We never landed on the moon. This is the thinking from the kind of people throughout history that believed in a geocentrical view of the universe. The sun revolved around Earth. The earth was flat. And that ....oh hell. What's the point.
Good grief. Too much energy spent here trying to debunk a bunch of wackos who offer as "evidence" that the moon landings were fake things like astronauts saying they were nervous about the cameras filming them or that the LEM antenae are wires and other such asininities. Good luck convincing morons who have zero capacity to recognize the truth if it were a purple elephant with yello polka dots standing in front of them.
That ain't no damn transparency, Percy. In the original documentary, Percy posited the planet image was just a transparency of the Earth taped over a window facing the sun, to create the glow; then it was actually a reduced area of the earth, rounded by a window, but in low earth orbit, in spite of clouds remaining static relative to the astronauts and not racing past. He couldn't make up his mind. But this guy clinches it with the screechy horror music to set the mood! That's the real evidence!
The doubt comes from the fact that, in the video that was leaked, we can see the Earth small in the screen, but before the camera cuts, the astronauts open the lights and we can see that they shot from the back of the shuttle, and that the Earth now fills the window.
To my knowledge there are 2 theories hoax-heads use against this video: 1) Sibrel's argument that this was low-earth orbit viewed through a round cutout and 2) A transparency of earth placed on the window.
Theory #1 dies because there is no quick cloud passage as one expects in LEO and...um...the entire Pacific is visible. Theory #2 dies because a color transparency of that day's weather patterns would have to be made accessible to astronauts in a weightless environment.
@hauserkaspar There's a difference between something made impossible by fundamental physics and something not yet done because it was difficult. Color from the LM was in this latter category. Remember, TV had a low priority because of some rather shortsighted people. A12 landed the first color TV camera on the moon, but the systems continued to improve through A17.
The only thing Sibrel knows well about video cameras is how to record handheld without permission at someone's home. His young fellow conspiracy theorist Jarrah W. is no better, but he uses more modern gadgets like camera pens.
By the way I'll let you in on a little audio technical data here.
As a sound tech and producer it's evident for me, but might not be for others.
The reason why sometimes when you hear them talk and there seems to be a slight chorus or echo is simply because when Houston was talking, they were actually being heard over the speakers and the astros were on vox. Which means that they didn't have to push to talk (in laments term). If left uncontrolled it would have created feedbacks.
Oh and nice video. Too bad we can't actually upload a full clip with all the breaks and technical talks. This way it would be very obvious for the hoaxers, that this wasn't a hoax. Maybe you should upload them in parts, but have a whole series just for the actual length of one of their clip. Even if it means you have to break it up in 10 videos or so.
@Raindarsus Yep, thanks for your references about ptt and vox modes, I was thinking the same about the comm breaks, btw, including some seconds of the conversations as going just before / after these breaks, in order to have clear references for all of them, I'll try to upload this during the incoming week.
Thanks for commenting, suggesting and course, thanks for watching, I've just deleted my previous response, I'm still feeling insecure about some particularities of English's grammar. Cheers.
Because of the comm problems, the word "talk" may have come from one of the communications technicians at Goldstone. When there was a network problem between a station and Houston, the comm techs were allowed to talk directly with the astronauts to explain the situation.
Has anyone ever asked a hoaxer, if this video was supposed to be so top secret, then why would anyone be prompting Armstrong to talk?
Of course, it wasn't secret. Sibrel's claim that it somehow slipped out and he got a hold of it is pure BS. It was aired on television at the time of the mission. Just not the whole transmission, since audiences probably wouldn't be too excited with minutes on end of technical talk and calibrations.
@Astrobrant2 Your first paragraph points out very well one of the most remarkable taboos for hoax believers, and in fact watching hour after hour of technical adjustments should be very, very boring for common people.
The references to "playback" were because this was an unscheduled TV transmission and NASA didn't have the TV transmission links up between the Goldstone receiving station and Mission Control in Houston. In those days, long distance TV transmission was very expensive so you didn't have the lines open when you didn't need them.
So Goldstone recorded this transmission locally and played it back to Houston after a regularly scheduled TV transmission that evening.
@ApolloWasReal Thanks so much for your contribution, in fact there are some portions from the unscheduled TV downlink tracking lots of analog qrm, parasites and so on, now I understand why the LM had too many restrictions related with power saving. Cheers.
@hauserkaspar Because its requirements on beamwidth and cpu processing, specially this last.
The first try was done by the Apollo 12 mission but it got damaged almost immediately because of a direct exposure to sunburst.
The quality of the TV that flight controllers were watching at their monitors, also on the big display screen, was a lot better than the sources on which hoaxers have based all their theories.
@jcgmed If requirements on beamwidth and cpu processing made color cameras not possible on the moon, then how could that shot of the earth have been live broadcasted? I always thought it was recorded tapes for footage later when returned to earth.
Also the black and white photo's don't show more detail at all compared to the color pics in my opinion. Do you? Show me.
Neither got effected by the sun. Some shots are directly into the sun and photo's are still good or 'better composed'.
@hauserkaspar The color video here was sent from the Apollo 11 command module (Columbia), not the lunar module (Eagle) that actually landed on the moon. This video was received at the Goldstone earth station where it was recorded. Eagle had a special black and white slow scan camera with less resolution than broadcast TV, and it was further degraded by the conversion to broadcast format.
@hauserkaspar Are you talking about pictures on film, or television? Apollo used only color TV cameras after A11, but they continued to use both B&W and color film on the moon because B&W has a wider dynamic range and greater resolution than color. And the moon isn't very colorful.
The film cameras had shutters, so they could withstand shooting into the sun though they'd have lots of flare. The *TV* camera could not withstand the sun.
@hauserkaspar I agree that perceptually the color photos appear to be just as sharp as the black and white photos since the human eye gleans a lot of information from color in a scene. The black and white films did have finer grain which translates to higher resolution. On the other hand the 60mm Biogon lens was extraordinarily sharp, yielding very sharp color photos and even sharper black and white photos.
@jcgmed Apollo TV was entirely analog; no CPUs processed the signal. One reason for color on the A11 CSM but not the LM was the CSM's better antenna and stronger signal. The CSM also had a separate FM transmitter for video that didn't have to carry voice (1.25 MHz) and telemetry (1.023 MHz) subcarriers. Eagle's B&W slow scan camera bandwidth was 500 kHz, keeping it below the LM's subcarriers. Removing those subcarriers from the color video after A11 took a lot of work.
@hauserkaspar However, there are some films shooted inside the mission control room showing what I've previously refered, but it belongs to that kind of sources no hoaxer will review deeply to check if hoax theories are truth, or from which just a few things will be included in order to keep hoax theories alive, you have a good example of this last, here.
@Rob260259 The amount of out-of-focus blur of the CSM window proves that the video camera was focused at infinity -- or at least several hundred feet away. It certainly is impossible for the Earth to merely be a photo which was placed just beyond the CSM window as a stage prop.
We never landed on the moon. This is the thinking from the kind of people throughout history that believed in a geocentrical view of the universe. The sun revolved around Earth. The earth was flat. And that ....oh hell. What's the point.
Skycrusher 5 months ago
Good grief. Too much energy spent here trying to debunk a bunch of wackos who offer as "evidence" that the moon landings were fake things like astronauts saying they were nervous about the cameras filming them or that the LEM antenae are wires and other such asininities. Good luck convincing morons who have zero capacity to recognize the truth if it were a purple elephant with yello polka dots standing in front of them.
ppsajararaca 7 months ago
That ain't no damn transparency, Percy. In the original documentary, Percy posited the planet image was just a transparency of the Earth taped over a window facing the sun, to create the glow; then it was actually a reduced area of the earth, rounded by a window, but in low earth orbit, in spite of clouds remaining static relative to the astronauts and not racing past. He couldn't make up his mind. But this guy clinches it with the screechy horror music to set the mood! That's the real evidence!
Planetar11 1 year ago
There's also the fact that the Earth cutout we see in the video is very blurred, enough to not be able to distinguish the cloud patterns.
Simboiss 1 year ago
The doubt comes from the fact that, in the video that was leaked, we can see the Earth small in the screen, but before the camera cuts, the astronauts open the lights and we can see that they shot from the back of the shuttle, and that the Earth now fills the window.
Simboiss 1 year ago
To my knowledge there are 2 theories hoax-heads use against this video: 1) Sibrel's argument that this was low-earth orbit viewed through a round cutout and 2) A transparency of earth placed on the window.
Theory #1 dies because there is no quick cloud passage as one expects in LEO and...um...the entire Pacific is visible. Theory #2 dies because a color transparency of that day's weather patterns would have to be made accessible to astronauts in a weightless environment.
Any other theories?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar There's a difference between something made impossible by fundamental physics and something not yet done because it was difficult. Color from the LM was in this latter category. Remember, TV had a low priority because of some rather shortsighted people. A12 landed the first color TV camera on the moon, but the systems continued to improve through A17.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Well done, JC. If I meet hoaxtards talking about the views of the Earth, I will be pointing them to your video.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
It's amazing how little a TV cameraman like Sibrel knew about video cameras. Good job jcgmed.
philwebb59 1 year ago 12
@philwebb59
The only thing Sibrel knows well about video cameras is how to record handheld without permission at someone's home. His young fellow conspiracy theorist Jarrah W. is no better, but he uses more modern gadgets like camera pens.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker With his personality, he probably knows how to take a camera on the chin as well.
philwebb59 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker Yeah, we completely agree. Thanks for watching BH, cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
@philwebb59 Thanks for watching, Phil.
jcgmed 1 year ago
By the way I'll let you in on a little audio technical data here.
As a sound tech and producer it's evident for me, but might not be for others.
The reason why sometimes when you hear them talk and there seems to be a slight chorus or echo is simply because when Houston was talking, they were actually being heard over the speakers and the astros were on vox. Which means that they didn't have to push to talk (in laments term). If left uncontrolled it would have created feedbacks.
Raindarsus 1 year ago
Oh and nice video. Too bad we can't actually upload a full clip with all the breaks and technical talks. This way it would be very obvious for the hoaxers, that this wasn't a hoax. Maybe you should upload them in parts, but have a whole series just for the actual length of one of their clip. Even if it means you have to break it up in 10 videos or so.
Raindarsus 1 year ago
@Raindarsus Yep, thanks for your references about ptt and vox modes, I was thinking the same about the comm breaks, btw, including some seconds of the conversations as going just before / after these breaks, in order to have clear references for all of them, I'll try to upload this during the incoming week.
Thanks for commenting, suggesting and course, thanks for watching, I've just deleted my previous response, I'm still feeling insecure about some particularities of English's grammar. Cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
Because of the comm problems, the word "talk" may have come from one of the communications technicians at Goldstone. When there was a network problem between a station and Houston, the comm techs were allowed to talk directly with the astronauts to explain the situation.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Love the dramatic music. Favourited and sent to my Facebook profile.
It sure is nice that YT is allowing longer videos now.
TremorHellborn 1 year ago
@TremorHellborn Tks for watching, Tremor. Cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
Has anyone ever asked a hoaxer, if this video was supposed to be so top secret, then why would anyone be prompting Armstrong to talk?
Of course, it wasn't secret. Sibrel's claim that it somehow slipped out and he got a hold of it is pure BS. It was aired on television at the time of the mission. Just not the whole transmission, since audiences probably wouldn't be too excited with minutes on end of technical talk and calibrations.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Your first paragraph points out very well one of the most remarkable taboos for hoax believers, and in fact watching hour after hour of technical adjustments should be very, very boring for common people.
Thanks for watching, Brant.
jcgmed 1 year ago
The references to "playback" were because this was an unscheduled TV transmission and NASA didn't have the TV transmission links up between the Goldstone receiving station and Mission Control in Houston. In those days, long distance TV transmission was very expensive so you didn't have the lines open when you didn't need them.
So Goldstone recorded this transmission locally and played it back to Houston after a regularly scheduled TV transmission that evening.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Thanks so much for your contribution, in fact there are some portions from the unscheduled TV downlink tracking lots of analog qrm, parasites and so on, now I understand why the LM had too many restrictions related with power saving. Cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
@jcgmed The artifacts in this recording look like they came from the video tape.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal ICourse, but I'm not referring to anything from here. Cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
Why didn't they use that nice color camera on the moon?
hauserkaspar 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar Because its requirements on beamwidth and cpu processing, specially this last.
The first try was done by the Apollo 12 mission but it got damaged almost immediately because of a direct exposure to sunburst.
The quality of the TV that flight controllers were watching at their monitors, also on the big display screen, was a lot better than the sources on which hoaxers have based all their theories.
jcgmed 1 year ago
@jcgmed If requirements on beamwidth and cpu processing made color cameras not possible on the moon, then how could that shot of the earth have been live broadcasted? I always thought it was recorded tapes for footage later when returned to earth.
Also the black and white photo's don't show more detail at all compared to the color pics in my opinion. Do you? Show me.
Neither got effected by the sun. Some shots are directly into the sun and photo's are still good or 'better composed'.
hauserkaspar 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar Because it's from the CSM not the LM.
mercatormac 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar The color video here was sent from the Apollo 11 command module (Columbia), not the lunar module (Eagle) that actually landed on the moon. This video was received at the Goldstone earth station where it was recorded. Eagle had a special black and white slow scan camera with less resolution than broadcast TV, and it was further degraded by the conversion to broadcast format.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar Are you talking about pictures on film, or television? Apollo used only color TV cameras after A11, but they continued to use both B&W and color film on the moon because B&W has a wider dynamic range and greater resolution than color. And the moon isn't very colorful.
The film cameras had shutters, so they could withstand shooting into the sun though they'd have lots of flare. The *TV* camera could not withstand the sun.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar I agree that perceptually the color photos appear to be just as sharp as the black and white photos since the human eye gleans a lot of information from color in a scene. The black and white films did have finer grain which translates to higher resolution. On the other hand the 60mm Biogon lens was extraordinarily sharp, yielding very sharp color photos and even sharper black and white photos.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@jcgmed Apollo TV was entirely analog; no CPUs processed the signal. One reason for color on the A11 CSM but not the LM was the CSM's better antenna and stronger signal. The CSM also had a separate FM transmitter for video that didn't have to carry voice (1.25 MHz) and telemetry (1.023 MHz) subcarriers. Eagle's B&W slow scan camera bandwidth was 500 kHz, keeping it below the LM's subcarriers. Removing those subcarriers from the color video after A11 took a lot of work.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@hauserkaspar However, there are some films shooted inside the mission control room showing what I've previously refered, but it belongs to that kind of sources no hoaxer will review deeply to check if hoax theories are truth, or from which just a few things will be included in order to keep hoax theories alive, you have a good example of this last, here.
Cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago
Great audios JCG! Can you imagine there still are moonhoax idiots saying all this was fake and recorded in some studio?
Rob260259 1 year ago 3
@Rob260259 No doubt Rob, there are some pretty imaginative but delusional minds rolling out there. Thanks for watching.
jcgmed 1 year ago
@Rob260259 The amount of out-of-focus blur of the CSM window proves that the video camera was focused at infinity -- or at least several hundred feet away. It certainly is impossible for the Earth to merely be a photo which was placed just beyond the CSM window as a stage prop.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago 7
@GoneToPlaid How is it going with the affair of the summer home at the slopes of Mt. Hadley ?
Hehe and thanks for watching GTP, cheers.
jcgmed 1 year ago