So is it your contention that only the Apollo 11 footage is bieng deliberately restricted to low quality versions, and that by the time of later missions they had no need to do so?

__________________
"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.

We'll accept a brief answer, summing up the salient points, or a link to where your website contains the answer. If it doesn't have the answer yet, then kindly provide it here in summary.

__________________
"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.

But the data isn't lost. I have seen footage of the Apollo 11 landing. That it isn't the specific copy you are looking for doesn't mean that it's not available in other forms.
I would think that not every foot of tape or film shot on the day of the Coronation is still in existence. At the time of the Coronation it wasn't possible to record direct from a TV camera, they were recorded by Telerecording to film. (Kinescoping in the USA) so no original video footage is available, what was seen on the day was live. What exists now is the film recordinng of the live broadcast, when a camera wasn't 'live' it wasn't being recorded.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Oh, that's all? Then I agree, the originals should be found.

I disagree with Hoagland's story about the tapes being hidden away by NASA because they "show too much detail" and show things NASA doesn't want the public to see. That's silly, since we do have access to the original 2-1/4" photos, which are much better quality than slow-scan TV, and they too can be "stacked".

I'm still betting that the slow-scan TV images were made to be "safe", as a "back-up", just in case the astronauts crashed on the moon or on the way back. But once they got back, they had all the 2-1/4 stills, and thus NASA probably didn't have much interest in the slow-scan TV tapes. This might be why they are now lost.

Remember the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? Where the Ark was boxed up, taken to the basement storeroom of the National Archives, where it was probably lost for another 2,000 years? Lol.

Thanks Swift!

Good point. what do you hope to see in the video that you can't see in the stills?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Nope - no good. The aliens could easily see when the astronauts were holding the Hasselblads and hide themselves accordingly.

However, they weren't aware of the TV camera taking images surreptitiously from the MESA while they were greeting Armstrong as he came down the ladder. (They're very careless like that...I mean, how many times have they got themselves caught on fuzzy, shaky camera when they should have been more careful?)

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

I have been watching a little of the footage available from Apollo 11 from the NASA archives. To be honest, the pictures are lousy. If any of you went down and rented a similar quality film from your video library you would be hurrying back for a refund.

I am being pressured by the moderators to answer questions, but do not know which questions you want me to answer? As far as I can see, I have posted examples of the differences between the two tapes. The original question in this thread was what was so special about the SSTV tapes.

I have demonstrated quite successfully in my view, the difference between what is lost and what is available.

What do I want? I want to be able to watch the best version available so that I can study it further. Is that too much to ask?

__________________
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.

Yes but the difference is that I am being asked questions left right and centre (<thats the English spelling not a type o). You are only being asked questions by me. Thats the difference.

__________________
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.

Im glad we agree on at least one thing. Yes, I am sure that the posters here will be very shocked at my new article, because it will go into the history behind the space race and other things associated with Apollo that you wouldnt usually read on a sceptics website.

The main difference between me and Sibrel or Percy is that I have taken on board what has been said on this forum over the years. Granted, I do not agree with some of it, but I do accept your theory regarding the waving flags and other stuff. That is why I will be dedicating a section to popular hoax myths.

Please understand that the new article will be vastly bigger with a lot of new information. So much information in fact that I couldnt possibly post much of it here.

I would rather write my hypothesis on the landing and then you can all go and read it and make your own minds up.

__________________
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.

Its a bit of a coincidence, but I have repaired all 3 of the examples you mentioned above! I am not trained in any of them.

But all this talk of NASA producing the footage in an obsolete format, I would like to ask a question. Why did NASA make the decision to film this way if they knew that the process of decoding the signal would be degraded on normal TV broadcasts?

Also, I am going to start looking into it, but what exact type of equipment was used to relay the tv signal from the LM to Earth?

__________________
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 think that's the biggest question being asked. What is it that you think you're going to find? It's obvious that you feel strongly that the SSTV tapes contain something interesting. Rather than accepting the fact that there's nothing extraordinary that those boxes aren't readily accessible (afterall, nobody is saying they've been stolen or destroyed), you are convinced that there is a sinister force at work.

So again, I think you can clarify the whole debate if you'd simply state what it is you expect to see in these tapes that you can't see in the currently available media.

__________________
How many debunking threads do you have to participate in before you start getting your shill checks? I'm saving for an Xbox.

I also saw Joe Newman demonstrate his car in 1987. It was impressive...I was in the 7th grade. Then he went nuts. I went back to school.

I think its obvious that later missions were not shot on SSTV tapes - otherwise those films would also not be viewable once the machine that can read them was decomissioned.

Whether those later missions were as good quality as the SSTV pictures is up for debate.

__________________
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.

As the SSTV tapes are the raw material, we might find something lost within those 698 boxes. After all, we all know there are tapes out there with warnings that they are not for public viewing.

Maybe there are still tapes out there that none of you have even seen?

__________________
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.

Fair enough. I'd have to yield to those far more expert on the minute details of the mission on that one. In my experience though, I haven't found anything in the mission's timetable or transcripts that would indicate that there should be a video that I haven't seen.

__________________
How many debunking threads do you have to participate in before you start getting your shill checks? I'm saving for an Xbox.

I also saw Joe Newman demonstrate his car in 1987. It was impressive...I was in the 7th grade. Then he went nuts. I went back to school.

The equipment used has been well documented. It would have been nice if the astronauts had brought along standard TV studio gear to document their missions, but Apollo engineers needed to find lightweight, low power consumption solutions.

I have been watching a little of the footage available from Apollo 11 from the NASA archives. To be honest, the pictures are lousy.

Specifically from where and obtained how?

I have demonstrated quite successfully in my view, the difference between what is lost and what is available.

You have cleared the bar that you set for yourself, which was to show there was a difference between the best and worst available versions. No one cares about that. You have not shown that the alleged difference in quality warrants maintaining the SSTV equipment and carefully cataloguing the SSTV tapes, which you say were suppressed to hide something.

What do I want? I want to be able to watch the best version available so that I can study it further. Is that too much to ask?

No one is stopping you, although you should have done that prior to leveling your accusations. You seem to think you ought to be able to get it for free with no effort on your part beyond point-and-click. Your accusation, your burden of proof, your homework.

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

I think its obvious that later missions were not shot on SSTV tapes...

That wasn't the question. You attempt to argue a motive for suppressing high-quality television images. Yet your explanation covers only one of several such examples. Fallacy of limited scope.

Whether those later missions were as good quality as the SSTV pictures is up for debate.

Let's debate it then. The later missions featured increased spatial and temporal resolution, included color, and were processed in real time to reduce transmission noise. They were also shot on non-noisy standard-light orthicons instead of the low-light version used in Apollo 11. Please explain in what way they were inferior.

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

I would rather read it here, if you're going to bring it up here.

__________________
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!"

And which part of the footage? You would be aware that the 'first step' footage was received through Honeysuckle Creek rather than through (the much larger) Parkes receiver as was originally intended, owing to Armstrong & Aldrin deciding to forgo a scheduled rest break. Early signals that were received at Parkes were 'off-axis' and hence of lower quality. From memory, the permanent switch to the Parkes feed was made about 7 minutes into the transmission when Parkes was able to receive main beam, after which the picture quality improved substantially.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

But all this talk of NASA producing the footage in an obsolete format...

The format is not "obsolete." It was specially designed for the engineering purposes of the mission. As with all engineering, compromises were required.

Why did NASA make the decision to film this way if they knew that the process of decoding the signal would be degraded on normal TV broadcasts?

Because contrary to your belief, live TV from the Moon was not a priority for the mission. You keep imagining that the telecast is some pinnacle of human endeavor that should have pulled out all the stops, but that's not at all the way NASA was thinking. Because the mission was considered so risky already, they weren't even going to send a TV camera for fear of distracting the astronauts or complicating the mission engineering.

As has been explained, optical scan conversion was the norm at the time. The process was simply a bit more ad hoc in this case than would have been done in a television studio. But the process of aiming a camera at a screen was standard, and any resulting loss of quality was considered an acceptable tradeoff. It is, however, unfortunate that the Goldstone camera had been adjusted incorrectly.

...but what exact type of equipment was used to relay the tv signal from the LM to Earth?

In general terms, a battery-powered S-band transmitter and a one-meter parabolic dish antenna. The bandwidth concerns were actually on the receiving end: the known capacity of the MSFN for the EVA during Apollo 11 mission planning precluded full-bandwidth television. Hence the signal had to fit into the bandwidth of the receivers known to be available at the time. That's why the special format was devised.

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

As the SSTV tapes are the raw material, we might find something lost within those 698 boxes.

And it's equally likely that we might not. That doesn't stop you from saying NASA is suppressing them in order to hide something. Would it be fair to say you've already made up your mind regardless of where the tapes are and what they contain?

After all, we all know there are tapes out there with warnings that they are not for public viewing.

Are you talking about Sibrel's misinterpretation of the report film?

Maybe there are still tapes out there that none of you have even seen?

And maybe there aren't. Do you have anything stronger in favor of your claims than idle speculation?

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

I hate to say this, but it seems here that cosmicdave is just another true-believer. No pile, stack, ton, truckload, barge full, or otherwise is going to convince him. Unfortunetly, I hate to write it off like that because I think most people have hope, but I don't think this is the case here.

Scuse me from the side lines and a this side track, I was going to mention magna carta, thought it ironic given its nature it has a mention in this context. They are as I understand it copies, not sure there was an original as such? They were made to distribute around the UK. They were also amended then those copies distributed as well. 1215 for the first but the date for the others escape me.

Monarch involved did manage to lose the crown jewels in the wash.

Perhaps you might want to start by analyzing the 16mm DAT footage filmed at the same time as the TV footage. The added bonus is you also get to review in color. Even better than that you have a screen resolution of approximately 1080p video (before you charge like a bull there are different 16mm standards so I'm using a very conservative estimate). That in other words is industry recognized HIGH DEFINITION.

What do you know, high def footage from the lunar surface of the first step!

BTW. If I went to my local video store and rented a hollywood blockbuster and it looked like that yeah I'd be upset. If I rented a collection of news stories then I expect them to concentrate on the topic at hand and not whether it follows classic greek asthetic subject framing. I certainly wouldn't complain about the quality, especially knowing the limitations of certain Outside Broadcast locations. Of course, I probably stand alone in thinking the moon is a fairly unique place to set up a TV camera.

Dave, On one hand you say there is no footage missing and then the next quote says there is footage missing. Care to clarify that? May I suggest using "tapes missing" to describe the telemetry tapes as someone like yourself who stringently points out others' failings in posting clearly can surely see the benefit of doing so. Correct?

Two other questions which are still unanswered: Do you not see the visor and spacesuit in the TCN-9 footage? Do you agree there is more to see than on the GDS feed?

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

Because their priority was to land men on the Moon, not to send back high quality TV pictures. The TV was almost an afterthought, and many in NASA argued against it as a distraction from the technical problems of landing on the Moon. Wiser heads prevailed and pointed out that the taxpayers who were funding the missions might like to see something for their money.

But TV cameras that would be small enough to carry on a spacecraft, that would incorporate colour, and that would work in a vacuum, did not exist at the time, so had to be developed especially for Apollo. Add to that the fact that the spacecraft didn't have a massive TV mast with high power, omni-directional transmitting capabilities, and had to beam a highly directional signal to a select group of receivers that could detect that signal from 250,000 miles and that were not normal TV receivers in the first place, and you wind up with a bunch of technical problems that were solved very admirably, even if the end result isn't what you think it should have been.

__________________
"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.

But since you'd expect the video to have been recorded with better equipment than the astronauts had, you'd be justified in doing so.

Not at all, but your continued assertion that the loss of it is suspect is getting a bit wearing, especially in light of the other missions and the other visual material available from that mission.

__________________
"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.

They are no more or less viewable than the Apollo 11 footage. It is not 'obvious', as you put it, because the TV footage from those missions exists in several forms, just as the Apollo 11 footage does. How do you know there isn't a better version somewhere that has been misplaced?

__________________
"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.

No, we know there are slides that say the film is assembled for internal NASA purposes and was not intended for public circulation, which is not the same thing. It's not a warning, it's a statement of the intentions of the person who put that particular film together. It says nothing about restricting it from public view. The fact that the one famous example of such a piece of material captioned by such a slide contains footage that was originally broadcast live to millions of people across the world says it all really.

Containing what? The Apollo record fits together very nicely with full audio, TV schedules and such like. Where do you propose the gaps might be that would contain such missing material?

__________________
"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.

"Maybe there are still tapes out there that none of you have ever seen?"

If you mean containing additional footage, I seriously doubt it. That includes video during a station handover from HSK to Madrid on Apollo 16 when no VTRs were running.

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