Apollo 11 TV footage taken on the way to the moon

[Duane Daman]

"[Armstrong - (Chuckling) "It may still be in that suit pocket, for all I know."]

Hmmmm .. Sounds vaguely familiar .

"I can only assume he's confusing the suit with the EVA gloves and the PLSS, which were left behind ..."

No confusion ... the book said suit and that the tube of soil sample was thrown away in it's zippered pocket .

"Of course, Sibrel is trying to lead viewers into believing that it was a round window"

In the clip I saw it looked exactly like a round window and even the two inch thickness of the rim at the botton of the round window showed the earthshine on it , which distorted the shape of Earth ....So if Sibral was trying to mislead anyone , then he did it by somehow altering the video footage by changing the shape of the window .

The hatch window was round and located right next to the rectangular window , so who's to say they didn't use both windows while faking the image of Earth ?

And being a diligent resercher, you did know about the configuration of the CSM windows anyway didn't you? Or at least how to confirm it for yourself?

Do I detect a just a tad of sarcasm in that question ? .... I remembered the CSM had a round window in it but didn't know the configuration of the other windows .... Did I know how to confirm it for myself ? Yes ... Did I have the time to do that ? .. NO ....That's why I asked Evan to confirm that the CSM ( I mistakingly called it the LM) had a round window in it , which it did and which you for some strange reason failed to mention .

There is much footage of the "smoking gun" scene ... and the footage in Sibrel's documenatary appears to be taken , from some point at least , from a round window .... but even if it wasn't , the transparency could have worked just as well on a rectangular window .

The photo you posted above is NOT the "smoking gun" footage from Sibrel's documentary ... but what a surprise that is ! .. You and nasa both being dishonest ...

What was that you were saying about intellectual dishonesty ? ... Sorry Dave , but you could write the book on that subject .

Edited February 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

"[Armstrong - (Chuckling) "It may still be in that suit pocket, for all I know."]

Hmmmm .. Sounds vaguely familiar .

"I can only assume he's confusing the suit with the EVA gloves and the PLSS, which were left behind ..."

No confusion ... the book said suit and that the tube of soil sample was thrown away in it's zippered pocket .

Let's hope you can dig out that book reference then.

"Of course, Sibrel is trying to lead viewers into believing that it was a round window"

In the clip I saw it looked exactly like a round window and even the two inch thickness of the rim at the botton of the round window showed the earthshine on it , which distorted the shape of Earth ....So if Sibral was trying to mislead anyone , then he did it by somehow altering the video footage by changing the shape of the window .

I think you may be mistaking the haze due to over-exposure with the edge of the window. Look at this still again - it clearly shows the edge of the window - which most certainly is not round.

The hatch window was round and located right next to the rectangular window , so who's to say they didn't use both windows while faking the image of Earth ?

Percy and Sibrel - they insist that either transparencies were put over one window, or the shape of the round window was used to fake an image of earth.

And being a diligent resercher, you did know about the configuration of the CSM windows anyway didn't you? Or at least how to confirm it for yourself?

Do I detect a just a tad of sarcasm in that question ?

Yes.

.... I remembered the CSM had a round window in it but didn't know the configuration of the other windows .... Did I know how to confirm it for myself ? Yes ... Did I have the time to do that ? .. NO ....That's why I asked Evan to confirm that the CSM ( I mistakingly called it the LM) had a round window in it , which it did and which you for some strange reason failed to mention .

Why would I mention it, as it's utterly irrelevant? I'm not disputing the CSM had a round window - I'm disputing that it was used to fake earth being in LEO.

There is much footage of the "smoking gun" scene ... and the footage in Sibrel's documenatary appears to be taken , from some point at least , from a round window .... but even if it wasn't , the transparency could have worked just as well on a rectangular window .

I know you say Sibrel has changed his mind, but his documentary in question clearly refers to a round window being used to fake an image of the earth (no mention of transparencies). If he has changed his mind, he's still quite happy to flog his "smoking gun" video on his website at $29.95 a pop.

The photo you posted above is NOT the "smoking gun" footage from Sibrel's documentary ... but what a surprise that is ! .. You and nasa both being dishonest ...

I never claimed it was taken from Sibrel's documentary. It's taken from footage taken shortly afterwards that neither Sibrel nor Percy wanted you to see, as it proves their claims wrong. Of course, once they've persuaded someone to part with their hard-earned, they don't really care.

I'll continue in the next post.

[Dave Greer]

Look at this video again - Lunar Legacy Part 5 - in particular from the 1:25 mark.

This is what Percy and Sibrel deliberately didn't show you - as it blows each of their respective theories out of the water.

Firstly, you see a clear image of earth with the TV camera zoomed in. As the TV camera zooms out, you can clearly see the inside edge of the rectangular window, with the overexposed image of earth in the back ground. You can also see the edge of the window partially crop the image of earth - imposisble if they were using a transparency as suggested.

Here are a series of stills taken from Lunar Legacy Part 5, in case anyone here has a PC that won't let them view Youtube material.

First still - nicely framed image of earth properly exposed, showing cloud patterns.

As the camera position changes, the edge of the window appears to partially crop the earth. Impossible with a transparency taped in front of the window.

Iris of the camera opens and the earth appears over-exposed. The blurring effect is NOT the edge of the window.

Iris closes, earth better exposed again.

[Dave Greer]

Camera begins to zoom out.

Zoomed right out - earth over-exposed. Can just start to see the edge of the window.

Edge of window clearly visible.

Straight edge of window visible, earth partly cropped - again, impossible in either Sibrel or Percy's scenarios.

QED.

[Duane Daman]

The photos you posted show that the image of Earth was photographed from the rear of the CSM cabin , not right up to the window , as nasa claimed .... This was nasa's first deception.

The images you posted are not the ones used by Sibrel in his documentary .... This is nasa's second deception .

If this were really a true photo of Earth , taken from 130,000 miles out in space , they would not have been photographing it from the rear wall of the the CSM .... The camera would have been right up against the window , like they claimed it was ... but as we could all see from the You Tube video you posted here , that is simply not the case .

If the camera was smack up against the window , nothing could have gotten in between the image of Earth and the camera ... This video clearly shows a situation of trickery being used with the camera position and the use of a transparency pasted to the window .... Just as Sibrel showed in his documentary ... He also proved that this was a staged and scriped event ... In other words , a show for the TV coverage to come later .

Whether this trickery was accomplished using a round window or a rectangular one , is irrelevant .

Edited February 26, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

In other words , a show for the TV coverage to come later .

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

[Duane Daman]

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

[Dave Greer]

The photos you posted show that the image of Earth was photographed from the rear of the CSM cabin , not right up to the window , as nasa claimed .... This was nasa's first deception.

An irrelevant strawman argument. Who cares whether the camera was close to the window or not? And where is this NASA claim that the TV camera was up against the window? I'm assuming you're referring to Armstrong's statement that the "window was filled up with the TV camera", and that you are assuming that means the TV camera was pushed up to the glass. Perhaps he just meant that the window filled the viewfinder? Regardless of what he said and what he actually meant, the issue of whether the TV camera waspressed up against the glass, or was further back in side the CSM, is irrelvant - because we have actual evidence that we can examine, namely the TV footage itself.

So, despite your claim, no deception by NASA

The images you posted are not the ones used by Sibrel in his documentary .... This is nasa's second deception .

Hang on a minute - I post still clips of TV footage that Sibrel didn't use in his DVD, and that is deception by NASA? This is the sort of twisted and inane logic that I simply can't argue against. It's so bad it isn't even wrong. If I said, "Pink Elephants don't exist, therefore you didn't have fish for tea" it would make just as much sense. Such logic physically hurts my brain.

Let's start again - the still clips I posted DISPROVE both Sibrel and Percy's claims about how the footage could have been faked (look at the link to the actual video I supplied). Instead of trying to obfuscate the issue, ask yourself some questions. Why did neither Sibrel nor Percy use the whole TV footage? Is it possible for either Sibrel or Percy to be right when you apply their claims to the TV footage that THEY ignored? The image of Earth CAN'T be a transparency - the TV footage itself shows this to be the case. If you want to propose a different theory for how NASA faked this footage, let's hear it. Sibrel and Percy's claims are dead in the water.

If this were really a true photo of Earth , taken from 130,000 miles out in space , they would not have been photographing it from the rear wall of the the CSM .... The camera would have been right up against the window , like they claimed it was ... but as we could all see from the You Tube video you posted here , that is simply not the case .

Why would they have the TV camera up against the window? Why is it impossible to take TV footage of the earth away from the window?

If the camera was smack up against the window , nothing could have gotten in between the image of Earth and the camera ...

Well, it wasn't smack up against the window, as we see form the TV footage.

This video clearly shows a situation of trickery being used with the camera position and the use of a transparency pasted to the window .... Just as Sibrel showed in his documentary ... He also proved that this was a staged and scriped event ... In other words , a show for the TV coverage to come later .

Nope - it clearly shows the opposite. How can a transparency show the earth being "clipped" against the side of the window? It can't - so it ain't a transparency. Sibrel proved absolutely nothing - you have even said he was wrong about his initial "porthole" theory. Just because you fell for the rest of his bunk doesn't prove he was right about anything.

Whether this trickery was accomplished using a round window or a rectangular one , is irrelevant .

Everything that you see in the TV footage is completely congruous with the official record - that the TV footage was shot not in LEO, but in TLC - some 100,000 miles or so away from Earth. Percy and Sibrel's claims about how this footage might have been faked have been shown to be false. I've yet to see evidence suggesting that the TV footage could NOT have been filmed in TLC as stated. If you have any, bring it on.

Remember: there is a mile of difference between evidence suggesting that the TV footage WAS faked, and concocting a scenario as to how it MIGHT have been faked. Sibrel and Percy tried and failed to show how it MIGHT have been faked - as far as I'm aware, neither of them actually supplied any empirical evidence supporting the theory that the TV footage MUST have been faked.

[Kevin M. West]

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

[Duane Daman]

Who cares whether the camera was close to the window or not ?

I really don't have the time to engage in this current misinformation from the two of you, but the position of the camera has EVERYTHING to do with how nasa faked the image of Earth from LEO .. and Sibrel's footage PROVED it was not "filling up the window " , as Armstrong was coached to say it was .... If you look at the video you will see that the entire shoot was taped from the rear of the CSM ... and that the image of Earth was faked using the window ( round or not ) and a transparency .... BTW .. The hatch window is ROUND Dave , and right next to the rectangular window .... Just in case you forgot about that little fact .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Yes, Kevin .... The proof is in the audio track of this bogus video .... A little friend at mission control whisperd ... "TALK"... into Armstrong's ear at one point , when he forgot to deliver his lines after being asked a question .

The whole thing was a set up for the TV program of the boys 'half way to the moon' , when they were really only in LEO ... Nothing about it was live and nothing about it was real either .

[Dave Greer]

Who cares whether the camera was close to the window or not ?

I really don't have the time to engage in this current misinformation from the two of you, but the position of the camera has EVERYTHING to do with how nasa faked the image of Earth from LEO .. and Sibrel's footage PROVED it was not "filling up the window " , as Armstrong was coached to say it was ....

Misinformation? I'm trying to discuss the actual evidence. You appear to be glossing over the evidence.

If you look at the video you will see that the entire shoot was taped from the rear of the CSM

I don't know that for certain, but I know that at least part of the film was shot from the rear of the cabin, so I'll go along with it.

... and that the image of Earth was faked using the window ( round or not ) and a transparency .... BTW .. The hatch window is ROUND Dave , and right next to the rectangular window .... Just in case you forgot about that little fact .

I'm well aware of the shape of the hatch window - it just happens to be completely irrelevant.

Evidence has been presented showing Percy's "transparency" claim to be wrong, and also showing Sibrel's "porthole" theory to be wrong. Why can't you address that evidence, rather than conjuring up red-herrings about the camera being at the back of the CSM (which I agree with in principle), and the shape of the hatch window?

Can you offer ANY explanation as to why the footage MUST have been faked? You haven't addressed this issue yet - you prefer to mention the shape of the round hatch window, as if it has some mysterious signifiance. Secondly, how can it POSSIBLY be a transparency, given that we see the earth clipped by the edge of the window at some points in the video footage (I'll repost the stills from the TV footage - you can't keep dodging the question forever!)

[Evan Burton]

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Kevin - please watch your tone. Fabrication is akin to an accusation of lying. You should have left it just as "Do you have proof of that?".

[Dave Greer]

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Yes, Kevin .... The proof is in the audio track of this bogus video .... A little friend at mission control whisperd ... "TALK"... into Armstrong's ear at one point , when he forgot to deliver his lines after being asked a question .

The whole thing was a set up for the TV program of the boys 'half way to the moon' , when they were really only in LEO ... Nothing about it was live and nothing about it was real either .

How can you claim that some unidentified voice saying "Talk" is proof that the whole thing was staged in LEO? Do you not think that is a logical leap too far?

I'll make up another scenario - it was actually Collins or Aldrin who said "Talk", aware of the fact there there was a slight time delay between Houston on Earth and the CSM 130,000 miles out. Can I prove this? No. Can Sibrel prove his claim that the person who said "Talk" was an evil man-in-black at Houston prompting Armstrong? No. Both scenarios are pure conjecture.

The difference is, I'm not going to use my scenario as proof that the whole thing was genuine - that would be silly. Just as silly as your claim that it's proof the whole thing was faked in LEO.

Your standards of proof are a bit mind-bogglingly one-sided at times. For instance, 800lbs of moon rocks brought back by six Apollo missions, much of which has been analysed by 100's of top geologists, all of whom agree it is from the moon, and not lunar meteorites - yet by your standards this cannot even be presented as evidence in favour of Apollo. In order to support your own position though, you claim that an unidentified voice saying "Talk" is proof that the TLC part of the mission was staged in LEO.

Can you see where I'm coming from with this?

Edited February 27, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Kevin M. West]

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Kevin - please watch your tone. Fabrication is akin to an accusation of lying. You should have left it just as "Do you have proof of that?".

Sorry, I'm just sick of him stating things as facts when there is absolutely no evidence it ever happened. Is it against the rules to accuse someone of making something up if they actually did?

[Craig Lamson]

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Kevin - please watch your tone. Fabrication is akin to an accusation of lying. You should have left it just as "Do you have proof of that?".

Sorry, I'm just sick of him stating things as facts when there is absolutely no evidence it ever happened. Is it against the rules to accuse someone of making something up if they actually did?

Thats a really good question Kevin. We know Jack White says ITS THE LAW that a person shadow MUST go to their feet and the shadow MUST be in the bottom center of the frame. We also know that his statement IS NOT TRUE. Now I've been a professional photographer for the best [art of my adult life and I've never seen JAck's "law" anywhere. So were did it come from? And since its not true, how do we phrase a statement about how it came to be printed in a forum and at a CT website by Jack WHite?