Parts of the footage were not broadcast live...

Correct; let's be clear. Sibrel reproduces some clips that were not broadcast in July 1969, for example the one in which a voice is alleged to command the crew to "talk." But the segment in which the astronauts back away from the window and adjust the camera aperture setting is part of the live telecast. Sibrel mistakenly characterizes it as more "backstage" footage.

Sibrel assumes that because it was all on a section preceded by a slide about 'not for public viewing' it was all unbroadcast.

"This film of the Apollo 11 mission was produced as a report film by the Manned Spacecraft Center and is not for general public distribution."

That's the language on the title slug. It's quite a bit softer than actual classification statements used elsewhere. There are in fact documents that NASA intended to keep confidential either for operational security (e.g., launch vehicle performance data) or confidentiality purposes (e.g., medical statements made in debriefing). The legends on these documents are very clear and explicit, and conform fully to the standards prevalent across the U.S. government for the control of that information.

The title slug here is a statement of intent, not a restriction on viewing.

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.

He is not the exclusive source, nor was he the first. Larry Haskin made the first general distribution of all the Apollo 11 video back in the 1980s, including all the "secret" footage. Where did he get it? From NASA -- same as everyone else. Since the controversy, people have noticed subsequently that documentaries and other commercial programs from as far back as the early 1980s routinely quote from the "secret" footage. Apparently NASA has been handing this "secret" footage out for quite some time.

Sibrel is simply naive. He got it into his head that he was holding "secret" footage, and that he could cut it any which way he wanted without getting caught.

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

The argument that I brought to the table was that tapes were missing from the Apollo 11 missions. You have tried to expand the argument to include all Apollo footage. Please keep on topic as other Apollo mission footage is not relevant to the SSTV tapes. No other mission used such film and to my knowledge, no other footage is missing from any of the other missions.

Stop trying to derail the argument by asking questions that do not relate to the original topic. The Topic is 'Apollo slow-scan TV tapes and panorama photographs '

__________________
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.

Thanks for the link but you only quote a couple of lines of the transcript. Can you provide a link to the full transcript please?

__________________
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.

Technology has advanced a lot since 1969...

That doesn't answer the question. The question is why the scenario you dismiss as a NASA cover story doesn't make sense as a cover story. Why invent a cover story that necessitates a gaping hole? As a cover story it's pretty poor. As an actual depiction of events, it makes more sense -- especially to people who understand television engineering and broadcast practice.

How can the 'motive' apply to other missions if the other mission tapes are readily available?

Because your hypothesis that NASA is trying to hide high-quality television fails because of it. NASA is demonstrably not trying to hide high-quality television from the Moon. You have simply quoted selectively from the available evidence based on whether it supports your belief.

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.

I'm not at all twisting what has been said. You said the comparative quality of later TV coverage was up for debate, while trying to dismiss it as counterevidence against your claims.

I'm directly asking you to undertake that debate or to concede the point.

Why would I? My stance has not changed since this debate began.

Then please explain why your hypothesis does not account for all pertinent data.

Other missions have no relation to the missing SSTV tapes.

They do if your proposed motive for why the SSTV tapes are missing also applies to those missions. That is the essence of the limited-scope fallacy. You limit the scope of your explanation only to the data that fit it, not to all data that the explanation applies to. It's the fallacy of circular reasoning, but named according to its place in categorical and inductive reasoning.

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

I think the best people to ask about radios is radio hams, so I will go and find a forum and ask them what type of aerial would be the best to cover satellites that are far apart.

__________________
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.

Brilliant? No. And I in no place anywhere in this thread or on this website did I ever say it was. No where. Ever.

Personally I would have loved the non-flight checked WEC color camera to be used, but I didnt call the shots. Unfortunately neither did Stan Lebar.

What I do say, and will support to my dying breath is that there is better material out there which is easily accessible. Two independant sources TCN9 and ABC in Australia have proformat archived tapes of the HSK feed.

One thing you'll never hear me agree on or support in this mediocre (IMO) manner in which the records were assembled. Why they didn't use the HSK feed when archiving the ladder sequence is a mystery to me. Based on my experience with TV archives in general, I can see how it happened, but I certainly don't agree with it. And you can quote me on that.

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

No, I cannot although I expect some others can. The excerpts from the 600-page transcript that I quote come from a copy I purchased some years ago and which I have locally. I have no doubt it is also available somewhere on the web, but don't know where. That's why the formal bibliographic citation to the work appears on my page.

The time stamp prefixes ought to be sufficient to establish it as the time of the live telecast.

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

Perhaps somebody went looking and they knew that the news that they were missing would soon break, so decided to make the news official?

__________________
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.

Satellites are irrelevant to this question because the range requirement is several orders of magnitude different.

Instead of inventing a straw-man question that you can pretend is applicable, why don't you simply ask them the real question about how to transmit S-band from the Moon to Earth? Be sure to get beam-width and signal strength information from them.

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

Thanks (opens and adds to favourites)

__________________
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 actually meant satellite dishes (at the Parkes and Goddard etc).

Dont worry, I will be asking that question.

__________________
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 argument that I brought to the table was that tapes were missing from the Apollo 11 missions. You have tried to expand the argument to include all Apollo footage.

No. The argument you brought to the table, and which you have lately confirmed, is that NASA was trying to hide something by supplying only low-quality television when high-quality television would have been available. The SSTV tape is your data point, but your explanation is universal in scope.

You extended the argument by proposing a general motive to explain the observation. You now bear the burden to prove that it applies to all pertinent data, not just the data you cherry-pick.

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

I actually meant satellite dishes (at the Parkes and Goddard etc).

Technically those are radio telescopes, but I understand what you mean.

"That far apart" from lunar distance is about 2 degrees at most, in the shape of a conical solid-angle volume. Compare that with the entire hemisphere of sky.

Dont worry, I will be asking that question.

I'd like to know who you're planning to contact. Unfortunately this board has seen far too many instances of claimants saying they've consulted an expert somewhere who happens to confirm their claims, but we never get to see the expertise itself.

Be sure to ask specifically about the Apollo lunar module, the data bandwidth and SNR requirements. Hams typically have low data-carrying capacity requirements and so can use much weaker signals effectively. Ask them what would be required to transmit a clear television signal.

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

Im sorry, but I disagree. If I started a debate about 'my favourite wine gums are red', why would I have to explain to you why I dont like the other colours? All you need to know is that I like the red ones.

I am interested in the missing tapes. I havent even started to look into the other mission footage yet, so you are asking me to start debating on footage that I havent even viewed. Therefore, I have no opinion on them either way.

__________________
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 I will ask those questions and post my findings here.

Jay, for all our arguing, I hope you can see that I try to be honest and do take things on board what is said here. Otherwise I wouldnt be bothering asking for links of transcripts to confirm the beliefs held here.

__________________
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.

Dave, are you saying that subsequent missions may have had nothing to hide, thus high quality images are available with no issues? Are you contending that only Apollo 11 footage in it's clearest form likely hides something NASA doesn't want "us" to see?

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

I dont think we are talking about other missions. We are talking about the same mission, just using differant sources for information. Like 2-1/4 that were brough back, that were much high quality then anything transmitted.

Maybe there is something on the better definition tapes that can be seen now that was not as evident back then?

If you're merely asserting your suspicion that there is something hidden in better versions, fine - except that still leaves the question, "what exactly do you think is hidden?"

If your answer is "I don't know", that's fine, too, but it still leaves the question, "Why exactly would this only be seen in the limited range of A11 footage in question, and not in any of the other video or film motion imagery or still photography from A11, and not in any imagery from any other Apollo mission, nor from Surveyor, Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Clementine, Luna, Lunokhod, Zond, SMART-1, Kaguya, Chang'e 1, and Chandrayaan 1?"

It also leaves the question of "Why should I keep posting in this thread? My industry experience tells me there's nothing particularly suspicious about the whole issue, and there's nothing actually identified as the supposed cover-up. So why am I participating in making a mountain out of something that's not even a molehill?"

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

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Do you have anything other than maybes? If it wasn't so evident that these details were there back then, why would they think they needed to hide them by 'losing' the tapes?

Precisely the point. What separated the Apollo 11 footage from the others that made it necessary to hide stuff, while later missions could have their good quality footage kept?

Yes they do, you simply choose to ignore it.

__________________
"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.

Why? We're talking about a TV signal sent from the Moon to the Earth, a signal sent to one specific part of the sky, not a series of satellites. What do your 'far apart' satellites have to do with anything?

__________________
"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.

I repeat my earlier point. How far apart are the receivers, actually, when seen from the Moon? The Earth is only about 2 degrees across from that distance, which is a very small portion of the sky you are aiming at (about 0.00015 of the visble sky, in fact).

__________________
"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.

Im sorry, but I disagree. If I started a debate about...

Irrelevant analogy; statements of preference are equivalent to allegations of fact, as logical propositions.

If you started a debate saying "I have a bottle of red wine here, therefore all wines are red," then you would indeed have to explain bottles of wine that appear to be other colors. You may not excuse yourself from that burden by saying that you're only interested in the red bottle you're holding.

You were quite willing to accept the subsequent high-quality TV footage as relevant to your claims when you tried to suggest that it may not be high quality. That argument would make no sense -- whether true or false -- unless it applied to the question. But when you were called upon to defend the quality claim, you tried to change tack entirely, and have now contradicted your previous premise of relevance.

You may not suddenly change your mind and say that evidence is not relevant to your claim after you previously indicated it was. And whether you choose to look at it or not, the evidence you propose to ignore is relevant to your claim.

Therefore, I have no opinion on them either way.

False. You had an opinion until you realized you'd be compelled to defend it.

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

It would still be a valid question, because your claim means that the red ones are in some way superior to the others, so what makes them inferior?

Is it your contention that ONLY the Apollo 11 footage had anything to hide in it, and that all the rest were fine?

__________________
"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.

Or you could simply be looking for more ammunition in your battle for attention. On your previous web site you took several opportunities to try to show that statements made at BAUT appeared contradictory.

You have two open questions from me in this thread that directly discuss your supposed impartiality. Since this seems to be an important issue for you, please provide answers to them.

The first is whether you consider Neff's web uploads to be a sufficient reference for Apollo telescast quality.

The second discusses the HSK transfers in connection with your Polaroid and other frame captures.

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

__________________
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 ►

Here are some really good shots from the 2-1/4” camera:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5850.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5862.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5866.jpg

From this page:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag40

Those are much better quality than the slow-scan video:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11...torStills.html

That's what I was going to say. "I like the red ones" does not require information about other colours. "The red ones are the best" is a stronger statement, and it does require information about the other colours and why they aren't. Likewise, "this Apollo footage isn't of very good quality" does not require analysis of any other footage, but "this Apollo footage is intentionally inferior to how good it could be so They^TM can hide something" allows, nay requires, analysis of the other footage so we can see if there is, indeed, something hidden that is revealed by the better footage.

__________________
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!"

Dave, the "Face on Mars" was imaged by the Mars Global Surveyor on April 5, 1998, when it had its first opportunity to do so. From September 1997 to February 1999, the MGS was performing thruster and aerobraking maneuvers in order to achieve a proper circular polar mapping orbit for the Primary Mission. And observations of Mars were conducted during that phase of its mission, such as the Viking 1 and 2 landing sites and the Mars Pathfinder landing site between April 3 and April 4, 1998. The Primary Mission was from March 1999 to January 2001.

During the Primary Mission, two partial "Face" images were obtained, one on April 11, 2000, and the other on June 3, 2000. On April 8, 2001, during the Extended Mission, the "Face" was imaged for the fourth time and it was a big hit.

I don't think NASA would abruptly alter the MGS's orbit to send it to another part of the planet just to image something that was interesting to some people -- it can wait, whatever it is. The MSG relied mostly on aerobraking and its reaction wheels for maneuvering and did not have much fuel for its thrusters.

I would still like to know what CD thinks he will see in this 'missing' video that would be missing from the still images or film footage? or, indeed the video footage we do have.

__________________
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 ►

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know that any of the Apollo 11 Flight Journal was up yet.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts