your own boiler, unless well trained. Is it worth maintaining a specialised piece of equipment to read something that is available on other formats? Someone decided not.

Not for free, and I repeat: is the expense worth it to read something that contains information readily available in other formats?

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.