Apollo slow-scan TV tapes and panorama photographs - Page 5

cosmicdave · #**121** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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?

From one of the NASA sites, the footage was edited by Gary Neff and recently uploaded.

cosmicdave · #**122** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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.

Please dont put words into my mouth. Since when did I say that other Apollo mission footage was inferior? I am specifically referring to the Apollo 11 mission and the comparison between available footage from the TV broadcast compared to the original SSTV tapes which are of superior quality but missing.

cosmicdave · #**123** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGN Fuel

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.

Yes I know all this, in fact, Parkes would have hardly picked up any of the transmissions if Armstrong had been allowed to start the lunar mission as he had wanted. The Moon would not have been above the horizon at Parkes and so they would not have received a good enough signal.

cosmicdave · #**124** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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

If the tapes are no longer available and the machine that could play them is out of service then that in my books means obsolete. Its the same as BetaMax video. You may have the machine but they dont make the tapes anymore, so its obsolete. Technology has moved forward.

Thanks for the explanation of the tv signals. Ive just ordered a book off Amazon called 'How Apollo flew to the Moon' which by all accounts is very detailed and a good read.

JayUtah · #**125** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

From one of the NASA sites, the footage was edited by Gary Neff and recently uploaded.

Which site? Please provide a link.

JayUtah · #**126** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...

If the tapes are no longer available and the machine that could play them is out of service then that in my books means obsolete.

But it was not obsolete when it was designed and used. That's what it seemed you were claiming.

When one uses a format whose longevity is in question, the first thing one does is to copy it to a more stable, long-lasting format. Guess what they did with the Apollo 11 video?

Ive just ordered a book off Amazon called 'How Apollo flew to the Moon' which by all accounts is very detailed and a good read.

Hamish Lindsay's book? I found it reasonably good, but spotty on detail. Worth reading, but you will need more.

cosmicdave · #**127** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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?

Do you Jay? Without actually looking through the missing boxes how can you claim that there is 'probably' nothing new? Now who is clutching at straws?

JayUtah · #**128** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...

Please dont put words into my mouth. Since when did I say that other Apollo mission footage was inferior?

Here.

Please either debate the point you said was debatable or concede it.

I am specifically referring to the Apollo 11 mission and the comparison between available footage from the TV broadcast compared to the original SSTV tapes which are of superior quality but missing.

Yes, I realize you're trying to artificially restrict the debate in order to avoid the fallacy of limited scope in your hypothesis. That is what I'm exposing in your argument.

You say NASA had something to hide and so has suppressed the high-quality version of Apollo 11 video and given us only low-quality copies instead. But your hypothesis holds only for Apollo 11, not for all missions in which television was provided. Please explain why we have high-quality television from other missions if NASA's motive is to hide what that might have revealed.

Further, you seem to be following David Percy's argument that while authentic missions may have been flown, the record we have of them is not authentic. If the Apollo 11 video is not authentic and has been created by some sort of artificial process, why would tapes allegedly made at the receiving stations matter? Why would they even exist at all? In other words, why is what you claim to be merely a cover story so problematic as such?

JayUtah · #**129** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Do you Jay? Without actually looking through the missing boxes how can you claim that there is 'probably' nothing new? Now who is clutching at straws?

I make no such assertion. I dispute your assertion that we must have that material in order to have a useful, valid record of the Apollo 11 EVA. I dispute your assertion that the unavailability of such material is inexcusable.

Do you have anything more substantial with which to support those assertions than, "Who knows what we'd find?" You have been asked by several people to explain exactly what makes the SSTV tapes the sine qua non of Apollo television research. So far you've provided only handwaving.

cosmicdave · #**130** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwight

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?

Let me get this clear - there are tapes missing - boxes of tapes.

It appears that you didnt get my little bit of sarcasm earlier regarding my granny in the attic. Of course I can see a helmet and ladder, but its not exactly brilliant footage is it?

JayUtah · #**131** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Of course I can see a helmet and ladder, but its not exactly brilliant footage is it?

What does it say for the fairness of your comparison, in which you compared a Polaroid photo (an unattainable standard for any video dupe) to the worst available footage from downstream sources? Are you really making a fair comparison of the quality? Or are you trying to pile up evidence in favor of your predetermined conclusion.

cosmicdave · #**132** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

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.

Ahh yes I was going to ask that very quesion... How could a (as you put it) 'highly directional signal' be transmitted to three recievers in three totally different locations? Surely an omni-directional antenna should have been used?

It seems that NASA never changes. I seem to recall that the same argument occured when they sent a probe to Mars. Only after protest did they agree to send the probe to re-photograph the 'Face on Mars', even though they were taking pictures of other areas.

JayUtah · #**133** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Ahh yes I was going to ask that very quesion... How could a (as you put it) 'highly directional signal' be transmitted to three recievers in three totally different locations? Surely an omni-directional antenna should have been used?

Compute the beam width in the 2 gigahertz neighborhood for a one-meter parabolic reflector and you'll have your answer.

Even a small parabolic reflector is a vastly greater improvement over an omnidirectional antenna, which wastes signal strength in all directions.

Please remember you're talking to engineers.

cosmicdave · #**134** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

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?

Well for starters, where in the Apollo record does it explain the piece of footage that Sibrel uncovered? Are you sure that the entire film was shown to the general public at the time? Including where they are filming from across the dark cabin and pan back?

The footage in question was NOT broadcast live - the astronauts were practicing what to say for a later broadcast.

cosmicdave · #**135** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Which site? Please provide a link.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

JayUtah · #**136** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...

Are you sure that the entire film was shown to the general public at the time?

Not necessarily in 1969. But it was released in the 1980s as part of the Haskins videotape series. Sibrel did not "uncover" anything; it was sent to him at his request by NASA as part of the standard package of Apollo 11 downlink material. Sibrel is simply too uninformed to know that.

Including where they are filming from across the dark cabin and pan back?

Yes, that occurs in the live telecast. Consult the transcript.

The footage in question was NOT broadcast live...

False.

JayUtah · #**137** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

And do you propose that this is a valid reference for the quality of Apollo television?

I know Gary. He made that stuff almost 10 years ago in some cases. It's highly-compressed web-optimized clips. Why do you consider that a valid reference when discussing the quality of the television signal?

cosmicdave · #**138** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Hamish Lindsay's book? I found it reasonably good, but spotty on detail. Worth reading, but you will need more.

No its by David Woods - http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Springe.../dp/0387716750

cosmicdave · #**139** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Please dont put words into my mouth. Since when did I say that other Apollo mission footage was inferior?

Here.

Please either debate the point you said was debatable or concede it.

I am specifically referring to the Apollo 11 mission and the comparison between available footage from the TV broadcast compared to the original SSTV tapes which are of superior quality but missing.

Yes, I realize you're trying to artificially restrict the debate in order to avoid the fallacy of limited scope in your hypothesis. That is what I'm exposing in your argument.

You say NASA had something to hide and so has suppressed the high-quality version of Apollo 11 video and given us only low-quality copies instead. But your hypothesis holds only for Apollo 11, not for all missions in which television was provided. Please explain why we have high-quality television from other missions if NASA's motive is to hide what that might have revealed.

Further, you seem to be following David Percy's argument that while authentic missions may have been flown, the record we have of them is not authentic. If the Apollo 11 video is not authentic and has been created by some sort of artificial process, why would tapes allegedly made at the receiving stations matter? Why would they even exist at all? In other words, why is what you claim to be merely a cover story so problematic as such?

If you were to stage a hoax, you would make sure that all angles are covered. Wouldn't it seem suspicious if tapes were not available from the TV stations that the original signal was sent to?

As to my knowledge, only Apollo 11 original tapes are missing, that is my main concern. I will look into the other missions and their footage when time permits.

My original argument was 'where are the Apollo 11 SSTV tapes?' You are trying to change the subject for some reason.

cosmicdave · #**140** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I make no such assertion. I dispute your assertion that we must have that material in order to have a useful, valid record of the Apollo 11 EVA. I dispute your assertion that the unavailability of such material is inexcusable.

Do you have anything more substantial with which to support those assertions than, "Who knows what we'd find?" You have been asked by several people to explain exactly what makes the SSTV tapes the sine qua non of Apollo television research. So far you've provided only handwaving.

You always tend to contradict yourself. When I said that we might find something new in those boxes yourreplied '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?'

Now your saying that you made no such assertion.

If you and others cannot see the difference in quality between the SSTV and the TV pictures then there is no point in continuing the argument. I really cannot understand how in every single debate I have ever had here I have to S P E L L I T O U T to you for you to even grasp the simplest concept of what I believe.

Your like one of those kids who when they cannot have a toy asks, 'but... but... but...'

So you disagree with me - whats new... move on.

sts60 · #**141** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:33 PM

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

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you alleging that this means NASA was trying to cover up something? If so, what, exactly?

Are you referring to Sibrel's claims about the PA event en-route? Or are you referring to something else? If so, what, exactly?

If you are claiming that "not for public viewing" somehow implies or supports a cover-up of something big, that makes no sense. That's not any sort of classification level; nor is the actual term "not for general public distribution" on the footage Sibrel misrepresented. There are a dizzying array of classification terms for actual classified information, and many more for information which is not classified but nonetheless restricted* from public use in ways that make a violator subject to various fines and/or imprisonment. "Not for general public distribution" isn't one of them.

*"restricted", not Restricted, nor Formerly Restricted, which is actually still restricted in the Restricted sense. Got it?

JayUtah · #**142** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...

Wouldn't it seem suspicious if tapes were not available from the TV stations that the original signal was sent to?

But as you say, they are not available. Why would NASA purport to cover its bases and then admit that part of its cover story went missing? If NASA invented this whole thing, why "invent" an additional problem with the cover story?

As to my knowledge, only Apollo 11 original tapes are missing, that is my main concern. I will look into the other missions and their footage when time permits.

No, the motive you assigned for the "loss" of the Apollo 11 SSTV tapes applies to all Apollo television. The quality of subsequent TV coverage is relevant to your hypothesis whether you like it or not.

Earlier you claimed that the subsequent TV coverage was irrelevant because it was not of markedly greater quality than Apollo 11's. Now you're saying it's outside the scope of your interest. Why the tap-dancing?

My original argument was 'where are the Apollo 11 SSTV tapes?' You are trying to change the subject for some reason.

You said NASA is hiding something. You said that was the reason why they "lost" the tapes, so no investigators could see high-quality TV footage from the Moon.

Have you relinquished that claim?

cosmicdave · #**143** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Are you sure that the entire film was shown to the general public at the time?

Not necessarily in 1969. But it was released in the 1980s as part of the Haskins videotape series. Sibrel did not "uncover" anything; it was sent to him at his request by NASA as part of the standard package of Apollo 11 downlink material. Sibrel is simply too uninformed to know that.

Including where they are filming from across the dark cabin and pan back?

Yes, that occurs in the live telecast. Consult the transcript.

The footage in question was NOT broadcast live...

False.

Could you please provide a link in the Apollo records where there is a transcript of this event please?

JayUtah · #**144** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...

Now your saying that you made no such assertion.

That statement simply points out that you are speculating. You identify one possibility and emphasize it. I raise the other possibilities to reveal the speculation for what it was.

So you disagree with me - whats new... move on.

Unfortunately you, as the claimant at BAUT, have the obligation to address the disagreement as a condition of continued participation. Do you have anything more substantial than speculation?

JayUtah · #**145** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Could you please provide a link in the Apollo records where there is a transcript of this event please?

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

Jason Thompson · #**146** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Ahh yes I was going to ask that very quesion... How could a (as you put it) 'highly directional signal' be transmitted to three recievers in three totally different locations?

How far apart are those locations in terms of angle from lunar distance? 'Highly directional' doesn't mean that the beam doesn't diverge as it travels. A laser is a highly directional light beam, but it still diverges from an emitter a few centimetres across to a spot over a kilometre across over the distance to the Moon.

Quote:

Surely an omni-directional antenna should have been used?

Why, when the target area is so small and you can see exactly where it is to line up a directional transmitter? Why waste your limited power broadcasting your TV signal into emtpy space?

Jason Thompson · #**147** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

If you and others cannot see the difference in quality between the SSTV and the TV pictures then there is no point in continuing the argument.

We see the difference. We dispute that it makes a great deal of difference for analysis, or that there is a suspect reason for their absence from the record. Why, if they are making them unavailable to hide details that might give away fakery, publicly announce the fact that they are missing in the first place?

Jason Thompson · #**148** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Well for starters, where in the Apollo record does it explain the piece of footage that Sibrel uncovered? Are you sure that the entire film was shown to the general public at the time? Including where they are filming from across the dark cabin and pan back?

The footage in question was NOT broadcast live - the astronauts were practicing what to say for a later broadcast.

Parts of the footage were not broadcast live, but that piece of film contains material from a number of TV transmissions, at least one of which was broadcast. The material was simply compiled for internal reference. Sibrel assumes that because it was all on a section preceded by a slide about 'not for public viewing' it was all unbroadcast. His usual level of research, basically.

Sibrel got that film by asking NASA to send him stuff. How stupid do you want us to believe NASA is? He also, incidentally, claims you'll only see it on his video, but that is utter bull. I have it on DVD from a different source.

sts60 · #**149** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 03:59 PM

Could you please provide a link in the Apollo records where there is a transcript of this event please?

Full transcript at http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/06day2-tv.htm.

cosmicdave · #**150** (**permalink**) 19-February-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Wouldn't it seem suspicious if tapes were not available from the TV stations that the original signal was sent to?

But as you say, they are not available. Why would NASA purport to cover its bases and then admit that part of its cover story went missing? If NASA invented this whole thing, why "invent" an additional problem with the cover story?

Technology has advanced a lot since 1969, especially in film and television. Maybe there is something on the better definition tapes that can be seen now that was not as evident back then?

motive you assigned for the "loss" of the Apollo 11 SSTV tapes applies to all Apollo television. The quality of subsequent TV coverage is relevant to your hypothesis whether you like it or not.

Not so, we dont need to talk about anything but the SSTV footage that is missing. How can the 'motive' apply to other missions if the other mission tapes are readily available?

Earlier you claimed that the subsequent TV coverage was irrelevant because it was not of markedly greater quality than Apollo 11's. Now you're saying it's outside the scope of your interest. Why the tap-dancing?

Please stop twisting what has been said. I said that the footage from other missions was 'up for debate.' I didnt say it was inferior.

You said NASA is hiding something. You said that was the reason why they "lost" the tapes, so no investigators could see high-quality TV footage from the Moon.

Have you relinquished that claim?

Why would I? My stance has not changed since this debate began. All I am interested in is being able to see those missing tapes. It is your desire to try and compare other mission footage to the SSTV tapes. I have not even mentioned anything regarding other mission footage other than 'its up for debate.'

Other missions have no relation to the missing SSTV tapes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bart Sibrel's article	AstroMike	Conspiracy Theories	69	14-October-2009 01:56 PM
Debunk Apollo Hoax Theory	Salty	Conspiracy Theories	144	17-July-2009 01:42 AM
Apollo tapes recovered	AstroSmurf	Conspiracy Theories	39	05-November-2006 07:40 PM
Is the moon apollohoax true or not	Denis12	Conspiracy Theories	143	04-January-2006 06:26 PM
Moon hoax=fun.	Staffan Norling	Conspiracy Theories	35	03-April-2002 03:14 PM